Coloring Only a Single Letter Does Not Eliminate Color-Word Interference in a Vocal-Response Stroop Task: Automaticity Revealed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of an interference effect in naming the print color of color words (J. R. Stroop, 1935) suggests that responses associated with the irrelevant-word dimension of the display are activated involuntarily. In the present study, the author examined the conditions under which coloring a single letter in a word reduced interference in vocal responding (D. Kahneman & A. Henik, 1981) or eliminated it in manual responding (D. Besner, J. A. Stolz, & C. Boutilier, 1997). In Experiment 1, color-word interference was significant under vocal responding for the Besner et al. displays. In Experiment 2, the author replicated the Kahneman and Henik effect with the Besner et al. stimuli. The results of Experiment 3 showed that semantic effects are not eliminated by coloring only a single letter. Coloring a single letter does not prevent the activation of the irrelevant-word dimension of the colored color word.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".