Exploring the role of stimulus code–response modality compatibility on the spatial Stroop effect

References

• Baldo, J. V., A. P. Shimamura, and W. Prinzmetal. 1998. “Mapping Symbols to Response Modalities: Interference Effects on Stroop-Like Tasks.” Perception & Psychophysics 60 (3): 427–437. doi:10.3758/BF03206864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buetti, S., and D. Kerzel. 2009. “Conflicts During Response Selection Affect Response Programming: Reactions Toward the Source of Stimulation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35 (3): 816–834. doi:10.1037/a0011092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitts, P. M., and R. L. Deininger. 1954. “S–R Compatibility: Correspondence Among Paired Elements Within Stimulus and Response Codes.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 48 (6): 483–492. doi:10.1037/h0054967.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fitts, P. M., and C. M. Seeger. 1953. “S–R Compatibility: Spatial Characteristics of Stimulus and Response Codes.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 46 (3): 199–210. doi:10.1037/h0062827.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedge, A., and N. W. A. Marsh. 1975. “The Effect of Irrelevant Spatial Correspondences on Two-Choice Response–Time.” Acta Psychologica 39 (6): 427–439. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(75)90041-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbert, S., T. T. Nakagawa, M. Bindl, and M. Bühner. 2014. “The Spatial Stroop Effect: A Comparison of Color-Word and Position-Word Interference.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21 (6): 1509–1515. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0631-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornblum, S., T. Hasbroucq, and A. Osman. 1990. “Dimensional Overlap: Cognitive Basis for Stimulus–Response Compatibility – A Model and Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 97 (2): 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. 1980. “Attention and Automaticity in Stroop and Priming Tasks: Theory and Data.” Cognitive Psychology 12 (4): 523–553. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90019-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., and N. J. Zbrodoff. 1979. “When It Helps to be Misled: Facilitative Effects of Increasing the Frequency of Conflicting Stimuli in a Stroop-Like Task.” Memory & Cognition 7 (3): 166–174. doi:10.3758/BF03197535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, C.-H. 1997. “Correspondence Effects for Irrelevant Information in Choice-Reaction Tasks: Characterizing the Stimulus–Response Relations and the Processing Dynamics.” In Theoretical Issues in Stimulus–Response Compatibility, edited by B. Hommel and W. Prinz, 85–117. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, C.-H., and R. W. Proctor. 1994. “Processing of an Irrelevant Location Dimension as a Function of the Relevant Stimulus Dimension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20 (2): 286–298. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, C.-H., and R. W. Proctor. 1995. “The Influence of Irrelevant Location Information on Performance: A Review of the Simon and Spatial Stroop Effects.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2 (2): 174–207. doi:10.3758/BF03210959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, C., and R. W. Proctor. 2013. “Asymmetry of Congruency Effects in Spatial Stroop Tasks Can Be Eliminated.” Acta Psychologica 143 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, C. M. 1991. “Half a Century of Research on the Stroop Effect: An Integrative Review.” Psychological Bulletin 109 (2): 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascolo, M., and S. Hirtle. 1990. “Verbal Coding and the Elimination of Stroop Interference in a Matching Task.” American Journal of Psychology 103 (2): 195–215. doi:10.2307/1423142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matlab (2012a) [Computer Software]. 2012. Natick, MA: The Mathworks, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• McClain, L. 1983. “Stimulus–Response Compatibility Affects Auditory Stroop Interference.” Perception & Psychophysics 33 (3): 266–270. doi:10.3758/BF03202864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, J. D., and R. W. Proctor. 2009. “Non-Intentional but Not Automatic: Reduction of Word- and Arrow-Based Compatibility Effects by Sound Distractors in the Same Categorical Domain.” Experimental Brain Research 199 (1): 101–106. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1975-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, J. D., and R. W. Proctor. 2012. “Correlations Between Spatial Compatibility Effects: Are Arrows More Like Locations or Words?” Psychological Research 76 (6): 777–791. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0378-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nealis, P. M. 1974. “Reversal of Stroop Test: Interference in Word Reading.” Perceptual & Motor Skills 38 (2): 379–382. doi:10.2466/pms.1974.38.2.379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Leary, M., and P. Barber. 