Is There Semantic Conflict in the Stroop Task?

On the relationship between spatial attention and semantics in the context of a Stroop paradigm

A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, semantic interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop's paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention.

Distributional analyses reveal the polymorphic nature of the Stroop interference effect: It's about (response) time

The study addressed the still-open issue of whether semantic (in addition to response) conflict does indeed contribute to Stroop interference (which along with facilitation contributes to the overall Stroop effect also known as Congruency effect). To this end, semantic conflict was examined across the entire response time (RT) distribution (as opposed to mean RTs). Three (out of four) reported experiments, along with cross-experimental analyses, revealed that semantic conflict was absent in the participants' faster responses. This result characterizes Stroop interference as a unitary phenomenon (i.e., driven uniquely by response conflict). When the same participants' responses were slower, Stroop interference became a composite phenomenon with an additional contribution of semantic conflict that was statistically independent of both response conflict and facilitation. While the present findings allow us to account for the fact that semantic conflict has not been consistently found in past studies, further empirical and theoretical efforts are still needed to explain why exactly it is restricted to longer responses. Indeed, since neither unitary nor composite models can account for this polymorphic nature of Stroop interference on their own, the implications for the current state of theory are outlined.

Meta-Analysis of Social Presence Effects on Stroop Task Performance

In this paper, we conducted a meta-analytic review to examine the impact of social presence on individuals' performance on the Stroop task, shedding light on the cognitive processes underlying social facilitation. We followed PRISMA guidelines to identify and include 33 relevant studies in a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Our results show that social presence reliably modulates Stroop interference (a measure of cognitive control); specifically, participants exhibit lower Stroop interference when performing the task in the presence of others compared to performing it in isolation. We also found that the strength of the effect varies depending on the type of social presence: it is stronger with an attentive audience compared to an inattentive one, and null with an evaluative audience. Additionally, different features of the Stroop task itself moderate the effect; the effect is stronger for the classic version of the task compared to the semantic version, and for experiments that use mixed within-block trials compared to those with homogenous blocks. We also observed a negative relationship between the number of trials and the magnitude of the effect. Overall, these findings provide insights into the mechanisms by which the presence of others affects performance on the Stroop task, and how they align with social facilitation theories.

A mouse-tracking study of the composite nature of the Stroop effect at the level of response execution

By forcing selection into response execution processes, the present mouse-tracking study investigated whether the ongoing process of response selection in the colour-word Stroop task is influenced by conflict and facilitation at both the level of response and stimulus. Mouse-tracking measures including partial errors provided credible evidence that both response and semantic conflict (i.e., distinct constituents of interference) contribute to the overall Stroop interference effect even after a response has been initiated. This contribution was also observed for the overall facilitation effect (that was credibly decomposed into response and semantic components in response times but not in mouse deviation measures). These results run counter to the dominant single-stage response competition models that currently fail to explain: 1) the expression of Stroop effects in measures of response execution and; 2) the composite nature of both interference and facilitation. By showing that Stroop effects-originating from multiple levels of processing-can cascade into movement parameters, the present study revealed the potential overlap between selection and execution process. It therefore calls for further theoretical efforts to account for when, where and under what conditions Stroop effects originating from different loci are controlled.

Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?

Task sets have been argued to play an important role in cognition, giving rise to the notions of needing to switch between active task sets and to control competing task sets in selective attention tasks. For example, it has been argued that Stroop interference results from two categories of conflict: informational and task (set) conflict. Informational conflict arises from processing the word and is resolved by a late selection mechanism; task conflict arises when two task sets (i.e., word reading and colour identification) compete for activation and can be construed as involving an early selection mechanism. However, recent work has argued that task set control might not be needed to explain all of the switching cost in task switching studies. Here we consider whether task conflict plays a role in selective attention tasks. In particular, we consider whether S-R associations, which lead to informational conflict, are enough on their own to explain findings attributed to task set conflict. We review and critically evaluate both the findings that provided the original impetus for proposing task conflict in selective attention tasks and more recent findings reporting negative facilitation (longer RTs to congruent than to neutral stimuli) - a unique marker of task conflict. We then provide a tentative alternative account of negative facilitation based on poor control over informational conflict and apply it to a number of paradigms including the Colour-Object interference and Affordances tasks. It is argued that invoking competition between task sets in selective attention tasks might not be necessary.