首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses
【24h】

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

机译:用手动和声乐响应的Troop干扰和促进效果的基因座

获取原文
       

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 so-called semantic Stroop paradigm (Augustinova, Silvert, Spatola, & Ferrand, 2018a) 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 keypresses). 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 conflict 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 multi-stage account of Stroop interference (Augustinova et al., 2018a).
机译:Troop任务的几个帐户假设Stroop干扰效果有几个不同的基因座(与单个响应轨迹相对)。本研究旨在探索手动和声乐响应是否是这种情况。为此,我们使用了一系列所谓的语义排序范例(Augustinova,Silvert,Spatola,&Ferrand,2018a),该方面成功地区分了任务与语义与响应冲突的贡献与总结干扰。符合过去的发现,实验1的结果产生了重要的反应模态效应:当使用声响应时,速率干扰的幅度基本上更大(与按键相对)。此外,目前的研究结果表明,响应模态效应是特别原因的是,随着任务,语义和反应冲突的显着贡献所观察到的争夺性干扰,而只有语义和反应冲突明显显着促进争夺速率干扰通过手动响应(未观察到未重大的任务冲突)。这种确切的模式在实验2中复制。此外,实验2还研究了响应模当效应是否以及如何影响Troop Pupilitation。结果表明,当使用与手动反应相反的声带时,STROPH促进的大小也更大。这是由于语义和反应促进有助于与声乐反应观察到的整体速率促进,但令人惊讶地只有用手动反应贡献的语义促进(未观察到响应促进)。在Tromoop干扰的一体化多阶段账户的框架内,我们讨论了定量而不是声乐和手动链路任务之间处理的定性差异的定性差异(Augustinova等,2018a)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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