Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the current study, participants judged as ‘low’ or ‘high’ either the location or the frequency of a single tone presented in one of two locations at one of two frequencies. The classification associated with the irrelevant feature could be either congruent or incongruent with the required response. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that responses were made more slowly on incongruent than on congruent trials, regardless of whether participants judged sounds according to their location or their pitch. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the probability that the classification associated with the irrelevant acoustic feature was consistent with the classification associated with the task-relevant dimension. In this experiment responses were made more quickly on congruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be consistent with the required response, and on incongruent trials when the response associated with the irrelevant feature was likely to be inconsistent with the required response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582–1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adobe Systems Incorporated (2005). Adobe Audition 1.5. San Jose, CA

  • Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus–response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (1999). Unconsciously controlled processing: The Stroop effect reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 449–455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1954). The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 191–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Stimulu-set location does not affect orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Research, 69, 106–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, S., Estevez, A. F., & Mari-Beffa, P. (2002). Stroop interference effects in partially colored Stroop words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 536–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1981). An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender. Perception and Psychophysics, 30, 459–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. J., & Barber, P. J. (1983). Interference effects in an auditory Stroop task: Congruence and correspondence. Acta Psychologica, 53, 183–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. D., & Blasko, D. G. (2005). Attentional interference in judgments of musical timbre: Individual differences in working memory. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 94–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamers, J. F., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintzman, D. L. (1976). Repetition and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–91). New York: Academic

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Brooks, L. R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception and concept formation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 18, 1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(3), 638–644

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organization (pp. 181–211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26, 201–211

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 383–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 304–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2001). Synethesia: strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClain, L. (1983). Stimulus–response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 266–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondor, T. A., Zatorre, R. J., & Terrio, N. A. (1998). Constraints on the selection of auditory information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 66–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, A. L. R., & Brandt, J. F. (1989). An auditory Stroop effect for pitch, loudness, and time. Brain and Language, 36, 592–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: essays in honour of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington: American Psychological Association

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (1999). E-Prime Software System. Pittsburg, PA

  • Roe, W. T., Wilsoncroft, W. E., & Griffiths, R. S. (1980). Effects of motor and verbal practice on the Stroop task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 647–650

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representations of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition (in press)

  • Schmit, V., & Davis, R. (1974). The role of hemispheric specialization in the analysis of Stroop stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 38, 149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Mewaldt, S. P., Acosta, E., Jr., & Hu, J. (1976). Processing auditory information: Interaction of two population stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 354–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory and Cognition, 13, 304–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, L. R., & Marsh, G. R. (1979). Changes in event related potentials during processing of Stroop stimuli. International Journal of Neuroscience, 9, 217–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus–response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus–response mapping and irrelevant stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 3–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. P515 Duff Roblin Bldg., Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 2N2

    Launa C. Leboe & Todd A. Mondor

Authors
  1. Launa C. Leboe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Todd A. Mondor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Launa C. Leboe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leboe, L.C., Mondor, T.A. Item-specific congruency effects in nonverbal auditory Stroop. Psychological Research 71, 568–575 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0049-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0049-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation