Assessing stimulus--stimulus (semantic) conflict in the Stroop task using saccadic two-to-one color response mapping and preresponse pupillary measures

Hasshim, Nabil; Parris, Benjamin A

Abstract

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-color-word 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.

Citation

Hasshim, N., & 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, and Psychophysics, 77, 2601--2610. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0971-9

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Aug 14, 2015
• Deposit Date: Sep 16, 2023
• Journal: Attention, Perception, \& Psychophysics
• Print ISSN: 1943-3921
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 77
• Pages: 2601--2610
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0971-9