Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 844-859

  Bugg, Julie M ^a   Jacoby, Larry L ^a   Chanani, Swati ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive control; Contingency learning; Item specific proportion congruency; Picture word Stroop

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RECEPTIVE FIELD; REFERENCE VALUE; STROOP TEST;

ADOLESCENT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REFERENCE VALUES; STROOP TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79958738516     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019957     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Blais C., Robidoux S., Risko E.F., Besner D. Item-specific adaptation and the conflict monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review 2007, 114:1076-1086.
2. Botvinick M.M., Braver T.S., Barch D.M., Carter C.S., Cohen J.D. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 2001, 108:624-652.
3. Bugg J.M., Jacoby L.L., Toth J.P. Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:1484-1494.
4. Costa A., Alario F., Caramazza A. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:125-131.
5. Crump M.J., Gong Z., Milliken B. The context-specific proportion congruence effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:316-321.
6. Crump M.J., Vaquero J.M.M., Milliken B. Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness & Cognition 2008, 17:22-36.
7. Crump M.J.C., Milliken B. The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1523-1532.
8. Dishon-Berkovits M., Algom D. The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition 2000, 28:1437-1449.
9. Fraisse P. Why is naming longer than reading?. Acta Psychologica 1969, 30:96-103.
10. Glaser W.R., Dungelhoff F.J. The time-course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1984, 10:640-654.
11. Glaser W.R., Glaser M.O. Context effect in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1989, 118:13-42.
12. Jacoby L.L., Lindsay D.S., Hessels S. Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:638-644.
13. Jacoby L.L., McElree B., Trainham T.N. Automatic influences as accessibility bias in memory and Stroop tasks: Toward a formal model. Attention and performance XVII 1999, 461-486. Bradford, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. D. Gopher, A. Koriat (Eds.).
14. La Heij W. Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming. Memory & Cognition 1988, 16:400-410.
15. Leboe L.C., Mondor T.A. Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory/Stroop. Psychological Research 2007, 71:568-575.
16. Lindsay D.S., Jacoby L.L. Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1994, 20:219-234.
17. Logan G.D. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 1988, 95:492-527.
18. Logan G.D., Zbrodoff N.J. When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition 1979, 7:166-174.
19. Lupker S.J. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition 1979, 7:485-495.
20. MacLeod C.M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin 1991, 109:163-203.
21. Melara R.D., Algom D. Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review 2003, 110:422-471.
22. Melara R.D., Mounts J.R.W. Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition 1993, 21:627-645.
23. Musen G., Squire L.R. Implicit learning of color-word associations using a Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 1993, 19:789-798.
24. Schmidt J.R., Besner D. The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruence has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 2008, 34:514-523.
25. Schmidt J.R., Crump M.J.C., Cheesman J., Besner D. Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition 2007, 16:421-435.
26. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-661.
27. Theios J., Amrhein P.C. Theoretical analysis of the cognitive processing of lexical and pictorial stimuli: Reading, naming, and visual and conceptual comparisons. Psychological Review 1989, 96:5-24.
28. Verguts T., Notebaert W. Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review 2008, 115:518-525.
29. Virzi R.A., Egeth H.E. Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition 1985, 13:304-319.
30. West R., Baylis G.C. Effect of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology and Aging 1998, 13:206-217.