Independent race of colour and word can predict the Stroop effect

REFERENCES

• Algom, D., Dekel, A., & Pansky, A. (1996). The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited. Memory & Cognition, 14, 557–572.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Human memory and cognition. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Ben‐david, B. M., & Algom, D. (2009). Species of redundancy in visual target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 958–976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besner, D., Stoltz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 221–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. L. (2011). The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation effects: Statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 85–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catena, A., Fuentes, L. J., & Tudela, P. (2002). Priming and interference effects can be dissociated in the Stroop task: New evidence in favor of the automaticity of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 113–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & Mcclelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel‐distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeth, H. E., & Dagenbach, D. (1991). Parallel versus serial processing in visual search: Further evidence from subadditive effects of visual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 550–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eidels, A., Donkin, C., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2010). Converging measures of workload capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 763–771.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eidels, A., Townsend, J. T., & Algom, D. (2010). Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition, 114, 129–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feintuch, U., & Cohen, A. (2002). Visual attention and coactivation of response decisions for features from different dimensions. Psychological Science, 13, 361–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbum.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, G. R., Canham, L., & Boroughs, J. M. (1984). Combination rule for redundant target information in reaction time tasks with divided attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 451–463.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by colour‐irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 497–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macleod, C. M. (1991). Half a century research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod, C. M., & Macdonald, P. A. (1998). Facilitation in the Stroop task is illusory: The inadvertent learning hypothesis (Unpublished manuscript). University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melara, R. D., & Mounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice. Memory & Cognition, 21, 627–645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordkoff, J. T., & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 520–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raab, D. H. (1962). Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24, 574–590.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, J. T., & Eidels, A. (2011). Workload capacity spaces: A unified methodology for response times. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, in press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, J. T., & Nozawa, G. (1995). Spatio‐temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 321–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, J. T., & Wenger, M. J. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111, 1003–1035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usher, M., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2001). On the time course of perceptual choice: The leaky competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wuhr, P., & Frings, C. (2008). A case for inhibition: Visual attention suppresses the processing of irrelevant objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 116–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar