The idea, developed in the context of visual attention, was that whichever word was attended first captured attention and the other was not processed sufficiently to produce additional interference (Kahneman & Chajczyk, 1983).
The apparent lack of increased interference from a second distracter, or from having two inconsistent rather than two consistent distracters, was first explained using a capture account. Understanding the degree to which multiple incongruent stimuli-within modality or across modalities-influence interference is our second empirical goal of this research, growing out of our first goal. Generally, no differences have been observed (Kahneman & Chajczyk, 1983 MacLeod & Bors, 2002 MacLeod & Hodder, 1998 Yee & Hunt, 1991) that is, interference has not been greater for multiple interfering visual words. Moreover, these studies have differed in the paradigms used for presenting the second stimulus and whether the distracters were integrated with or separate from the color stimulus. Only a few studies have investigated whether presenting two incongruent visual distracters increases interference relative to presenting only one incongruent visual distracter, or have compared the effects of pairs of visual distracters that were consistent or inconsistent with each other. This cross-modal auditory interference effect has since been replicated using trial-by-trial manipulations of word–color congruency (e.g., Elliot et al., 1998 Roelofs, 2005), more analogous to the standard visual procedure, but auditory interference was not directly compared to visual interference. They also suggested that the interfering effects of auditory and visual distracter words were additive. They showed that, relative to auditory controls (hearing letters of the alphabet or the word the presented repeatedly), hearing an auditory recording of random color words interfered with naming print colors. Cowan and Barron ( 1987) instead used the traditional oral response and the classic multiple color–word stimuli per card version of the Stroop task.
#Psyscope button box manual
However, their use of a manual response, where participants press buttons for colors, likely limited interference overall (see MacLeod, 1991). Thackray and Jones (1971) initially reported that cross-modal interference did not occur between auditory and visual stimuli in the Stroop task.
0 kommentar(er)
