A long-standing debate in the Stroop literature concerns whether the way we respond to the color dimension determines how we process the irrelevant dimension, or whether word processing is purely stimulus driven. Models and findings in the Stroop literature differ in their predictions about how response modes (e.g., responding manually vs. vocally) affect how the irrelevant word is processed (i.e., phonologically, semantically) and the interference and facilitation that results, with some predicting qualitatively different Stroop effects. Here, we investigated whether response mode modifies phonological facilitation produced by the irrelevant word. In a fully within-subject design, we sought evidence for the use of a serial print-to-speech prelexical phonological processing route when using manual and vocal responses by testing for facilitating effects of phonological overlap between the irrelevant word and the color name at the initial and final phoneme positions. The results showed phoneme overlap leads to facilitation with both response modes, a result that is inconsistent with qualitative differences between the two response modes.

中文翻译：

---

响应方式和Stroop任务。

Stroop文献中长期存在的争论是关于我们对颜色维度的响应方式决定了我们如何处理不相关的维度，还是文字处理纯粹是由激励驱动的。Stroop文献中的模型和发现在对响应方式（例如，手动响应与语音响应）如何影响无关单词的处理方式（即语音，语义）以及所产生的干扰和促进的预测方面有所不同，其中一些定性预测不同的Stroop效果。在这里，我们调查了响应模式是否修改了不相关单词产生的语音便利。在完全主题内设计中，我们在测试手动和语音响应时，通过测试无关单词和颜色名称在初始和最终音位位置上的语音重叠的促进作用，寻求使用串行打印到语音的词前语音处理路径的证据。结果表明，音素重叠导致两种响应模式的促进，这一结果与两种响应模式之间的质量差异不一致。