The Interactive Effects of Listwide Control, Item-Based Control, and Working Memory Capacity on Stroop Performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 851-860

  Hutchison, Keith A ^a  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingency learning; Proportion congruent; Stroop; Working memory

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; CONFLICT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SHORT TERM MEMORY; STROOP TEST; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; STROOP TEST; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 79960340151     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0023437     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Balota D.A., Faust M.E. Attention in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Handbook of neuropsychology 2001, 51-80. Elsevier Science, New York, NY. 2nd ed. F. Boller, S. Cappa (Eds.).
2. 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. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076.
3. 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. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624.
4. Braver T.S., Gray J.R., Burgess G.C. Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. Variation in working memory 2007, 76-106. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M.J. Kane, A. Miyake, J.N. Towse (Eds.).
5. Bugg J.M., Jacoby L.L., Chanani S. Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2010, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a00119957.
6. Bugg J.M., Jacoby L.L., Toth J.P. Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:1484-1494. doi: 10.3758/mostlycongruent.36.8.1484.
7. Castel A.D., Balota D.A., Hutchison K.A., Logan J.M., Yap M.J. Spatial attention and response control in healthy younger and older adults and individuals with Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for disproportionate selection impairments in the Simon task. Neuropsychology 2007, 21:170-182. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.170.
8. Cohen J.D., Dunbar K., McClelland I.L. On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review 1990, 97:332-361. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332.
9. Cohen J.D., Huston T.A. Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. Attention and performance XV: Conscious and unconscious information processing 1994, 453-476. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. C. Umiltà, M. Moscovitch (Eds.).
10. Crump M.J.C., Gong Z., Milliken B. The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:316-321. doi: 10.3758/BF03193850.
11. 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. doi: 10.1080/17470210902752096.
12. De Pisapia N., Braver T.S. A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing 2006, 69:1322-1326. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2005.12.100.
13. Gratton G., Coles M.G.H., Donchin E. Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1992, 121:480-506. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480.
14. Grodzinsky G.M., Diamond R. Frontal lobe functioning in boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Neuropsychology 1992, 8:427-445. doi: 10.1080/87565649209540536.
15. Heinemann A., Kunde W., Kiesel A. Context-specific prime-congruency effects: On the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition 2009, 18:966-976. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.009.
16. Hommel B. Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung 1994, 56:261-268. doi: 10.1007/BF00419656.
17. Hutchison K.A. Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:645-662. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645.
18. Hutchison K.A., Balota D.A., Cortese M.J., Neely J.H., Niemeyer D.P., Bengson J.J., Cohen-Shikora E. The Semantic Priming Project: A web database of descriptive and behavioral measures for 1,661 nonwords and 1,661 English words presented in related and unrelated contexts [Data file] 2010, Retrieved from http://spp.montana.edu/.
19. Hutchison K.A., Balota D.A., Duchek J.M. The utility of Stroop task switching as a marker for early stage Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging 2010, 25:545-559. doi: 10.1037/a0018498.
20. Jacoby L.L., Lindsay D.S., Hessels S. Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:638-644. doi: 10.3758/BF03196526.
21. Kane M.J., Bleckley M.K., Conway A.R., Engle R.W. A controlled attention view of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2001, 130:169-183. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169.
22. Kane M.J., Engle R.W. Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2003, 132:47-70. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47.
23. 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. doi: 10.3758/BF03197535.
24. MacLeod C.M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin 1991, 109:163-203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.
25. Melara R.D., Algom D. Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review 2003, 110:422-471. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422.
26. Musen G., Squire L.R. Implicit learning of color-word associations using a Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1993, 19:789-798. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.789.
27. Purmann S., Badde S., Wendt M. Adjustments to recent and frequent conflict reflect two distinguishable mechanisms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2009, 16:350-355. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.350.
28. 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, and Cognition 2008, 34:514-523. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514.
29. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010.
30. Schneider W., Eschman A., Zuccolotto A. E-Prime reference guide 2002, Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA.
31. Spieler D.H., Balota D.A., Faust M.E. Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996, 22:461-479.
32. Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1935, 18:643-662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651.
33. Unsworth N., Heitz R.P., Schrock J.C., Engle R.W. An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods 2005, 37:498-505. doi: 10.3758/BF03192720.
34. Van Selst M., Jolicoeur P. A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 1994, 47(A):631-650.
35. Vendrell P., Junqué C., Pujol J., Jurado M.A., Molet J., Grafman J. The role of prefrontal regions in the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia 1995, 33:341-352. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(94)00116-7.
36. Verguts T., Notebaert W. Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review 2008, 115:518-525. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518.
37. Vietze I., Wendt M. Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62:1391-1400. doi: 10.1080/17470210802426908.
38. Wendt M., Luna-Rodriguez A. Conflict-frequency affects flanker interference: Role of stimulus-ensemble-specific practice and flanker-response contingencies. Experimental Psychology 2009, 56:206-217. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.206.