Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Volume 4, Issue 10, 1 October 2000, Pages 383-391
Journal home page for Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Review
Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01530-8Get rights and content

Abstract

In the classic Stroop effect, naming the color of an incompatible color word (e.g. the word RED printed in green ink; say, ‘green’) is much slower and more error-prone than is naming the color of a control item (e.g. XXX or CAT printed in green; say ‘green’). This seemingly simple interference phenomenon has long provided a fertile testing ground for theories of the cognitive and neural components of selective attention. We present a sketch of the behavioral phenomenon, focusing on the idea that the relative automaticity of the two dimensions determines the direction and the degree of interdimensional interference between them. We then present an outline of current parallel processing explanations that instantiate this automaticity account, and we show how existing interference data are captured by such models. We also consider how Stroop facilitation (faster response of ‘red’ to RED printed in red) can be understood. Along the way, we describe research on two tasks that have emerged from the basic Stroop phenomenon – negative priming and the emotional Stroop task. Finally, we provide a survey of brain imaging research, highlighting the possible roles of the anterior cingulate in maintaining attentional set and in processing conflict or competition situations.

Section snippets

The critical balance of automaticity

Given these opposing forces, it should come as little surprise that conflict situations arise. The classic illustration is the Stroop effect5, named after the psychologist who created the task, John Ridley Stroop6. Beginning with Klein's rediscovery and extension of the effect7, literally thousands of studies have explored this deceptively simple yet provocative phenomenon since Stroop's original dissertation8. As Box 1 demonstrates, it is a compelling experience. Fig. 1 shows four of the many

Parallel processing supplants serial processing

Cohen et al.11 used the MacLeod and Dunbar data as a starting point for creating a parallel distributed processing (‘connectionist’) model of performance in the Stroop task, one of the earliest and best known of such models. The architecture of the model is shown in Fig. 2. Processing occurs via activation spreading between units along pathways of different strengths. Presenting a stimulus activates input units corresponding to the word and color in the stimulus. The degree to which word

Facilitation, the ‘flip side’ of the Stroop effect

Virtually all models of Stroop interference also predict Stroop facilitation – that responses will be faster and/or more accurate to congruent stimuli (RED printed in red; say ‘red’) than to control stimuli (e.g. XXX printed in red; say ‘red’). Indeed, faster responses are often seen in the congruent condition. But is the congruent word actually helping in the naming of the color, as the concept of facilitation suggests?

Existing accounts, including the parallel processing view, portray

Localization of the Stroop effect by brain-imaging studies

Investigation of the neural correlates of Stroop performance has become a major research focus with the advent of functional neuroimaging techniques to explore the brain regions that govern attention in normal individuals and in clinical patients (see Box 2). Early studies used ERPs (Refs 21., 22.). However, we will focus on more recent studies using PET (Refs 23., 24., 25., 26.) and fMRI (Refs 27., 28.) where investigators have compared regional cerebral blood flow for performance in the

Conclusions

We had four goals in this brief review article: (1) to characterize one of the most robust and well-known phenomena in attention; (2) to illustrate the theoretical explanations of the phenomenon at the behavioral level; (3) to describe some of the new tasks and research directions that have grown out of the Stroop task; and (4) to depict how recent cognitive neuroscience techniques have begun to elucidate the brain regions involved in performing the task. Interference reflects upon our ability

Acknowledgements

Our research and the preparation of this article were supported by a research grant (A7459) to the first author and a postgraduate scholarship and a postdoctoral fellowship to the second author, all from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We are most grateful to Cameron Carter and Angus MacDonald for providing us with their recent brain imaging work, and especially for allowing us to use Fig. 3. We also thank the editor and the reviewers of the initial version of

References (38)

  • C.M. MacLeod

    John Ridley Stroop: creator of a landmark cognitive task

    Can. J. Psychol.

    (1991)
  • C.M. MacLeod

    Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1991)
  • C.M. MacLeod et al.

    Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity

    J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit.

    (1988)
  • R.H. Phaf

    SLAM: a connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks

    Cognit. Psychol.

    (1990)
  • G.D. Logan

    Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data

    Cognit. Psychol.

    (1980)
  • F.N. Dyer

    The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes

    Mem. Cognit.

    (1973)
  • M.O. Glaser et al.

    Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (1982)
  • K.N. Dunbar et al.

    A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (1984)
  • P. Fraisse

    Why is naming longer than reading?

    Acta Psychol.

    (1969)
  • Cited by (517)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text