Two distinct patterns of interference in between-attribute Stroop matching tasks

Abstract

In between-attribute Stroop matching tasks, participants compare the meaning (or the color) of a Stroop stimulus with a probe color (or meaning) while attempting to ignore the Stroop stimulus’s task-irrelevant attribute. Interference in this task has been explained by two competing theories: A semantic competition account and a response competition account. Recent results favor the response competition account, which assumes that interference is caused by a task-irrelevant comparison. However, the comparison of studies is complicated by the lack of a consensus on how trial types should be classified and analyzed. In this work, we review existing findings and theories and provide a new classification of trial types. We report two experiments that demonstrate the superiority of the response competition account in explaining the basic pattern of performance while also revealing its limitations. Two qualitatively distinct interference patterns are identified, resulting from different types of task-irrelevant comparisons. By finding the same interference pattern across task versions, we were additionally able to demonstrate the comparability of processes across two task versions frequently used in neurophysiological and cognitive studies. An integrated account of both types of interference is presented and discussed.