Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 543–549 | Cite as

Behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of semantic and response conflict in the Stroop task

  • Maria AugustinovaEmail author
  • Laetitia Silvert
  • Ludovic Ferrand
  • Pierre Michel Llorca
  • Valentin Flaudias
Brief Report


By combining the semantic Stroop paradigm (e.g., Klein in American Journal of Psychology 77:576–588, 1964) with a single-letter coloring (SLC) procedure (e.g., Besner et al. in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4:221–225, 1997), this research investigated whether the frequently reported Stroop-related event-related potential (ERP) effect arising about 400 ms after stimulus onset (Ninc) is sensitive to the semantic and/or the response conflict. Consistent with our past findings (e.g., Augustinova et al. in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17:827-833, 2010), SLC speeded up reaction times for standard-incongruent items only, indicating that SLC reduced the response conflict that these (but not color-associated and neutral) items involve. Ninc amplitudes were more negative for standard-incongruent and color-associated than for color-neutral items. Importantly, this difference was not modulated by SLC. Hence, the behavioral and ERP results conjointly suggest that the Stroop-related Ninc is sensitive to semantic rather than to response and/or general conflict.


Semantic conflict Single-letter coloring Stroop interference Ninc Response conflict 



All the authors wish to thank Pierre Chausse for technical support and Derek Besner, Martin Heil, and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful advice, comments, and suggestions on previous drafts of the manuscript.


  1. Appelbaum, L. G., Meyerhoff, K. L., & Woldorff, M. G. (2009). Priming and backward influences in the human brain: Processing interactions during the Stroop interference effect. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2508–2521.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2007). First-letter coloring and the Stroop effect. L'Année Psychologique, 107, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2014a). Social priming of dyslexia and reduction of the Stroop effect: What component of the Stroop effect is actually reduced? Cognition, 130, 442–454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2014b). Automaticity of Word Reading: Evidence from the Semantic Stroop Paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  6. Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coderre, E., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W. J. (2011). Electrophysiological measures of conflict detection and resolution in the Stroop task. Brain research, 1413, 51–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Ferrand, L., & Augustinova, M. (2014). Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanslmayr, S., Pastötter, B., Bäuml, K. H., Gruber, S., Wimber, M., & Klimesch, W. (2008). The electrophysiological dynamics of interference during the Stroop task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 215–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Killikelly, C., & Szűcs, D. (2013). Asymmetry in stimulus and response conflict processing across the adult lifespan: ERP and EMG evidence. Cortex, 49, 2888–2903.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the effect of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Küper, K., & Heil, M. (2012). Attentional focus manipulations affect naming latencies of neutral but not incongruent Stroop trials. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Liotti, M., Woldorff, M. G., Perez, R., III, & Mayberg, H. S. (2000). An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 38, 701–711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Manwell, L. A., Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2004). Single letter coloring and spatial cueing eliminates a semantic contribution to the Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Monahan, J. S. (2001). Coloring single Stroop elements: Reducing automaticity or slowing color processing? Journal of General Psychology, 128, 98–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Szűcs, D., & Soltész, F. (2010). Stimulus and response conflict in the color–word Stroop task: A combined electro-myography and event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1325, 63–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Augustinova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laetitia Silvert
    • 1
  • Ludovic Ferrand
    • 1
  • Pierre Michel Llorca
    • 2
  • Valentin Flaudias
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (LAPSCO – UMR CNRS 6024)CNRS and Université Blaise PascalClermont-FerrandFrance
  2. 2.CHU Clermont-Ferrand and Université d’AuvergneClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations