Abstract
Stroop interference and facilitation effects were documented in the visual, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory modalities. This study extends the Stroop phenomena also for kinesthetic and haptic tasks. In a touch-enabled computer interface, participants touched and manipulated virtual objects (cylinders, cubes, and tiles), through a pen-like stylus, and identified their haptic qualities (weight, firmness, vibrations). Similarly, participants were stimulated with a mechanical force pushing their hands lightly towards a specific direction which they had to identify. While performing these identification tasks, participants were simultaneously presented with words or symbols that were congruent, neutral, or incongruent with the experienced kinesthetic/haptic sensations. Error rates and response times were affected in the following order: congruent < neutral < incongruent. As technologies advance into multisensory systems, engineers and designers can improve human-computer interactions by ensuring optimal congruence between all the inter- and intra-sensory elements in the display.
Highlights
The Stroop effects are among the most famous examples of interference and facilitation in the perception-cognitionaction loop
In the original “Color-Word” version, Stroop [1] found that naming the ink color of incompatible color words was much slower and more error prone than naming the ink color of control items, while naming the ink color of compatible color words was much faster and less error-prone than naming the color of a control item
Paired t-tests showed that when the arrow was congruent with the kinesthetic perception participants made errors only in 0.9% of the trials, significantly less (t(20) = −3.9, P < .001) than their errors when the arrow was incongruent with the kinesthetic perception (3.3%)
Summary
The Stroop effects are among the most famous examples of interference and facilitation in the perception-cognitionaction loop. In the original “Color-Word” version, Stroop [1] found that naming the ink color of incompatible color words (e.g., the word RED printed in green ink) was much slower and more error prone than naming the ink color of control items (e.g., the letters DDD printed in green), while naming the ink color of compatible color words (e.g., the word GREEN printed in green ink) was much faster and less error-prone than naming the color of a control item These effects occurred despite participants’ focus on their task— to rapidly name the ink colors of the words presented on a list—and it showed that for literate adults the processing of language is automatic and unconscious, and participants could not ignore the meaning of the words and were affected by them [1,2,3,4,5,6]. In a semantic relatedness judgments, faster RT were reported for word pairs with congruent iconic relations with their referents (e.g., the word ATTIC presented above the word BASEMENT) compared to pairs with a reverse iconic relation (e.g., STEM above BRANCH) [13]
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.
