Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task.
Response set membership contributes much to the interference in the color-word Stroop task. This may be due to selective allocation of attention to eligible responses or, alternatively, to greater inhibition of distractors that are not responses. In the present article, we report two experiments tha...
| Publicado en: | Memory & Cognition Vol. 38; no. 7; pp. 893 - 905 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Oct2010
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=55135379&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 55135379 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0090502X MEG jtl: Memory & Cognition issn: 0090502X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2010 vid: 38 iid: 7 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 55135379 10.3758/MC.38.7.893 ppf: 893 ppct: 12 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 325KB tig: atl: Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task. aug: au: LAMERS, MARTIN J. M. ROELOFS, ARDI RABELING-KEUS, INGE M. affil: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands su: Analysis of variance Attention Cognition Learning Problem solving Computer software Probability theory Statistics Data analysis Effect sizes (Statistics) sug: subj: Analysis of variance Attention Cognition Learning Problem solving Software publishers (except video game publishers) Computer, computer peripheral and pre-packaged software merchant wholesalers Computer and software stores Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers Computer software Probability theory Statistics Data analysis Effect sizes (Statistics) ab: Response set membership contributes much to the interference in the color-word Stroop task. This may be due to selective allocation of attention to eligible responses or, alternatively, to greater inhibition of distractors that are not responses. In the present article, we report two experiments that were designed to adjudicate between these accounts. In Experiment 1, membership was manipulated on a trial-by-trial basis by cuing the possible responses for each trial. Response time (RT) was longer for distractors that corresponded to a cued, eligible response than to an ineligible one. This cuing effect was independent of the number of different responses. In Experiment 2, the distractor was cued on half the trials. Cuing the distractor decreased RTs on both incongruent and congruent trials. Vincentile analyses in both experiments revealed that the effects were constant throughout the entire RT distributions. These results suggest that response set effects arise because of selective allocation of attention to eligible responses. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|