Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference

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.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the basis of the view that visual word recognition is automatic, many studies have supported the idea that visual word recognition does not require spatial attention (e.g., Brown, Gore, Carr 2002 and Brown, Joneleit, Robinson et al. 2002; Lachter et al., 2008; Neely & Kahan, 2001; but see, e.g., Lachter et al., 2004; Waechter, Besner, & Stolz, 2011, for a contrasting view).

  2. 2.

    The underlying idea here is that lexical–semantic processing typically reflects the default set that participants adopt. Note, however, that this account has been challenged by results suggesting that the activation of lexical–semantic representations can be temporarily controlled (see, e.g., Besner, 2001; Risko, Stolz, & Besner, 2005).

  3. 3.

    But see, for instance, Besner (2001), Risko et al. (2005), and Roberts and Besner (2005), for a different view.

  4. 4.

    For the sake of brevity, we do not report the overall analyses on either response times or percentages of errors. However, the data showed no signs of a speed–accuracy trade-off.

  5. 5.

    We are grateful to one of the reviewers, Benjamin Parris, for raising this issue and the one that has just been discussed.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the effect of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nazir, T. A., Jacobs, A. M., & O’Regan, J. K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26, 810–821.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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

    PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ludovic Ferrand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrand, L., Augustinova, M. Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 425–431 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0507-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Stroop interference
  • Viewing position
  • Word reading
  • Automaticity
  • Semantic activation