Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T04:20:17.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Audio-visual Stroop matching task with first- and second-language color words and color associates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2024

Iva Šaban Open the ORCID record for Iva Šaban [Opens in a new window]  and
James R. Schmidt Open the ORCID record for James R. Schmidt [Opens in a new window]
Iva Šaban*
Affiliation:
LEAD-CNRS UMR5022, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France CRFDP, University of Rouen Normandy, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
James R. Schmidt
Affiliation:
LEAD-CNRS UMR5022, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France
*
Corresponding author: Iva Šaban, Email: iva.saban@univ-rouen.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the audio-visual Stroop matching task, participants compare one Stroop stimulus dimension (e.g., the color of a written word) to a second stimulus (e.g., a spoken word) and indicate whether these two stimuli match or mismatch. Slower responses on certain trials can be due to conflict which occurs between color representations (semantic conflict) or due to conflict between responses evoked by task comparisons (response conflict). The contribution of these conflicts has been investigated with color word distracters. This is the first study which explores how two types of first- and second-language words affect audio-visual matching. Native French speakers performed a bilingual Stroop matching task with intermixed French (L1) and English (L2) color words (Experiment 1) and color associates (Experiment 2) presented in congruent and incongruent colors simultaneously with spoken French color words. Participants were instructed to indicate whether the spoken word “matches” or “mismatches” the font color, while ignoring written word meaning. Interestingly, the results were similar for the critical “mismatch” trials for both French and English words. The responses were the fastest on trials in which task comparisons activate fewer response alternatives, supporting the assumption of the response conflict account.

Keywords

audio-visual matchingbetween-language interferenceresponse conflictsemantic conflictwithin-language interference
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , First View , pp. 1 - 32
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K. M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2014). Automaticity of word reading: Evidence from the semantic Stroop paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414540169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209396 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2014). Cognitive control in bilinguals: Advantages in Stimulus–Stimulus inhibition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 610–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000564 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, I. S. (2015). Behavioural measures of interference and facilitation in an audiovisual colour-word Stroop matching task. The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Caldas, A. L., Machado-Pinheiro, W., Daneyko, O., & Riggio, L. (2020). The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects. Psychological Research, 84(7), 1815–1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01191-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldas, A. L., Machado-Pinheiro, W., Souza, L. B., Motta-Ribeiro, G. C., & David, I. A. (2012). The Stroop matching task presents conflict at both the response and nonresponse levels: An event-related potential and electromyography study: Stroop matching task and conflict. Psychophysiology, 49(9), 1215–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01407.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, K., & Stahl, C. (2017). Two distinct patterns of interference in between-attribute Stroop matching tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(2), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1253-x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, F. N. (1971). Color-naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80057-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, F. N. (1973). Interference and facilitation for color naming with separate bilateral presentations of the word and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99(3), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egeth, H. E., Blecker, D. L., & Kamlet, A. S. (1969). Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task. Perception & Psychophysics, 6(6), 355–356. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eviatar, Z., Zaidel, E., & Wickens, T. (1994). Nominal and physical decision criteria insame-different judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 56(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211691 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, S.-P., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Alva, L. (1981). Intralanguage vs. Interlanguage Stroop effects in two types of writing systems. Memory & Cognition, 9(6), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202355 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrand, L., & Augustinova, M. (2014). Differential effects of viewing positions on standard versus semantic Stroop interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0507-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flowers, J. H. (1975). “Sensory” interference in a word-color matching task. Perception & Psychophysics, 18(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, M. O., & Glaser, W. R. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2006). New Data Analysis of the Stroop Matching Task Calls for a Reevaluation of Theory. Psychological Science, 17(2), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01670.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1170–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1170 Google ScholarPubMed
Green, M. L., Locker, L., Boyer, T. W., & Sturz, B. R. (2016). Stroop-like interference in a match-to-sample task: Further evidence for semantic competition? Learning and Motivation, 56, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2016.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamers, J. F., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Bilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiyak, H. A. (1982). Interlingual interference in naming color words. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(1), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. The American Journal of Psychology, 77(4), 576. https://doi.org/10.2307/1420768 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorentz, E., McKibben, T., Ekstrand, C., Gould, L., Anton, K., & Borowsky, R. (2016). Disentangling genuine semantic Stroop effects in reading from contingency effects: On the need for two neutral baselines. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00386 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, C. R. (1999). Semantic competition as the basis of Stroop interference: Evidence from color-word matching tasks. Psychological Science, 10(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mägiste, E. (1982). Automaticity and interference in bilinguals. Psychological Research, 44(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, J. (1969). Categories of interference: Verbal mediation and conflict in card sorting. British Journal of Psychology, 60(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01204.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In Attention and performance XI (pp. 133–146). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448.Google ScholarPubMed
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/ Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Information Processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Preston, M. S., & Lambert, W. E. (1969). Interlingual interference in a bilingual version of the Stroop color-word task. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80079-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Privitera, A. J., Momenian, M., & Weekes, B. S. (2023). Modeling the bilingual advantage: Do results differ between analysis methods? Ampersand, 11, 100134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risko, E. F., Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2006). Filling a gap in the semantic gradient: Color associates and response set effects in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193849 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Šaban, I., & Schmidt, J. R. (2021). Stimulus and response conflict from a second language: Stroop interference in weakly-bilingual and recently-trained languages. Acta Psychologica, 218, 103360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103360 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, J. R., & Cheesman, J. (2005). Dissociating stimulus-stimulus and response-response effects in the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 59(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087468 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, J. R., Hartsuiker, R. J., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Interference in Dutch–French bilinguals: Stimulus and response conflict in intra- and interlingual Stroop. Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K. (1977). Conceptual encoding and locus of the Stroop effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(2), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (1998). Differential components of the manual and vocal Stroop tasks. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201181 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, J. R., & Berbaum, K. (1988). Effect of irrelevant information on retrieval time for relevant information. Acta Psychologica, 67(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90023-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies on interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, J. W., & Presnell, L. M. (1999). Color diagnosticity in object recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(6), 1140–1153. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207619 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treisman, A., & Fearnley, S. (1969). The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words. Nature, 222(5192), 437–439. https://doi.org/10.1038/222437a0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Leiser, D. (1990). Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(5), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.5.760 Google Scholar
Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13(4), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M., Kiss, G., & Armstrong, C. (1988). University of Oxford, EAT: the Edinburgh associative corpus. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12024/1251 Google Scholar