Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 425–431 | Cite as

Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference

  • Ludovic Ferrand
  • Maria Augustinova
Brief Report

Abstract

From their finding that the substantial magnitude of the Stroop interference that occurs when a participant’s initial fixation is directed at the optimal viewing position is eliminated when the initial fixation is directed at the end of a word, Perret and Ducrot (2010) concluded that initial fixation at the latter position likely prevents reading. In the present study, we further examined this interpretation. To this end, the two conflict dimensions (semantic vs. response) that were confounded in the original work were separated within a semantically based Stroop paradigm (Neely & Kahan, 2001) that was administered with vocal (instead of manual) responses. In line with past findings showing greater interference in the vocal task, the reported results indicated that standard Stroop interference was reduced, but not eliminated, thus making the initial interpretation in terms of reading suppression unlikely. This conclusion is further strengthened by the presence of isolated semantic interference, the magnitude of which remained significant and was unaffected by viewing position. In sum, these results show that initial fixation of the end of a word simply reduces (nonsemantic) response competition.

Keywords

Stroop interference Viewing position Word reading Automaticity Semantic activation 

Notes

Author Note

Both authors thank Stéphanie Ducrot for sharing the computer program used in their original study, Johanna Paul for running the experiment, and Melvin Yap, Derek Besner, Benjamin Parris, and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful advice, comments, and suggestions on previous drafts of the manuscript.

References

  1. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2007). Influence de la présentation bicolore des mots sur l’effet Stroop [First-letter coloring and the Stroop effect]. L’Année Psychologique, 107, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012a). The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: New evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1213–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012b). Suggestion does not de-automatize word reading: Evidence from the semantically based Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 521–527. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0217-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2013). Social priming of dyslexia and reduction of the Stroop effect: What component of the Stroop effect is actually reduced? Revised manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  5. Augustinova, M., Flaudias, V., & Ferrand, L. (2010). Single-letter coloring and spatial cuing do not eliminate or reduce a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 827–833. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besner, D. (2001). The myth of ballistic processing: Evidence from Stroop’s paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 324–330. doi: 10.3758/BF03196168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, T. L., Gore, C. L., & Carr, T. H. (2002a). Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: Is word recognition “automatic”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 220–240. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, T. L., Joneleit, K., Robinson, C. S., & Brown, C. R. (2002b). Automaticity in reading and the Stroop task: Testing the limits of involuntary word processing. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 515–543.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brysbaert, M., & Nazir, T. (2005). Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing position. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 216–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, Z., Lei, X., Ding, C., Li, H., & Chen, A. (2013). The neural mechanisms of semantic and response conflicts: An fMRI study of practice-related effects in the Stroop task. NeuroImage, 66, 577–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353–359. doi: 10.3758/BF03194393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flaudias, V., Silvert, L., Augustinova, M., Llorca, P.-M., & Ferrand, L. (2013). An electrophysiological investigation of single-letter coloring and spatial cuing in the Stroop task. Submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
  14. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi: 10.3758/BF03195503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, T. R., McGowan, V. A., & Paterson, K. B. (2012). Reading with a filtered fovea: The influence of visual quality at the point of fixation during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1078–1084. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0307-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the effect of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880–913. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.880 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lachter, J., Ruthruff, E., Lien, M.-C., & McCann, R. S. (2008). Is attention needed for word identification? Evidence from the Stroop paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 950–955. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luo, C. R. (1999). Semantic competition as the basis of the Stroop interference: Evidence from color-word matching tasks. Psychological Science, 10, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nazir, T. A., Jacobs, A. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26, 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. (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 honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Regan, J. K., & Jacobs, A. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185–197. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.185 Google Scholar
  24. O’Regan, J. K., Lévy-Schoen, A., Pynte, J., & Brugaillère, B. (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 250–257. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.2.250 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Parris, B. A., Sharma, D., & Weekes, B. (2007). An optimal viewing position effect in the Stroop task when only one letter is the color carrier. Experimental Psychology, 54, 273–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perret, P., & Ducrot, S. (2010). Viewing-position effects in the Stroop task: Initial fixation position modulates Stroop effects in fully colored words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 550–555. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.4.550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Risko, E. F., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2005). Basic processes in reading: Is visual word recognition obligatory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 119–124. doi: 10.3758/BF03196356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2005). Stroop dilution revisited: Evidence for domain-specific, limited-capacity processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt, J. R., & Cheesman, J. (2005). Dissociating stimulus–stimulus and response–response effects in the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 132–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 52–58. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1033–1040. doi: 10.3758/BF03201181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smilek, D., Solman, G. J. F., Murawski, P., & Carriere, J. S. A. (2009). The eyes fixate the optimal viewing position of task-irrelevant words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 57–61. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: A functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 27, 497–504. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.042 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waechter, S., Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (2011). Basic processes in reading: Spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to orthographic and semantic processing. Visual Cognition, 19, 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yao-N’Dré, M., Castet, E., & Vitu, F. (2013). The optimal viewing position effect in the lower visual field. Vision Research, 76, 114–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS and University Blaise PascalLaboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (LAPSCO–UMR CNRS 6024)Clermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations