Dissociating Stimulus-Stimulus and Response-Response Effects in the Stroop Task.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The separate semantic and response competition interactions between colour and word processing in a manual Stroop task were evaluated by comparing three trial types. Identity trials are both semantically compatible and response compatible (e.g., BLUE in the colour blue), different response trials are both semantically incompatible and response incompatible (e.g., BLUE in the colour green, where blue and green have different response keys), and same response trials are semantically incompatible and response compatible (e.g., the word BLUE in the colour red, where blue and red have the same key press response). Ink colours were embedded in two different word types, colour words, and colour associates. The results using colour words replicated the findings of De Houwer (2003) and demonstrated both a semantic effect (a difference between same response trials and identity trials) and response competition (a difference between same response trials and different response trials). In contrast, the results using colour associates provided evidence for only a semantic effect. These findings support interpretations of the colour associate Stroop effect that attribute the effect to semantics, but challenge Klein's (1964) response competition account and Sharma and McKenna's (1998) claim that the effect of colour associates is dependent on verbal responding. The results confirm that the Stroop colour-word task appears to involve at least two mechanisms, a semantic mechanism and a response competition mechanism.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".