Many researchers explain Stroop interference in terms of competition between responses. In this explanation, there is a sort of "horse race" between two processes, each of which generates a potential response: reading and naming colors. Data from two comparison conditions are relevant to this question: time to name color samples (e.g., XXXXXs printed in different inks) and time to read (in this case, color names printed in black ink). I've collected these data in class demonstrations and the RT in the color naming task is always slower than the RT in the read task. Thus, the read response is available earlier than the color naming response and must be inhibited (often not successfully) to do the task correctly. The "level" or complexity of the processing (sensory processing versus abstract verbal coding) is less relevant than the actual time it takes to generate a response to the stimulus.
Also, remember that different components of visual information (color, form) are processed separately (which is why we can create illusory conjunctions of color and form). The read process does not require processing the sensory information provided by the ink color and can procede independently of (and more quickly than) the sensory processing for the color naming response. I haven't seen data on ADD performance on this task. However, given that many people with ADD have difficulties with reading, they may be slower in producing the read response than the color naming response and would show less interfence than normals in the standard condition (when the read response is the wrong response). Interestingly, if you alter the Stroop task and require reading the color words as the response (with the words printed in an incompatible color), you get less interference (but still get some interference). It would be interesting to observe that an individual with ADD would show increased interference in this version of the task (since the "wrong" response might be available for them earlier in this condition than in the standard Stroop procedure). Claudia Stanny -----Original Message----- From: Annette Taylor, Ph. D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 2/12/2005 5:17 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Cc: Subject: seeking wisdom Dear Tipsters: We’ve been doing CogLab exercises in my cognitive course and will be discussing the results in class on Tuesday. I have some questions for you all. Sometimes I just avoid discussing some aspects in class that trouble me. I'd like to not do that this time. It bothers me when we discuss the Stroop effect that color-naming, a low- level, simple physical process, which is certainly automatized, is inhibited by a higher level, more complex and serial process, reading, which is also certainly automatized. Why should the higher level, more complicated process dominate the lower level simpler process? Am I over-thinking this? Can anyone point me to a good resolution of this? I usually just talk about how automatized reading becomes for us; and that the strength of that automatization has a lot to say about being pre-wired for language etc. etc. all the usual related stuff. BUT in my head, I am bothered by the question above. This is further complicated in that we do the brain asymmetry task in the same unit (we only meet once per week) and so when the two are juxtaposed, it would seem even more so that the lower level task should be faster, and therefore should dominate the word-processing task. So overall I would think that color naming would inhibit reading and not be inhibited by reading, Comments on this one are welcomed as well. Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
