MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001866960 · doi:10.1080/00221300309601285

Coloring Only a Single Letter Does Not Eliminate Color-Word Interference in a Vocal-Response Stroop Task: Automaticity Revealed

2003· article· en· W2001866960 on OpenAlex
Harvey H. C. Marmurek

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of General Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomaticityStroop effectWord (group theory)Color termSpeech recognitionColoredPsychologyTask (project management)Interference (communication)Cognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceCognitionNeuroscienceChannel (broadcasting)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it