Abstract

The automaticity of reading is often explored through the Stroop effect, whereby color-naming is affected by color words. Color associates (e.g., “sky”) also produce a Stroop effect, suggesting that automatic reading occurs through to the level of semantics, even when reading sub-lexically (e.g., the pseudohomophone “skigh”). However, several previous experiments have confounded congruency with contingency learning, whereby faster responding occurs for more frequent stimuli. Contingency effects reflect a higher frequency-pairing of the word with a font color in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition due to the limited set of congruent pairings. To determine the extent to which the Stroop effect can be attributed to contingency learning of font colors paired with lexical (word-level) and sub-lexical (phonetically decoded) letter strings, as well as assess facilitation and interference relative to contingency effects, we developed two neutral baselines: each one matched on pair-frequency for congruent and incongruent color words. In Experiments 1 and 3, color words (e.g., “blue”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “bloo”) produced significant facilitation and interference relative to neutral baselines, regardless of whether the onset (i.e., first phoneme) was matched to the color words. Color associates (e.g., “ocean”) and their pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin”), however, showed no significant facilitation or interference relative to onset matched neutral baselines (Experiment 2). When onsets were unmatched, color associate words produced consistent facilitation on RT (e.g., “ocean” vs. “dozen”), but pseudohomophones (e.g., “oshin” vs. “duhzen”) failed to produce facilitation or interference. Our findings suggest that the Stroop effects for color and associated stimuli are sensitive to the type of neutral baseline used, as well as stimulus type (word vs. pseudohomophone). In general, contingency learning plays a large role when repeating congruent items more than incongruent items, but appropriate pair-frequency matched neutral baselines allow for the assessment of genuine facilitation and interference. Using such baselines, we found reading processes proceed to a semantic level for familiar words, but not pseudohomophones (i.e., phonetic decoding). Such assessment is critical for separating the effects of genuine congruency from contingency during automatic word reading in the Stroop task, and when used with color associates, isolates the semantic contribution.

Highlights

  • Since its instantiation over 80 years ago, the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) has been widely investigated as a basic and robust phenomenon in cognitive psychology, and yet the source of this effect is still in contention (Melara and Algom, 2003; Levin and Tzelgov, 2014; see MacLeod, 1991 for a comprehensive review)

  • There is an influence of both context in terms of the neutral baselines included, and pair-frequency learning that modulates the effects of color-words, color associates, and their PH counterparts

  • In order to account for these factors, the appropriate pair-frequency neutral baselines described here provide a basis for elucidating the mechanisms of facilitation and interference, while controlling for artifacts and inherent design biases of the Stroop paradigm

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since its instantiation over 80 years ago, the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) has been widely investigated as a basic and robust phenomenon in cognitive psychology, and yet the source of this effect is still in contention (Melara and Algom, 2003; Levin and Tzelgov, 2014; see MacLeod, 1991 for a comprehensive review). Relative to a neutral baseline, facilitation in the congruent condition, and/or interference in the incongruent condition. As semantic and response conflict models are the prevailing theoretical accounts of the Stroop effect, a significant literature has been developed around stimuli that evoke semantic conflict, but not response conflict, in order to tease apart the influences of the two. Demonstrating evidence for the semantic account, Klein (1964) first used color associates (CAs), words that are strongly associated with a particular color, (e.g., “sky” for the color blue) as stimuli in the Stroop task and found greater interference with incongruent CAs relative to common words unrelated to color (e.g., put). As CAs appears to demonstrate significant facilitation and interference, there is strong support for semantic processing playing a significant role in the Stroop effect

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call