Resisting Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Interference - Same or Different Processes? A Focused Mini-Review

Overview

Journal Psychol Belg

Publisher Ubiquity Press

Specialty Psychology

Date 2023 Apr 17

PMID 37064504

Authors

Coline Gregoire

Steve Majerus

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The unitary nature of resistance to interference (RI) processes remains a strongly debated question: are they central cognitive processes or are they specific to the stimulus domains on which they operate? This focused mini-review examines behavioral, neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence for and against domain-general RI processes, by distinguishing visual, verbal phonological and verbal semantic domains. Behavioral studies highlighted overall low associations between RI capacity across domains. Neuropsychological studies mainly report dissociations for RI abilities between the three domains. Neuroimaging studies highlight a left vs. right hemisphere distinction for verbal vs. visual RI, with furthermore distinct neural processes supporting phonological versus semantic RI in the left inferior frontal gyrus. While overall results appear to support the hypothesis of domain-specific RI processes, we discuss a number of methodological caveats that ask for caution in the interpretation of existing studies.

References

Manard M, Francois S, Phillips C, Salmon E, Collette F . The neural bases of proactive and reactive control processes in normal aging. Behav Brain Res. 2016; 320:504-516. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.10.026. View

Leung H, Skudlarski P, Gatenby J, Peterson B, Gore J . An event-related functional MRI study of the stroop color word interference task. Cereb Cortex. 2000; 10(6):552-60. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/10.6.552. View

Morimoto H, Hirose S, Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Asari T, Yamashita K . On verbal/nonverbal modality dependence of left and right inferior prefrontal activation during performance of flanker interference task. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008; 20(11):2006-14. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20138. View

Miyake A, Friedman N, Emerson M, Witzki A, Howerter A, Wager T . The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000; 41(1):49-100. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734. View

Cowan N, Morey C . How can dual-task working memory retention limits be investigated?. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18(8):686-8. PMC: 2615808. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01960.x. View

Klaus J, Hartwigsen G . Dissociating semantic and phonological contributions of the left inferior frontal gyrus to language production. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019; 40(11):3279-3287. PMC: 6916743. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24597. View

Schumacher E, Schwarb H, Lightman E, Hazeltine E . Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task. Psychol Res. 2011; 75(6):499-512. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0369-9. View

de Zubicaray G, Wilson S, McMahon K, Muthiah S . The semantic interference effect in the picture-word paradigm: an event-related fMRI study employing overt responses. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001; 14(4):218-27. PMC: 6871995. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.1054. View

Cowan N, Barron A . Cross-modal, auditory-visual Stroop interference and possible implications for speech memory. Percept Psychophys. 1987; 41(5):393-401. DOI: 10.3758/bf03203031. View

10.

Thompson H, Davey J, Hoffman P, Hallam G, Kosinski R, Howkins S . Semantic control deficits impair understanding of thematic relationships more than object identity. Neuropsychologia. 2017; 104:113-125. PMC: 5637130. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.013. View

11.

Paulesu E, Goldacre B, Scifo P, Cappa S, Gilardi M, Castiglioni I . Functional heterogeneity of left inferior frontal cortex as revealed by fMRI. Neuroreport. 1997; 8(8):2011-7. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-199705260-00042. View

12.

Nee D, Wager T, Jonides J . Interference resolution: insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2007; 7(1):1-17. DOI: 10.3758/cabn.7.1.1. View

13.

Pashler H . Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull. 1994; 116(2):220-44. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220. View

14.

Gruber S, Rogowska J, Holcomb P, Soraci S, Yurgelun-Todd D . Stroop performance in normal control subjects: an fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2002; 16(2):349-60. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1089. View

15.

Snyder H, Feigenson K, Thompson-Schill S . Prefrontal cortical response to conflict during semantic and phonological tasks. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 19(5):761-75. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.761. View

16.

Schnur T, Schwartz M, Kimberg D, Hirshorn E, Coslett H, Thompson-Schill S . Localizing interference during naming: convergent neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence for the function of Broca's area. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(1):322-7. PMC: 2629229. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0805874106. View

17.

Vergauwe E, Barrouillet P, Camos V . Do mental processes share a domain-general resource?. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21(3):384-90. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610361340. View

18.

Simmonds D, Pekar J, Mostofsky S . Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. 2007; 46(1):224-32. PMC: 2327217. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015. View

19.

Araneda R, De Volder A, Deggouj N, Renier L . Altered inhibitory control and increased sensitivity to cross-modal interference in tinnitus during auditory and visual tasks. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0120387. PMC: 4357462. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120387. View

20.

Postman L, Underwood B . Critical issues in interference theory. Mem Cognit. 2013; 1(1):19-40. DOI: 10.3758/BF03198064. View