The effect of interference in the early processing stages on response inhibition in the stop signal task

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 190-203

  Verbruggen, Frederick ^a   Liefooghe, Baptist ^a   Vandierendonck, André ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; REACTION TIME; SYMBOLISM; VISION;

FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; REACTION TIME; SIGNAL DETECTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SYMBOLISM; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33645075766     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210500151386     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Band, G. P., van der Molen, M. W., & Logan, G. D. (2003). Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychologica, 112, 105-142.
2. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624-652.
3. Cohen, A., & Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 128-181.
4. Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous-flow model of human information-processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529-533.
5. De Jong, R., Coles, M. G., & Logan, G. D. (1995). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 498-511.
6. Dempster, F. N. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in basic processing dimension. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 3-27). New York: Springer-Verlag.
7. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
8. Eriksen, C. W., & Eriksen, B. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual-search. Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 195-205.
9. Flowers, J. H. (1990). Priming effects in perceptual classification. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 135-148.
10. Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101-135.
11. Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Inhibitory tagging of stimulus properties in inhibition of return: Effects on semantic priming and flanker interference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 149-164.
12. Han, S. H., Fan, S. L., Chen, L., & Zhuo, Y. (1997). On the different processing of wholes and parts: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 687-698.
13. Han, S. H., Yund, E. W., & Woods, D. L. (2003). An ERP study of the global precedence effect: The role of spatial frequency. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 1850-1865.
14. Hanes, D. P., & Carpenter, R. H. S. (1999). Countermanding saccades in humans. Vision Research, 39, 2777-2791.
15. Jennings, J. R., van der Molen, M. W., Pelham, W., Debski, K. B., & Hoza, B. (1997). Inhibition in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as indexed by heart rate change. Developmental Psychology, 33, 308-318.
16. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap. Cognitive basis for stimulus -response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
17. Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: Beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. Psychology and Aging, 9, 491-512.
18. Levitt, H. (1970). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467-477.
19. Logan, G. D. (1981). Attention, automaticity, and the ability to stop a speeded choice response. In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 205-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Logan, G. D. (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A user's guide to the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach &. T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language (pp. 189-239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action. A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327.
22. Logan, G. D., & Irwin, D. E. (2000). Don't look! Don't touch! Inhibitory control of eye and hand movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 107-112.
23. Logan, G. D., Schachar, R. J., & Tannock, R. (1997). Impulsivity and inhibitory control. Psychological Science, 8, 60-64.
24. Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Webb, A., Barad, V., Cohen, N. J., Wszalek, T., & Kramer, A. F. (2001). The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 467-473.
25. Miller, J., & Navon, D. (2002). Global precedence and response activation: Evidence from LRPs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 289-310.
26. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees. Precedence of global features in visual-perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
27. Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology; Views from ognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220-246.
28. Proverbio, A. M., Minniti, A., & Zani, A. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence of a perceptual precedence of global vs. local visual information. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 321-334.
29. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (1997). A dual-route processing architecture for stimulus-response correspondence effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 119-131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
30. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research- Psychologische Forschung, 66, 312-323.
31. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Band, G. P. H., & Logan, G. D. (1999). A study of adaptive behavior: Effects of age and irrelevant information on the ability to inhibit one's actions. Acta Psychologica, 101, 315-337.
32. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Ullsperger, M., Crone, E. A., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2004). The role of medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science, 306, 443-447.
33. Ridderinkhof, K. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (1995). When global information and local information collide. A brain potential analysis of the locus of interference effects. Biological Psychology, 41, 29-53.
34. Ridderinkhof, K. R., van der Molen, M. W., & Bashore, T. R. (1995). Limits on the application of additive factors logic. Violations of stage robustness suggest a dual-process architecture to explain flanker effects on target processing. Acta Psychologica, 90, 29-48.
35. Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D. (1990). Impulsivity and inhibitory control in normal development and childhood psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 26, 710-720.
36. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
37. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (in press). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods.
38. Taylor, T. L., & Ivanoff, J. (2003). The interplay of stop signal inhibition and inhibition of return. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1349-1371.
39. Van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. Neuroimage, 14, 1302-1308.
40. Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., &. Vandierendonck, A. (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and the Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 116, 21-37.
41. Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., &. Vandierendonck, A. (in press). On the difference between response inhibition and negative priming: Evidence from simple and selective stopping. Psychological Research.
42. Vivas, A. B., & Fuentes, L. J. (2001). Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 315-323.
43. Williams, B. R., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999). Development of inhibitory control across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 35, 205-213.