Limits...
Independent processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts.

Li Q, Nan W, Wang K, Liu X - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: A spatial Stroop (word) task and a spatial Stroop (arrow) task were combined with a Simon task in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively to eliminate these confounds of stimulus attributes.The results showed that S-S and S-R conflicts affected performance additively.There was no significant correlation across participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

ABSTRACT
The dimensional overlap (DO) model proposes distinct mechanisms for stimulus-stimulus (S-S) and stimulus-response (S-R) conflict effects. Many studies have examined the independence of S-S and S-R conflict effects in the color-word Stroop and Simon tasks. However, confounds exist between the distinction of DO (i.e., S-S dimensional overlap compared with S-R dimensional overlap) and the distinction of stimulus attributes (e.g., color compared with spatial location; semantic compared with nonsemantic information), which may hinder interpretation of the independence of S-S and S-R conflicts. A spatial Stroop (word) task and a spatial Stroop (arrow) task were combined with a Simon task in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively to eliminate these confounds of stimulus attributes. The results showed that S-S and S-R conflicts affected performance additively. There was no significant correlation across participants. These findings lend further support to independent processing of S-S and S-R conflicts as it is outlined in the taxonomy of DO.

Show MeSH
Experimental design for the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.Labels and legends are the same as in Figure 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3928426&req=5

pone-0089249-g002: Experimental design for the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.Labels and legends are the same as in Figure 1.

Mentions: A modified spatial Stroop (word/arrow)-Simon task [26] was used in Experiments 1 and 2. During training, a stimulus (the word “up” or “down” in Experiment 1 or an upward or downward arrow in Experiment 2) was presented at the center of the screen. Half of the participants responded to the word “up” or “down” (in Experiment 1) and the upward or downward arrow (in Experiment 2) with their left and right index fingers, respectively. The mapping was counterbalanced for the other half of the participants in both experiments. During testing, a word or arrow was presented at one of the nine possible locations in the 3×3 lattice (see Figures 1 and 2).


Independent processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts.

Li Q, Nan W, Wang K, Liu X - PLoS ONE (2014)

Experimental design for the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.Labels and legends are the same as in Figure 1.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3928426&req=5

pone-0089249-g002: Experimental design for the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.Labels and legends are the same as in Figure 1.
Mentions: A modified spatial Stroop (word/arrow)-Simon task [26] was used in Experiments 1 and 2. During training, a stimulus (the word “up” or “down” in Experiment 1 or an upward or downward arrow in Experiment 2) was presented at the center of the screen. Half of the participants responded to the word “up” or “down” (in Experiment 1) and the upward or downward arrow (in Experiment 2) with their left and right index fingers, respectively. The mapping was counterbalanced for the other half of the participants in both experiments. During testing, a word or arrow was presented at one of the nine possible locations in the 3×3 lattice (see Figures 1 and 2).

Bottom Line: A spatial Stroop (word) task and a spatial Stroop (arrow) task were combined with a Simon task in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively to eliminate these confounds of stimulus attributes.The results showed that S-S and S-R conflicts affected performance additively.There was no significant correlation across participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

ABSTRACT
The dimensional overlap (DO) model proposes distinct mechanisms for stimulus-stimulus (S-S) and stimulus-response (S-R) conflict effects. Many studies have examined the independence of S-S and S-R conflict effects in the color-word Stroop and Simon tasks. However, confounds exist between the distinction of DO (i.e., S-S dimensional overlap compared with S-R dimensional overlap) and the distinction of stimulus attributes (e.g., color compared with spatial location; semantic compared with nonsemantic information), which may hinder interpretation of the independence of S-S and S-R conflicts. A spatial Stroop (word) task and a spatial Stroop (arrow) task were combined with a Simon task in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively to eliminate these confounds of stimulus attributes. The results showed that S-S and S-R conflicts affected performance additively. There was no significant correlation across participants. These findings lend further support to independent processing of S-S and S-R conflicts as it is outlined in the taxonomy of DO.

Show MeSH