Training Reveals the Sources of Stroop and Flanker Interference Effects

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2013 Oct 23

PMID 24146892

Citations 10

Authors

Antao Chen

Dandan Tang

Xuefei Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In the field of cognitive control, dimensional overlap and pathway automaticity are generally believed to be critical for the generation of congruency effects. However, their specific roles in the generation of congruency effects are unclear. In two experiments, with the 4:2 mapping design, we investigated this issue by examining the training-related effects on congruency effects (the Stroop interference effect and the Flanker interference effect in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) normally expressed as incongruent minus congruent difference and on their subcomponents (the stimulus interference and response interference). Experiment 1 revealed that the stimulus interference in the Stroop task, wherein the task-relevant (printed color of word) and the task-irrelevant (semantics of word) dimensions of the stimuli were processed in different pathways, was present during early training but was virtually eliminated at the late stage of training. This indicates that the two dimensions overlap at the early stage but separate at the late stage. In contrast, Experiment 2 showed that the response interference in a variant of the Flanker task, wherein the task-relevant (central color word printed in black font) and the task-irrelevant (flanking color words printed in black font) dimensions of the stimuli were processed in the same pathway, was enhanced after training. This indicates that the enhanced automaticity of irrelevant-dimension processing induces stronger response competition, which therefore results in the larger response interference. Taken together, the present study demonstrates that (1) dimensional overlap is necessary for the generation of congruency effects, (2) pathway automaticity can affect the size of congruency effects, and (3) training enhances the degree of automatic processing in a given pathway.

Citing Articles

Practice makes better? The influence of increased practice on task conflict in the Stroop task.

Najenson J, Zaks-Ohayon R, Tzelgov J, Fresco N Mem Cognit. 2025; .

PMID: 39863745 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01677-7.

Distributional analyses reveal the individual differences in congruency sequence effect.

Tang D, Chen X, Li H, Lei Y PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0272621.

PMID: 35994475 PMC: 9394795. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272621.

Making a saccade enhances Stroop and Simon conflict control.

Luo X, Gu J, Zheng Y, Zhou X Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022; 84(3):795-814.

PMID: 35304699 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02458-7.

The loci of Stroop effects: a critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection.

Parris B, Hasshim N, Wadsley M, Augustinova M, Ferrand L Psychol Res. 2021; 86(4):1029-1053.

PMID: 34389901 PMC: 9090875. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-021-01554-x.

Preserved sensory processing but hampered conflict detection when stimulus input is task-irrelevant.

Nuiten S, Canales-Johnson A, Beerendonk L, Nanuashvili N, Fahrenfort J, Bekinschtein T Elife. 2021; 10.

PMID: 34121657 PMC: 8294845. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.64431.

References

Macleod C . Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: the progression of interference and facilitation. Mem Cognit. 1998; 26(2):201-11. DOI: 10.3758/bf03201133. View

Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A . Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1990; 97(2):253-70. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253. View

THEIOS J, Amrhein P . Theoretical analysis of the cognitive processing of lexical and pictorial stimuli: reading, naming, and visual and conceptual comparisons. Psychol Rev. 1989; 96(1):5-24. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.5. View

Cohen J, Dunbar K, McClelland J . On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol Rev. 1990; 97(3):332-61. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.332. View

van Veen V, Carter C . Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: a functional MRI study. Neuroimage. 2005; 27(3):497-504. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.042. View

SCHEIBE K, Shaver P, Carrier S . Color association values and response interference on variants of the Stroop test. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1967; 26(3):286-95. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90028-5. View

Miller E . The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 1(1):59-65. DOI: 10.1038/35036228. View

Dulaney C, Rogers W . Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994; 20(2):470-84. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.2.470. View

Polk T, Drake R, Jonides J, Smith M, Smith E . Attention enhances the neural processing of relevant features and suppresses the processing of irrelevant features in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the Stroop task. J Neurosci. 2008; 28(51):13786-92. PMC: 2659668. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1026-08.2008. View

10.

De Houwer J . On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Mem Cognit. 2003; 31(3):353-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194393. View

11.

Ridderinkhof K, Ullsperger M, Crone E, Nieuwenhuis S . The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science. 2004; 306(5695):443-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.1100301. View

12.

Simon J . Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 81(1):174-6. DOI: 10.1037/h0027448. View

13.

Schmidt J, Cheesman J . Dissociating stimulus-stimulus and response-response effects in the Stroop task. Can J Exp Psychol. 2005; 59(2):132-8. DOI: 10.1037/h0087468. View

14.

Erickson K, Milham M, Colcombe S, Kramer A, Banich M, Webb A . Behavioral conflict, anterior cingulate cortex, and experiment duration: implications of diverging data. Hum Brain Mapp. 2004; 21(2):98-107. PMC: 6871972. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.10158. View

15.

Zhang H, Kornblum S . The effects of stimulus-response mapping and irrelevant stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(1):3-19. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.1.3. View

16.

Cohen J, Servan-Schreiber D, McClelland J . A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. Am J Psychol. 1992; 105(2):239-69. View

17.

Wendt M, Heldmann M, Munte T, Kluwe R . Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response-related conflict and stimulus-response repetition using brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 19(7):1104-12. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1104. View

18.

Macleod C, Dunbar K . Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1988; 14(1):126-35. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.14.1.126. View

19.

Kim C, Chung C, Kim J . Multiple cognitive control mechanisms associated with the nature of conflict. Neurosci Lett. 2010; 476(3):156-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.04.019. View

20.

Chen Z, Lei X, Ding C, Li H, Chen A . The neural mechanisms of semantic and response conflicts: an fMRI study of practice-related effects in the Stroop task. Neuroimage. 2012; 66:577-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.028. View