Abstract
The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm and the Stroop color-word interference task are often assumed to reflect the same underlying processes. On the basis of a PRP study, Dell’Acqua et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14: 717-722, 2007) argued that this assumption is incorrect. In this article, we first discuss the definitions of Stroop- and picture-word interference. Next, we argue that both effects consist of at least four components that correspond to four characteristics of the distractor word: (1) response-set membership, (2) task relevance, (3) semantic relatedness, and (4) lexicality. On the basis of this theoretical analysis, we conclude that the typical Stroop effect and the typical PWI effect mainly differ in the relative contributions of these four components. Finally, the results of an interference task are reported in which only the nature of the target – color or picture – was manipulated and all other distractor task characteristics were kept constant. The results showed no difference between color and picture targets with respect to all behavioral measures examined. We conclude that the assumption that the same processes underlie verbal interference in color and picture naming is warranted.
Highlights
The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm and the Stroop color-word interference task are often assumed to reflect the same underlying processes
With respect to the PWI task, Glaser and Düngelhoff (1984), for instance, argued: BThe color of the Stroop stimulus may be considered the limiting case of the picture component.^ (p. 640). This idea is supported by the many similarities in empirical findings obtained with the two paradigms and the – often implicit – assumption that processes underlying the naming of a color and a picture do not differ in a crucial way
We first analyzed the RTs per stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) interval per task, the typical procedure in Stroop- and PWI research (e.g., Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984; Glaser & Glaser, 1982; Starreveld & La Heij, 1996)
Summary
The picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm and the Stroop color-word interference task are often assumed to reflect the same underlying processes. Stroop (1935), participants were required to name the ink color of a word or a Many of these variants of the Stroop task resemble the original paradigm in that they typically require a verbal reaction to a (often, but not always, nonverbal) target stimulus in the context of an (often, but not always, verbal) distractor. With respect to two variants of the Stroop task, the original color-naming task and the picture-word interference task ( the PWI task; e.g., Glaser & Düngelhoff, 1984; Lupker, 1979; Rosinski et al, 1975), many researchers agreed that they are very similar with respect to the mechanisms involved (see, e.g., McLeod, 1991; Van Maanen, Van Rijn, & Borst, 2009). In research on language production the results obtained with two tasks are used interchangeably (e.g., Mulatti & Coltheart, 2014; Roelofs, 2003; Roelofs & Piai, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
