A brief review of three manipulations of the Stroop task focusing on the automaticity of semantic access

Valentin Flaudias; Pierre-Michel Llorca

doi:10.5334/pb.am

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Summary of experiments studying the effect of coloring a letter differently from others in a Stroop task

Study	Exp.	NP	CLL	Coloring of remaining Letters	SE Classical All letters	SE Classical Single letter	SE Associated All letters	ES Associated Single letter	Control Condition	response modality
Augustinova & Ferrand (2007)	1	21	Initial	A single color from the response set	80 ms^***	56 ms^***	24 ms^**	18 ms^*	Neutral Words	Vocal
Augustinova & Ferrand (2007)	2	24	Initial	Gray	91 ms^***	59 ms^***	52 ms^*	52 ms^*	Neutral Words	Vocal
Augustinova et al. (2010)	1	79	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	60 ms^***	18 ms^***	18 ms^***	22 ms^***	Neutral Words	Vocal
Augustinova et al. (2010)	2	67	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	80 ms^***	46 ms^***	12 ms^*	19 ms^*	Neutral Words	Vocal
Augustinova et al. (2010)			OVP	A single color from the response set	102 ms^***	31 ms^***	16 ms^**	20 ms^*	Neutral Words	Vocal
Besnet et al.¹ (1997)	1	64	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	103 ms 67 ms	72 ms 50 ms	XX XX	XX XX	Congruents pseudohomophones	Manual
Besnet et al.¹ (1997)	2	64	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	34 ms	-1 ms	XX	XX	non-words	Manual
Besner & Stolz² (1999a)	1	22	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	78 ms^**	21 ms^**	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Besner & Stolz² (1999a)	2	34	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	62 ms^**	25 ms^**	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Besner & Stolz² (1999a)	3	45	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	XX	1 ms^ns	XX	XX	non-words (idem Besner et al. 1997)	Manual
Besner & Stolz² (1999a)	4	35	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	XX	9 ms^ns	XX	XX	non-words (idem Besner et al. 97)	Manual
Besner & Stolz (1999b)	1	46	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	31 ms^**	1 ms^ns	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Besner & Stolz (1999b)	2	18	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	39 ms^***	-1 ms^ns	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Besner & Stolz (1999b)	3	55	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	30 ms^**	20 ms^*	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Besner (2001)		48	Initial, Middle, End	White	93 ms^**	39 ms^**	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Brown et al. (2002)	1	36	Middle	Black	190 ms^* 115 ms^*	108 ms^* 90 ms^*	XX XX	XX XX	Congruents Neutral	Vocal
Brown et al. (2002)	2	35	Middle	Black	78 ms^* 58 ms^*	60 ms^* 37 ms^*	XX XX	XX XX	Congruents Neutral	Manual
Brown et al. (2002)	3	42	Middle	Black	108 ms^*	72 ms^*	XX	XX	Neutral	Vocal
Brown et al. (2002)	4	42(idem3)	Middle	Black	41 ms^*	20 ms^*	XX	XX	Neutral	Manual
Brown et al. (2002)	5	32	Middle	Black	50 ms^*	33 ms^*	XX	XX	Neutral	Vocal
Catena et al. (2002)	1	16	Randomly	White	52 ms^*	8 ms^ns	XX	XX	Neutral pseudohomophones	Manual
Danziger et al. (2002)	1	22	All letters Initial Middle End	Gray	52 ms^*** XX XX XX	XX 25 ms^ns(p<.09) 32ms^* 63ms^***	XX XX XX XX	XX XX XX XX	“XXXXX”	Manual
Danziger et al. (2002)	2	20	All letters Initial (few letters) End (few letters)	Gray	39ms^*** XX XX	XX 8 ms^ns 32 ms^**	XX XX XX	XX XX XX	“XXXXX”	Manual
Danziger et al. (2002)	3	20	All letters Initial (few letters) End (few letters)	Gray	14 ms^ns XX XX	XX 1 ms^ns 29 ms^*	XX XX XX	XX XX XX	“XXXXX” or “MMMM” or “WWWWWW” or “YYYY”	Manual
Küper et al. (2012)	1	24	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	86 ms^***	42 ms^***	XX	XX	Neutral Words	Vocal
Küper et al. (2012)	2	24	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	68 ms ^***	50 ms^***	XX	XX	Neutral Words	Vocal
Manwell et al. (2004)	1	16	Initial, Middle, End	A single color from the response set	149 ms^***	49 ms^***	28 ms^**	7 ms^ns	Neutral Words	Vocal
Manwell et al. (2004)	na ª	16	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	nd	nd	nd	18 ms^**	Neutral Words	Vocal
Marmurek (2003)	1a	30	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	43 ms^***	18 ms^*	XX	XX	non-words (idem Besner et al.1997)	Manual
Marmurek (2003)	1b	30	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	47 ms^***	42 ms^***	XX	XX	non-words (idem Besner et al. 1997)	Vocal
Marmurek (2003)	2	48	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	65 ms^***	31 ms^***	XX	XX	non-words (idem Besner et al. 1997)	Vocal
Monahan (2001)	1	64	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	77 ms^*	52 ms^*	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Monahan (2001)	2	64	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	55 ms^*	42 ms^*	XX	XX	Congruents	Manual
Monahan (2001)	4	57	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	78 ms^*	63 ms^*	XX	XX	Neutral Words	Manual
Monahan (2001)	5	63	Initial, Middle, End	Gray	83 ms^* 75 ms^*	59 ms^* 50 ms^*	XX XX	XX XX	Congruents Neutral Words	Manual Manual
Parris et al. (2007)	1	48	All letters Initial OVP Middle End	Gray	105 ms^*** XX XX XX XX	XX 74 ms^* 116 ms^* 70 ms^* 46 ms^*	XX XX XX XX XX	XX XX XX XX XX	Neutral Words	Vocal
Parris et al. (2007)	2	20	Initial OVP End	Gray	XX XX XX	38 ms^(p<.062) 87 ms^ 40 ms^	XX XX XX	XX XX XX	Neutral Words	Vocal

