7/1/2023 0 Comments Psyscope button boxWe measured behavioral and neural effects of color–word incongruency, as different groups of participants performed three different versions of color–word Stroop tasks in which the relative timing of the color and word features varied from trial to trial. ■ In this study, we leveraged the high temporal resolution of EEG to examine the neural mechanisms underlying the flexible regulation of cognitive control that unfolds over different timescales. These findings reveal an important determinant of CSE magnitude when the typical learning and memory confounds are absent and new insights into the nature of control processes that contribute to this phenomenon. Further, in Experiment 3, we observed a negative congruency effect after incongruent trials when a long interval separated the distracter from the target, consistent with a modulation of the response engendered by the distracter but not with a shift of attention toward the target. In line with this & amp amp amp quot distracter head start& amp amp amp quot hypothesis, in Experiments 1 and 2 the CSE was larger when the distracter appeared before, relative to with, the target. We therefore tested a recent hypothesis that the CSE is most easily observed without the typical confounds when the distracter is processed before the target. However, both the conditions under which this congruency sequence effect (CSE) can be most easily observed without the typical learning and memory confounds, and the control process underlying it, remain controversial. The congruency effect in distracter interference tasks is typically smaller when the previous trial was incongruent as compared to congruent, suggesting the operation of a control process that minimizes the influence of irrelevant stimuli on behavior. Therefore, the findings offer evidence that the TM can be considered as a valid model for explaining the Stroop effect" These results supported the prediction by the TM that a distracter stimulus does not cast an interference effect under conditions in which the target stimuli and responses are compatible in modality. The results of experiment 1, where response modalities were physically classified, showed that there were no significant differences in the Stroop effect due to the different response modalities, while experiment 2 showed an asymmetrical Stroop effect due to the response modalities. In experiment 2, similar to the task used by Durgin (2003), target stimuli, distracters as well as response patches were displayed on the same screen and the Stroop effect was measured in terms of the mental modality representation of the responses verbally or nonverbally. In experiment 1, the Stroop effect was examined by using manual- and verbal-response Stroop tasks, respectively. "This study examined whether the translation model (TM) which places emphasis on the modalities of stimuli and responses would be a valid model to explain the Stroop effect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |