Limits...
Reduction of the spatial stroop effect by peripheral cueing as a function of the presence/absence of placeholders.

Luo C, Lupiáñez J, Funes MJ, Fu X - PLoS ONE (2013)

Bottom Line: In a paradigm combining spatial Stroop with spatial cueing, the current study investigated the role of the presence vs. absence of placeholders on the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing.At the long cue-target interval, however, this modulation over the spatial Stroop effect only occurred in the placeholders-present condition.These findings show that placeholders are modulators but not mediators of the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing, which further favor the cue-target integration account.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. luocm@psych.ac.cn

ABSTRACT
In a paradigm combining spatial Stroop with spatial cueing, the current study investigated the role of the presence vs. absence of placeholders on the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing. At a short cue-target interval, the modulation of peripheral cueing over the spatial Stroop effect was observed independently of the presence/absence of placeholders. At the long cue-target interval, however, this modulation over the spatial Stroop effect only occurred in the placeholders-present condition. These findings show that placeholders are modulators but not mediators of the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing, which further favor the cue-target integration account.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean Reaction Time (in ms) as a function of display type, cueing, SOA, and spatial Stroop in Experiment 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3722176&req=5

pone-0069456-g002: Mean Reaction Time (in ms) as a function of display type, cueing, SOA, and spatial Stroop in Experiment 1.

Mentions: Errors. sented in Table 1. ed than uncued trials. ant, tibility, and the three-way interaction was not significant. The analysis performed on the short SOA data revealed that cueing, F(1, 17) = 66.06, p<.001, spatial Stroop, F(1, 17) = 24.36, p<.001, and compatibility, F(1, 17) = 6.07, p = .025, were significant. Spatial Stroop interacted with compatibility, F(1, 17) = 4.49, p = .049. Importantly, as shown in Figure 2, cueing interacted with spatial Stroop, F(1, 17) = 33.50, p<.001, with a smaller spatial Stroop effect (6 ms) on cued than uncued location trials (32 ms), while the three-way interaction between display type, Cueing and spatial Stroop was not significant, F(1, 17) = 2.93, p = .105. However, the interaction between cueing and compatibility was not significant (F<1), and neither were the interaction between display type, cueing and compatibility and the only four-way interaction (Fs<1). No other effect was significant.


Reduction of the spatial stroop effect by peripheral cueing as a function of the presence/absence of placeholders.

Luo C, Lupiáñez J, Funes MJ, Fu X - PLoS ONE (2013)

Mean Reaction Time (in ms) as a function of display type, cueing, SOA, and spatial Stroop in Experiment 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3722176&req=5

pone-0069456-g002: Mean Reaction Time (in ms) as a function of display type, cueing, SOA, and spatial Stroop in Experiment 1.
Mentions: Errors. sented in Table 1. ed than uncued trials. ant, tibility, and the three-way interaction was not significant. The analysis performed on the short SOA data revealed that cueing, F(1, 17) = 66.06, p<.001, spatial Stroop, F(1, 17) = 24.36, p<.001, and compatibility, F(1, 17) = 6.07, p = .025, were significant. Spatial Stroop interacted with compatibility, F(1, 17) = 4.49, p = .049. Importantly, as shown in Figure 2, cueing interacted with spatial Stroop, F(1, 17) = 33.50, p<.001, with a smaller spatial Stroop effect (6 ms) on cued than uncued location trials (32 ms), while the three-way interaction between display type, Cueing and spatial Stroop was not significant, F(1, 17) = 2.93, p = .105. However, the interaction between cueing and compatibility was not significant (F<1), and neither were the interaction between display type, cueing and compatibility and the only four-way interaction (Fs<1). No other effect was significant.

Bottom Line: In a paradigm combining spatial Stroop with spatial cueing, the current study investigated the role of the presence vs. absence of placeholders on the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing.At the long cue-target interval, however, this modulation over the spatial Stroop effect only occurred in the placeholders-present condition.These findings show that placeholders are modulators but not mediators of the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing, which further favor the cue-target integration account.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. luocm@psych.ac.cn

ABSTRACT
In a paradigm combining spatial Stroop with spatial cueing, the current study investigated the role of the presence vs. absence of placeholders on the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing. At a short cue-target interval, the modulation of peripheral cueing over the spatial Stroop effect was observed independently of the presence/absence of placeholders. At the long cue-target interval, however, this modulation over the spatial Stroop effect only occurred in the placeholders-present condition. These findings show that placeholders are modulators but not mediators of the reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing, which further favor the cue-target integration account.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus