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
Reaction times and error rates of two tasks.(A) the spatial Stroop (word)-Simon task, (B) the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0089249-g003: Reaction times and error rates of two tasks.(A) the spatial Stroop (word)-Simon task, (B) the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.

Mentions: In Experiment 1, RTs showed significant main effects for both S-S and S-R congruency [S-S, F(2,58) = 109.16, p<.001, ηp2 = .79; S-R, F(2,58) = 75.50, p<.001, ηp2 = .72]. The interaction was not significant [F(4,116) = .44, p>.05, ηp2 = .02], indicating that there was an additive effect between S-S and S-R congruency. ERs showed significant main effects for both S-S and S-R congruency [S-S, F(2,58) = 20.72, p<.001, ηp2 = .42; S-R, F(2,58) = 13.01, p<.001, ηp2 = .31]. The interaction was not significant [F(4,116) = 1.02, p>.05, ηp2 = .03], indicating that there was an additive effect between S-S and S-R congruency. ERs were positively associated with RTs across conditions, which rules out a speed–accuracy trade-off effect (see Figure 3A).


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

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

Reaction times and error rates of two tasks.(A) the spatial Stroop (word)-Simon task, (B) the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0089249-g003: Reaction times and error rates of two tasks.(A) the spatial Stroop (word)-Simon task, (B) the spatial Stroop (arrow)-Simon task.
Mentions: In Experiment 1, RTs showed significant main effects for both S-S and S-R congruency [S-S, F(2,58) = 109.16, p<.001, ηp2 = .79; S-R, F(2,58) = 75.50, p<.001, ηp2 = .72]. The interaction was not significant [F(4,116) = .44, p>.05, ηp2 = .02], indicating that there was an additive effect between S-S and S-R congruency. ERs showed significant main effects for both S-S and S-R congruency [S-S, F(2,58) = 20.72, p<.001, ηp2 = .42; S-R, F(2,58) = 13.01, p<.001, ηp2 = .31]. The interaction was not significant [F(4,116) = 1.02, p>.05, ηp2 = .03], indicating that there was an additive effect between S-S and S-R congruency. ERs were positively associated with RTs across conditions, which rules out a speed–accuracy trade-off effect (see Figure 3A).

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