1993. “Interference Effects in the Stroop and Simon Paradigms.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 19 (4): 830–844. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.19.4.830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palef, S. R., and D. R. Olson. 1975. “Spatial and Verbal Rivalry in a Stroop-Like Task.” Canadian Journal of Psychology 29 (3): 201–209. doi:10.1037/h0082026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, M. L., and C. R. R. Snyder. 1975. “Attention and Cognitive Control.” In Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, edited by R. L. Solso, 55–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, R. W., and T. G. Reeve. 1990. “Research on Stimulus-Response Compatibility: Toward a Comprehensive Account.” In Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective, edited by R. W. Proctor and T. G. Reeve, 483–494. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
   Google Scholar
• Redding, G. M., and D. A. Gerjets. 1977. “Stroop Effect: Interference and Facilitation with Verbal and Manual Responses.” Perceptual & Motor Skills 45 (1): 11–17. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.45.1.11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlack, A., and T. D. Albright. 2007. “Remembering Visual Motion: Neural Correlates of Associative Plasticity and Motion Recall in Cortical Area MT.” Neuron 53 (6): 881–890. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.02.028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shor, R. 1971. “Symbol Processing Speed Differences and Symbol Interference Effects in a Variety of Concept Domains.” Journal of General Psychology 85 (2): 187–205. doi:10.1080/00221309.1971.9920672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, J.-H., and K. Nakayama. 2008. “Target Selection in Visual Search as Revealed by Movement Trajectories.” Vision Research 48 (7): 853–861. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.12.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, J.-H., and K. Nakayama. 2009. “Hidden Cognitive States Revealed in Choice Reaching Tasks.” Trends in Cognitive Science 13 (8): 360–366. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroop, J. R. 1935. “Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 18 (6): 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651.
   Google Scholar
• van Vugt, F. T., and P. Cavanagh. 2012. “Response Trajectories Reveal Conflict Phase in Image-Word Mismatch.” Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 74 (2): 263–268. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0261-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virzi, R. A., and H. E. Egeth. 1985. “Toward a Translational Model of Stroop Interference.” Memory & Cognition 13 (4): 304–319. doi:10.3758/BF03202499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu, K.-P. L., and R. W. Proctor. 2011. “Influence of Bias on Visuospatial and Verbal Compatibility Effects in Mixed-Mapping Environments.” Attention Perception & Psychophysics 73 (8): 2594–2605. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0205-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H., and R. W. Proctor. 1996. “Stimulus–Response Compatibility as a Function of Stimulus Code and Response Modality.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22 (5): 1201–1217. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B. W. 1969. “Interference in Identifying Attributes and Attribute Names.” Perception & Psychophysics 6 (3): 166–168. doi:10.3758/BF03210086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D. 1980. “The Structure of Attentional Resources.” In Attention and Performance VIII, edited by R. Nickerson, 239–257. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D. 2002. “Multiple Resources and Performance Prediction.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 3 (2): 159–177. doi:10.1080/14639220210123806.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., J. G. Hollands, S. Banbury, and R. Parasuraman. 2012. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., D. Sandry, and M. Vidulich. 1983. “Compatibility and Resource Competition Between Modalities of Input, Central Processing, and Output: Testing a Model of Complex Task Performance.” Human Factors 25: 227–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., M. Vidulich, and D. Sandry-Garza. 1984. “Principles of S-C-R Compatibility with Spatial and Verbal Tasks: The Role of Display–Control Location and Voice–Interactive Display–Control Interfacing.” Human Factors 26: 533–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi, M., and R. W. Proctor. 2009. “Transfer of Learning in Choice Reactions: Contributions of Specific and General Components of Manual Responses.” Acta Psychologica 130 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar