| Title |
Two distinct patterns of interference in between-attribute Stroop matching tasks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-016-1253-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerstin Dittrich, Christoph Stahl |
| Abstract |
In between-attribute Stroop matching tasks, participants compare the meaning (or the color) of a Stroop stimulus with a probe color (or meaning) while attempting to ignore the Stroop stimulus's task-irrelevant attribute. Interference in this task has been explained by two competing theories: A semantic competition account and a response competition account. Recent results favor the response competition account, which assumes that interference is caused by a task-irrelevant comparison. However, the comparison of studies is complicated by the lack of a consensus on how trial types should be classified and analyzed. In this work, we review existing findings and theories and provide a new classification of trial types. We report two experiments that demonstrate the superiority of the response competition account in explaining the basic pattern of performance while also revealing its limitations. Two qualitatively distinct interference patterns are identified, resulting from different types of task-irrelevant comparisons. By finding the same interference pattern across task versions, we were additionally able to demonstrate the comparability of processes across two task versions frequently used in neurophysiological and cognitive studies. An integrated account of both types of interference is presented and discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 42% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2016.
All research outputs
#21,500,614
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,661
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,708
of 427,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#27
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.