Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures
Date
2015-08-14Abstract
Conflict in the Stroop task is thought to come from
various stages of processing, including semantics. Two-to-one
response mappings, in which two response-set colors share a
common response location, have been used to isolate stimulus–stimulus (semantic) from stimulus–response conflict in
the Stroop task. However, the use of congruent trials as a
baseline means that the measured effects could be exaggerated
by facilitation, and recent research using neutral, non-colorword trials as a baseline has supported this notion. In the
present study, we sought to provide evidence for stimulus–
stimulus conflict using an oculomotor Stroop task and an early, preresponse pupillometric measure of effort. The results
provided strong (Bayesian) evidence for no statistical difference between two-to-one response-mapping trials and neutral
trials in both saccadic response latencies and preresponse
pupillometric measures, supporting the notion that the difference between same-response and congruent trials indexes facilitation in congruent trials, and not stimulus–stimulus conflict, thus providing evidence against the presence of
semantic conflict in the Stroop task. We also demonstrated
the utility of preresponse pupillometry in measuring Stroop
interference, supporting the idea that pupillary effects are not
simply a residue of making a response.
Description
The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.
Citation : Hasshim, N. and Parris, B.A. (2015) Assessing stimulus–stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77 (8), pp. 2601-2610
Peer Reviewed : Yes