[i] Note. NP: number of participants; CLL: Cued letter location; SE: Stroop Effect; ns: not significant; nd: not available: ^*p<.05; ^**p<.01 ; ^***p<.001

¹ No results of simple effects in this study. Only the effects of interactions which showed that the classic Stroop effect decreased in the single letter coloring condition was reported

² See Besner and Stolz (2001)’s Retraction of results which are not reproducible

Table 2

Summary of experiments studying the effect of the presence of others on a Stroop task

Study	Exp.	NP	Presence type	SE classical	SE Associated	Others particularities	Control Condition	Modality of answer
Augustinova & Ferrand (2012b)	1	41	Alone simple presence	141 ms^* 57 ms^*	78 ms^* 59 ms^*	Simple presence	“XXXXX”	Vocal
Augustinova & Ferrand (2012b)	1	92	Alone simple presence	92 ms^* 68 ms^*	18 ms^* 18 ms^*	Simple presence	“neutral words”	Vocal
Dumas et al. (2005)	1	10 10 11 11	Alone Slower co-actor Similar co-actor Faster co-actor	49 ms^* 57 ms^* 45 ms^* 10 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Co- action situation	“XXXXX”	Manual
Dumas et al. (2005)	2	10 10 11 11	Alone Slower similar faster	94 ms^* 77 ms^* 73 ms^* 17 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	No presence, just a comparison of results	“XXXXX”	Manual
Huguet et al. (1999)	1	18 22 22 24	Alone Non attentive Non visible Attentive	170 ms^* 119 ms^* 101 ms^* 71 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Same sex as participant, simple presence	“XXXXX”	Manual
Huguet et al. (1999)	2	80	Alone Slower co-actor Similar co-actor Faster co-actor	90 ms^* 77 ms^* 50 ms^* 29 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Co- action situation	“XXXXX”	Manual
Huguet et al. (2004)	1 (no reward)	10 10 10 9	Alone Slower co-actor Similar co-actor Faster co-actor	90 ms^* 32 ms^* 43 ms^* 54 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Co- action situation without reward	“XXXXX”	Manual
Huguet et al. (2004)	1 (with reward)	8 9 10 9	Alone Slower co-actor Similar co-actor Faster co-actor	81 ms^* 28 ms^* 25 ms^* 64 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Co- action situation with reward of 15 € if good results	“XXXXX”	Manual
Klauer et al. (2008)	1	62	Alone (in first) Simple presence (in first) Alone (in second) Simple presence (in second)	168 ms^* 69 ms^* 53 ms^* 62 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	With impression’s task	“XXXXX”	Manual
Klauer et al. (2008)			Alone (in first) Simple presence (in first) Alone (in second) Simple presence (in second)	94 ms^* 105 ms^* 63 ms^* 47ms^*	XX XX XX XX	Without impression’s task	“XXXXX”	Manual
Klauer et al. (2008)	2	80	Alone (in first) Simple presence (in first) Alone (in second) Simple presence (in second)	141ms^* 99 ms^* 54 ms^* 64 ms^*	XX XX XX XX	No psychology students	“XXXXX”	Manual
Klauer et al. (2008)			Alone (in first) Simple presence (in first) Alone (in second) Simple presence (in second)	59 ms^* 50 ms^* 43 ms^* 53ms^*	XX XX XX XX		Neutral words	Manual

