Evidence of interference in the gustatory and visual representations in working memory processing
Article Sidebar
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Societal impact
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the processing interference between gustative and visual representations in working memory. A sample of 48 university students participated in the experiment. The age average of these subjects was 23.27 years (SD = 4.286 years). A crossover design was applied to conduct within-subjects comparisons. Stimulus coherence was defined as an independent variable with three levels, that is, congruent, incongruent and control according to a visual-gustative matching criterion. Two dependent variables were defined, that is, the stimulus identification and the corresponding reaction time. The experiment asked to observe the screen of a computer which presented an image while receiving a gustative stimulus. The experimental task required to identify as quickly as possible the gustative stimuli. The results showed a lower stroop interference for congruent stimuli than for incongruent and control stimuli. Fewer errors and reduced reaction times were observed only for the congruent condition. It is recommended for future research to examine cross-modal stroop interference for gustative and visual processing when visual stimuli are operationalized as written words.
Article Details
References
Baddeley, A. (1995). Working memory: the interface between memory and cognition. En D.L. Schacter & E. Tulving (Eds.), Memory sistems (pp. 351-368). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Banich, M. T., Milham, M.P., Atchley, R., Cohen, N.J., Webb, A., Wszalek, T…& Magin, R. (2000). FMRI studies of stroop tasks reveal unique roles of anterior and posterior brain systems in attentional selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 988-1000.
Brown, T.L., Gore, C.L., & Carr, T.H. (2002). Visual attention and word recognition in stroop color naming: Is word recognition “automatic”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 220-240.
Brown, T. L., Ross-Gilbert, L., & Carr, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: evidence from stroop and stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, 1395-1411.
Cho, Y.S., Lien, M.C., & Proctor, R.W. (2006). Stroop dilution depends on the nature of the color carrier but not on its location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 826-839.
Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulusresponse and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353-359.
Kahneman, D., & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 497-509.
Kim, H., Cho, Y.S., Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R.W. (2008). Influence of coloravailability on the stroop color-naming effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1540, 1551.
Kirn, S.Y., Kirn, M.S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proccedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16524-16529.
LaBerge, D.L. (1990). Attention. Psychological Science, 1, 156-161. Lamers, M.J.M., & Roelofs, A. (2007). Role of gestalt grouping in selective attention: evidence from the stroop task. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1305-1314.
Lepsien, J., & Nobre, A.C. (2007). Attentional modulation of object representations in working memory. Cerebral Cortex, 17(9), 2072-2083.
MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the stroop effect: An interactive review. Psychological Bulletin, 190, 163-203.
MacLeod, C.M. (1992). The stroop task: The “gold standard” of attentional measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121, 12-14.
MacLeod, C.M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training in stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 126-135.
Mitterer, H., La Heij, W., & Van der Heijden, A.H.C. (2003). Stroop dilution but not wordprocessing dilution: Evidence for attention capture. Psychological Research, 67, 30-42.
Posner, M.I., & DeHaene, S. (1994). Attentional networks. Trends in Neurosciences, 17, 75-79.
Posner, M.I., & Snyder, C.R.R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. En R.L. Solso Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. (pp. 55-85).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prescott, J., Johnstone, V., & Francis, J. (2004). Odor-taste interactions: Effects of attentional strategies during exposure. Chemical Senses, 29, 331-340.
Razumiejczyk, E., Macbeth, G., & López Alonso, A.O. (2008a). Efecto de priming gustativo en condición de codificación profunda y su disociación con la memoria explícita. Investigaciones en Psicología, 13(3), 45-56.
Razumiejczyk, E., Macbeth, G., & López Alonso, A.O. (2008b). Evidencia de priming gustativo y su disociación con la memoria explícita. Revista Universitas Psychologica, 7(2), 549-556.
Razumiejczyk, E., Bacci, C., Iriarte, M.P., Britos, P.V., Genovese, I., Grigera, D., Caselli, G., & Bellucci, P. (en prensa). Selección de estímulos para el estudio de los procesos cognitivos relacionados con la modalidad gustativa. Psicología y Psicopedagogía.
Roberts, K.L., & Hall, D.A. (2008). Examining a supramodel network for conflict processing: A systematic review and novel functional magnetic resonance imaging data for related visual and auditory stroop tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1063-1078.
Roelofs, A. (2005). The visual-auditory color-word stroop asymmetry and its time course. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1325-1336.
Schneider, W., & Schiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
Schiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Sreenivasan, K.K., & Jha, A.P. (2007). Selective attention supports working memory maintenance by modulating perceptual processing of distractors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 32-41.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 643-666.
Weissman, D.H., Wagner, L.M., & Woldorff, M.G. (2004). The neural mechanisms for cross-modal distraction. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 10941-10949.
West, R. (2004). The effects of aging on controlled attention and conflict processing in the stroop task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 103-113.
White, T.L., & Prescott, J. (2007). Chemosensory cross-modal stroop effects: congruent odors facilitate tast identification. Chemical Senses, 32, 337-341.