↓ Skip to main content

Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00799
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence G. Appelbaum, Sarah E. Donohue, Christina J. Park, Marty G. Woldorff

Abstract

When different perceptual signals arising from the same physical entity are integrated, they form a more reliable sensory estimate. When such repetitive sensory signals are pitted against other competing stimuli, such as in a Stroop Task, this redundancy may lead to stronger processing that biases behavior toward reporting the redundant stimuli. This bias would therefore, be expected to evoke greater incongruency effects than if these stimuli did not contain redundant sensory features. In the present paper we report that this is not the case for a set of three crossmodal, auditory-visual Stroop tasks. In these tasks participants attended to, and reported, either the visual or the auditory stimulus (in separate blocks) while ignoring the other, unattended modality. The visual component of these stimuli could be purely semantic (words), purely perceptual (colors), or the combination of both. Based on previous work showing enhanced crossmodal integration and visual search gains for redundantly coded stimuli, we had expected that relative to the single features, redundant visual features would have induced both greater visual distracter incongruency effects for attended auditory targets, and been less influenced by auditory distracters for attended visual targets. Overall, reaction times were faster for visual targets and were dominated by behavioral facilitation for the cross-modal interactions (relative to interference), but showed surprisingly little influence of visual feature redundancy. Post-hoc analyses revealed modest and trending evidence for possible increases in behavioral interference for redundant visual distracters on auditory targets, however, these effects were substantially smaller than anticipated and were not accompanied by a redundancy effect for behavioral facilitation or for attended visual targets.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 33%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 48%
Linguistics 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,209,145
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,886
of 29,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,798
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 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 29,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 280,760 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 969 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.