What is it about?
20 pianists were tested in a Stroop-like task. The stimuli were either notes or the names of notes printed in congruent or noncongruent positions on the staff. Subjects were required to respond verbally by reading the name of the note or manually by pressing appropriate piano keys. Eight experimental tasks were designed, forming four combinations of stimulus-response compatibility (high or low) and congruity between relevant and nonrelevant cues (high or low). Results demonstrated that these two factors were additive. Highest interference was found when both factors were low, and lowest interference was found when both were high. The findings were interpreted both in terms of a linear-stage model of processing and a notion of multiple processing resources.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
As opposed to this linear-stage model of processing, one should also consider the form of non-linear processing discussed in this more recent work: Glicksohn, J. (2008). Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: Microgenesis in the 21st century. In G. J. W. Smith & I. M. Carlsson (Eds.), Process and personality: Actualization of the personal world with process-oriented methods (pp. 241-262). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Perspectives
When performance of a cognitive task is viewed as a process having discrete stages, then one can investigate to what degree different manipulations can influence one or more of these stages. While this might well be the case for the Stroop-like task investigated here, the very notion of discrete and non-interacting phases of a cognitive process is not the type of view that I have been promoting over the years since the publication of this paper. More on that will be found with reference to my work on the microgenesis of cognition.
Professor Joseph Glicksohn
Bar-Ilan University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Stimulus congruity and S-R compatibility as determinants of interference in a Stroop-like task., Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, January 1985, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/h0080069.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
