The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 316-321

  Crump, Matthew J C ^a   Gong, Zhiyu ^a   Milliken, Bruce ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748758190     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193850     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. ALLPORT, A., & WYLIE, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. COHEN, J. D., DUNBAR, K., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
3. GRATTON, G., COLES, M. G. H., & DONCHIN, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480-506.
4. JACOBY, L. L., LINDSAY, D. S., & HESSELS, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-344.
5. KOLERS, P. A., & ROEDIGER, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 289-314.
6. LINDSAY, D. S., & JACOBY, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 219-234.
7. LOGAN, G. D. (1998). What is learned during automatization? II. Obligatory encoding of spatial location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1720-1736.
8. LOGAN, G. D., & ZBRODOFF, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166-174.
9. LOWE, D., & MITTERER, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684-700.
10. MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Haifa century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
11. MAYR, U. (1996). Spatial attention and implicit sequence learning: Evidence for independent learning of spatial and nonspatial sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 350-364.
12. POSNER, M. I., & SNYDER, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. SCHNEIDER, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 206-217.
14. SHIFFRIN, R. M., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
15. SPIELER, D. H., BALOTA, D. A., & FAUST, M. E. (2000). Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 506-526.
16. STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
17. VAN SELST, M., & JOLICŒUR, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
18. WEST, R., & BAYLIS, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology & Aging, 13, 206-217.