Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 71, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1598-1606

  Miles, James D ^a   Yamaguchi, Motonori ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; CONFLICT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; RECEPTIVE FIELD; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349674376     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.7.1598     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. BADDELEY, A. D. 1986. Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. BROWN, T. L., ROOS-GILBERT, L. CARR, T. H. 1995. Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory Cognition, 21, 1395-1411.
3. CHO, Y.-S., LIEN, M.-C. PROCTOR, R. W. 2006. Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 826-839.
4. CHO, Y.-S., PROCTOR, R. W. YAMAGUCHI, M. 2008. Influence of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1020-1035.
5. CHUN, M. M. POTTER. M. C. 1995. A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 109-127.
6. DUX, P. E. COLTHEART, V. 2005. The meaning of the mask matters: Evidence of conceptual interference in the attentional blink. Psychological Science, 16, 775-779.
7. HOMMEL, B. 1997. Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248-260.
8. ISAAK, M. I., SHAPIRO, K. L. MARTIN, J. 1999. The attentional blink reflects retrieval competition among multiple rapid serial visual presentation items: Tests of an interference model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1774-1792.
9. KAHNEMAN, D. CHAJCZYK, D. 1983. Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 497-509.
10. KEELE, S.W. 1972. Attention demands of memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 245-248.
11. KIM, H., CHO, Y. S., YAMAGUCHI, M. PROCTOR, R. W 2008. Influence of color word availability on the Stroop color-naming effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1540-1551. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.8.1540
12. KORNBLUM, S. 1994. The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130-135.
13. LIU, X., BANICH, M. T., JACOBSON, B. L. TANABE, J. L. 2004. Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 22, 1097-1106.
14. LOGIE, R. H. 1995. Visuo-spatial working memory. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
15. LU, C-H. PROCTOR, R. W. 1995. The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
16. MACLEOD, C. M. 1991. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
17. MILES, J. D. PROCTOR, R. W. 2009. Reducing and restoring stimulus-response compatibility effects by decreasing the discriminability of location words. Acta Psychologica, 130, 95-102.
18. MITTERER, H., LA HEIJ, W. VAN DER HEIJDEN, A. H. C. 2003. Stroop dilution but not word-processing dilution: Evidence for attention capture. Psychological Research, 67, 30-42.
19. NISHIMURA.A. YOKOSAWA, K. 2006. Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task-irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021-1032.
20. O'LEARY, M. J. BARBER, P. J. 1993. Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 830-844.
21. PETERSON, B. S., KANE, M. J., ALEXANDER, G. M., LACADIE, C., SKUDLARSKI, P., LEUNG, H. C., ET AL. 2002. An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 427-440.
22. 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.
23. PROCTOR, R. W., MARBLE, J. G. VU, K.-P. L. 2000. Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: Effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect. Psychological Research, 64, 11-24.
24. PROCTOR, R. W., YAMAGUCHI, M., ZHANG, Y. VU, K.-P. L. 2009. Influence of visual stimulus mode on transfer of acquired spatial associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory Cognition, 35, 434-445.
25. ROBERTS, M. A. BESNER, D. 2005. Stroop dilution revisited: Evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 3-13.
26. SIMON, J. R. 1990. The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W Proctor & T G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27. STROOP, J. R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
28. VAN DER HEIJDEN, A. H. C. 1993. The role of position in object selection in vision. Psychological Research, 56, 44-58.
29. VU, K.-P. L. PROCTOR, R. W. 2002. The prevalence effect for two-dimensional S-R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815-828.
30. WICKENS, C. D. 1980. The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (rtrt. 239-257. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. WICKENS, C. D. 2002. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159-177.
32. WÜHR, P. WASZAK, F. 2003. Object-based attentional selection can modulate the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 983-994.