The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses
The Loci of Stroop Interference and Facilitation Effects With Manual and Vocal Responses
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01786
复制
发表时间：
2019-08-19
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Ferrand, Ludovic
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Augustinova, Maria;Parris, Benjamin A.;Ferrand, Ludovic
Stroop任务的几种解释假设Stroop干扰效应有几个不同的位点（而不是单一的响应位点）。本研究的目的是探讨这种情况是否适用于手势和声音反应。为此，我们使用了Stroop范式的扩展形式（Augustinova等人，2018b），该范式成功区分了任务冲突、语义冲突和响应冲突对整体Stroop干扰的贡献。与过去的研究结果一致，实验1的结果产生了一个重要的响应模态效应：当使用声音响应时（与按键相反），Stroop干扰的幅度要大得多。此外，本研究结果还表明，反应模态效应的具体原因是，在语音反应中观察到的Stroop干扰是由任务冲突、语义冲突和反应冲突显著贡献的结果，而在手动反应中，只有语义冲突和反应冲突明显显著地导致了Stroop干扰（没有观察到显著的任务冲突）。实验2重复了这一模式。同样重要的是，实验2还考察了反应模态效应是否以及如何影响Stroop促进。结果表明，当使用声音而不是手动反应时，Stroop促进的幅度也更大。这是因为在声音反应中，语义促进和反应促进对整体Stroop促进有贡献，但令人惊讶的是，只有语义促进对手动反应有贡献（没有观察到反应促进）。在Stroop干扰的综合多阶段描述框架内，我们从定量而非定性的角度讨论了这些结果（Augustinova等人，2018b）。
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 (Augustinova et al., 2018b) 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 (Augustinova et al., 2018b).