Abstract
AbstractWe investigated whether, during visual word recognition, semantic processing is modulated by attentional control mechanisms directed at matching semantic information with task-relevant goals. In previous research, we analyzed the semantic Stroop interference as a function of response latency (delta-plot analyses) and found that this phenomenon mainly occurs in the slowest responses. Here, we investigated whether this pattern is due to reduced ability to proactively maintain the task goal in these slowest trials. In two pairs of experiments, participants completed two semantic Stroop tasks: a classic semantic Stroop task (Experiment 1A and 2A) and a semantic Stroop task combined with an n-back task (Experiment 1B and 2B). The two pairs of experiments only differed in the trial pace, which was slightly faster in Experiments 2A and 2B than in Experiments 1A and 1B. By taxing the executive control system, the n-back task was expected to hinder proactive control. Delta-plot analyses of the semantic Stroop task replicated the enhanced effect in the slowest responses, but only under sufficient time pressure. Combining the semantic Stroop task with the n-back task produced a change in the distributional profile of semantic Stroop interference, which we ascribe to a general difficulty in the use of proactive control. Our findings suggest that semantic Stroop interference is, to some extent, dependent on the available executive resources, while also being sensitive to subtle variations in task conditions.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Trento
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference73 articles.
1. Augustinova, M., Silvert, L., Spatola, N., & Ferrand, L. (2018). Further investigation of distinct components of Stroop interference and of their reduction by short response–stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 189, 54–62.
2. Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. (2006). Attentional control and flexible lexical processing: Explorations of the magic moment of word recognition. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inmarks to ideas: Current Issues in Lexical processing (pp. 229–258). Psychology Press.
3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 671, 1–48.
4. Ben-Shachar, M., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2815.
5. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.