Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Short Research Article

Response Time Distribution Analysis of Semantic and Response Interference in a Manual Response Stroop Task

Published Online:July 02, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000445

Abstract

Abstract. Previous analyses of response time distributions have shown that the Stroop effect is observed in the mode (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of the normal part of the distribution, as well as its tail (τ). Specifically, interference related to semantic and response processes has been suggested to specifically affect the mode and tail, respectively. However, only one study in the literature has directly manipulated semantic interference, and none manipulating response interference. The present research aims to address this gap by manipulating both semantic and response interference in a manual response Stroop task, and examining how these components of Stroop interference affect the response time distribution. Ex-Gaussian analysis showed both semantic and response conflict to only affect τ. Analyzing the distribution by rank-ordered response times (Vincentizing) showed converging results as the magnitude of both semantic and response conflict increased with slower response times. Additionally, response conflict appeared earlier on the distribution compared to semantic conflict. These findings further highlight the difficulty in attributing specific psychological processes to different parameters (i.e., μ, σ, and τ). The effect of different response modalities on the makeup of Stroop interference is also discussed.

References

  • Aarts, E., Roelofs, A., & van Turennout, M. (2009). Attentional control of task and response in lateral and medial frontal cortex: Brain activity and reaction time distributions. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2089–2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.019 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012). Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: Evidence from the semantically based Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0217-y First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2014). Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the semantic Stroop paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414540169 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Augustinova, M., Flaudias, V., & Ferrand, L. (2010). Single-letter coloring and spatial cuing do not eliminate or reduce a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 827–833. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.827 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Augustinova, M., Silvert, L., Spatola, N., & Ferrand, L. (2018). Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response-stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 189, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.009 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408885 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Brown, M., & Besner, D. (2001). On a variant of Stroop’s paradigm: Which cognitions press your buttons? Memory & Cognition, 29, 903–904. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196419 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353–359. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194393 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Dienes, Z., & Mclatchie, N. (2018). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1266-z First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.272 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1170–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1170 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2014). Two-to-one color-response mapping and the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01157 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2015). Assessing stimulus-stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2601–2610. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0971-9 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2018). Trial type mixing substantially reduces the response set effect in the Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 189, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.002 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Cousineau, D. (2004). QMPE: Estimating Lognormal, Wald, and Weibull RT distributions with a parameter-dependent lower bound. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 277–290. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195574 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • JASP Team. (2018). JASP. (Version 0.8.6) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. The American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420768 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (No. 8). Oxford University Press on Demand. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lupker, S. J., & Katz, A. N. (1981). Input, decision, and response factors in picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.4.269 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Matzke, D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2009). Psychological interpretation of the ex-Gaussian and shifted Wald parameters: A diffusion model analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 798–817. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.798 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Milham, M. P., Banich, M. T., Webb, A., Barad, V., Cohen, N. J., Wszalek, T., & Kramer, A. F. (2001). The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00076-3 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Parris, B. A. (2014). Task conflict in the Stroop task: When Stroop interference decreases as Stroop facilitation increases in a low task conflict context. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01182 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Parris, B. A., Dienes, Z., & Hodgson, T. L. (2013). Application of the ex-Gaussian function to the effect of the word blindness suggestion on Stroop task performance suggests no word blindness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 647. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00647 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.446 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Risko, E. F., Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2006). Filling a gap in the semantic gradient: Color associates and response set effects in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193849 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110, 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.88 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Rouder, J. N., & Speckman, P. L. (2004). An evaluation of the Vincentizing method of forming group-level response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 419–427. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196589 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, J. R., & Cheesman, J. (2005). Dissociating stimulus-stimulus and response-response effects in the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087468 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, J. R., Hartsuiker, R. J., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Interference in Dutch-French Bilinguals. Experimental Psychology, 65, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000384 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201181 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Shichel, I., & Tzelgov, J. (2018). Modulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect. Acta Psychologica, 189, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.007 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). 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, 22, 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.461 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1398–1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016467 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tse, C. S., Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Duchek, J. M., & McCabe, D. P. (2010). Effects of healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer’s type on components of response time distributions in three attention tasks. Neuropsychology, 24, 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018274 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Vincent, S. B. (1912). The function of vibrissae in the behavior of the white rat. Animal Behavioral Monographs, 1. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • White, D., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2016). The semantic Stroop effect: An ex-Gaussian analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1576–1581. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1014-9 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Tse, C. S., & Besner, D. (2008). On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.495 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar