List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture-word Stroop

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 930-936

  Bugg, Julie M ^a   Chanani, Swati ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive and attentional control; Stroop

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053128574     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0112-y     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for item-specific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2758-2767.
2. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076-1086.
3. 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.
4. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Bugg, J. M. (2009). List-wide proportion congruence effects are not always item- specific effects in disguise. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.
6. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2010). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1037/a0019957.
7. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484-1494.
8. Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523-1532.
9. Dell'Acqua, R., Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture-word interference effectis not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 717-722.
10. Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34, 340-355.
11. Hutchinson, K. A. (in press). The interactive effects of list-wide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
12. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-644.
13. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). 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, 132, 47-70.
14. Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219-234.
15. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523-553.
16. 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.
17. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135-138.
18. Lowe, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684-700.
19. MacLeod, C. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
20. Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). 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, 34, 514-523.
21. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727-735.
22. van Maanen, L., van Rijn, H., & Borst, J. P. (2009). Stroop and picture-word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 987-999.
23. van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier estimation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
24. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518-525.
25. West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effect of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13, 206-217.