[i] Note. NP: number of participants; SE : Stroop Effect ; ns: not significant; nd: not available : *p<.05; **p<.01 ; ***p<.001

Table 3

Summary of experiments studying the effect of suggestion on a Stroop task

Study	Expt.	NP	Sensibility to hypnosis	SE classical with suggestion	SE classical without suggestion	SE associated with suggestion	SE associated without suggestion	Control Condition	Modality of Answer	Under Hypnosis
Augustinova & Ferrand (2012a)	1	28	Sensitive	31 ms^**	70 ms^**	17 ms^**	18 ms^**	Neutral words	Vocal	No
Augustinova & Ferrand (2012a)	2	15	Sensitive	114 ms^**	146 ms^**	22 ms^**	18 ms^**	Neutral words	Vocal	No
McLeod & Sheehan (2003)	1	1	Sensitive	37 ms -2 ms 111 ms 13 ms	93 ms¹ 102 ms¹			“XXXX” Congruents	Vocal	No Yes No Yes
Raz et al. (2002)	1	32	Sensitive Not sensitive Sensitive Not sensitive	-2 ms^ns 87 ms^* 5 ms^ns 121 ms^*	112 ms^* 79 ms^* 157 ms^* 104 ms^*			Neutral words Congruents	Manual	Yes
Raz et al. (2003)	1	12	Sensitive Not sensitive Sensitive Not sensitive	19 ms^ns -12 ms^ns 22 ms^ns 34 ms^td(p=.096)	102 ms^ 129 ms^ 135 ms^ 107 ms^	SE blur vision 71 ms^* 93 ms^* 107 ms^* 139 ms^*		Neutral words Congruents	Manual	Yes
Raz et al. ² (2005)	fMRI ERP	8	Sensitive	41 ms^* 9 ms^ns	139 ms^ 90 ms^			Congruents	Manual	Yes
Raz et al. (2006)	1	25	Sensitive Sensitive	53 ms^* 77 ms^* 43 ms^* 76 ms^*	94 ms^* 132 ms^* 78 ms^* 116 ms^*			Neutral words Congruents Neutral words Congruents	Manual	Yes No
Raz et al. (2007)	1	49	Sensitive	6 ms 16 ms^***	78 ms^* 118 ms^*			Neutral words Congruents	Manual	No
Raz & Campbell³ (2011)	1	49	Sensitive Not sensitive	7 ms^ns 46 ms^***	84 ms^* 89 ms^*			Neutral words	Manual	No
Raz & Campbell³ (2011)		49	Sensitive Not sensitive	18 ms^ 65 ms^*	125 ms^* 109 ms^*			Congruents	Manual	No

[i] Note 1. NP: number of participants; SE: Stroop Effect; ns: not significant; nd: not available: ^*p<.05; ^**p<.01; ^***p<.001

Note 2. The study of Goldfarb et al.(2011) reported only p-value and not the size in ms of the Stroop effect. It’s why this study doesn’t appear in this table.

¹ Averages that we have calculated from the three practice blocks. The fact that this study is on a single participant explains the lack of p values

² For this study, only data of participants sensitive to the suggestion in the incongruent condition are reported

³ The data concerning the “negative priming” are not reported here.

A brief review of three manipulations of the Stroop task focusing on the automaticity of semantic access

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Paradigm

My account