首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Journal of Pharmacology >The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses
【2h】

The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses

机译:Stroop干扰和促进作用的基因座,具有人工和人声反应

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Several accounts of the Stroop task assume that the Stroop interference effect has several distinct loci (as opposed to a single response locus). The present study was designed to explore whether this is the case with both manual and vocal responses. To this end, we used an extended form of the Stroop paradigm () that successfully distinguishes between the contribution of the task vs. semantic vs. response conflict to overall Stroop interference. In line with past findings, the results of Experiment 1 yielded an important response modality effect: the magnitude of Stroop interference was substantially larger when vocal responses were used (as opposed to key presses). Moreover, the present findings show that the response modality effect is specifically due to the fact that Stroop interference observed with vocal responses results from the significant contribution of task, semantic, and response conflicts, whereas only semantic and response conflicts clearly significantly contribute to Stroop interference observed with manual responses (no significant task conflict was observed). This exact pattern was replicated in Experiment 2. Also, and importantly, Experiment 2 also investigated whether and how the response modality effect affects Stroop facilitation. The results showed that the magnitude of Stroop facilitation was also larger when vocal as opposed to manual responses were used. This was due to the fact that semantic and response facilitation contributed to the overall Stroop facilitation observed with vocal responses, but surprisingly, only semantic facilitation contributed with manual responses (no response facilitation was observed). We discuss these results in terms of quantitative rather than qualitative differences in processing between vocal and manual Stroop tasks, within the framework of an integrative multistage account of Stroop interference ().
机译:对Stroop任务的几种解释都假定Stroop干扰效应具有几个不同的基因座(与单个响应基因座相反)。本研究旨在探讨手动和语音反应是否都是这种情况。为此,我们使用了Stroop范式()的扩展形式,该模型成功地区分了任务冲突与语义冲突与响应冲突对总体Stroop干扰的贡献。与过去的发现一致,实验1的结果产生了重要的响应模态效果:当使用人声响应(与按键操作相反)时,Stroop干扰的幅度要大得多。此外,目前的发现表明,反应模态效应具体是由于以下事实:观察到的对语音响应的Stroop干扰是由任务,语义和响应冲突的显着贡献导致的,而只有语义和响应冲突显然对Stroop干扰有显着贡献观察到有手动响应(未观察到重大任务冲突)。实验2中重复了这种精确的模式。同样,重要的是,实验2还研究了响应方式效应是否以及如何影响Stroop的促进作用。结果表明,使用人声而非人工反应时,Stroop促进程度也更大。这是由于以下事实:语义和响应促进促进了通过语音响应观察到的总体Stroop促进,但是令人惊讶的是,只有语义促进对手动响应做出了贡献(未观察到响应促进)。我们在对Stroop干扰进行整合的多阶段分析的框架内,在语音和手动Stroop任务之间的处理过程中,从数量上而非质量上讨论了这些结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号