Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?: A Reply to Akiva-Kabiri and Henik (2014), Gast (2014), Moeller and Frings (2014), and Zakay (2014)
Grégoire, Perruchet, and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) claimed that the Musical Stroop task, which reveals the automaticity of note naming in musician experts, provides a new tool for studying the development of automatisms through extensive training in natural settings. Many of the criticisms presented...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Experimental psychology 2014, Vol.61 (1), p.80-83 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 83 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 80 |
| container_title | Experimental psychology |
| container_volume | 61 |
| creator | Grégoire, Laurent Perruchet, Pierre Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte |
| description | Grégoire, Perruchet, and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) claimed that the
Musical Stroop task, which reveals the automaticity of note naming in musician
experts, provides a new tool for studying the development of automatisms through
extensive training in natural settings. Many of the criticisms presented in the
four commentaries published in this issue appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of our procedure, or questionable postulates. We maintain that
the Musical Stroop Effect offers promising possibilities for further research on
automaticity, with the main proviso that the current procedure makes it
difficult to tease apart facilitation and interference. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1027/1618-3169/a000222 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492672298</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1492672298</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a246t-7d63da41f01ea8d5bacd64d1ca21b0a66a4e73c74c8b4d14b11fd7539b2c95623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkM9LwzAUgIMobk7_AC8S8CJCXV6apu1Jxpg6nCio55Cmr9jRrTVJD_OvN2NzB08P3vver4-QS2B3wHg6BglZFIPMx5oxxjk_IkMOOYsSEPyYDA_1ATlzbskYZJmEUzLgQohcJnxI0rmj_gvpS-9qoxv67m3bdnRWVWg8nRQNUt_SZ8SOzr2jb7Zd1Q7d_Tk5qXTj8GIfR-TzYfYxfYoWr4_z6WQRaS6kj9JSxqUWUDFAnZVJoU0pRQlGcyiYllILTGOTCpMVIS0KgKpMkzgvuMkTyeMRudnN7Wz73aPzKuw32DR6jW3vFIicy5TzPAvo9T902fZ2Ha5TkDCIZfg4DhTsKGNb5yxWqrP1StuNAqa2VtXWmtpaU3uroedqP7kvVlgeOv40BuB2B-hOq85tjLa-Ng0601uLa69-UCsJClTG4l-KDX6-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1501369653</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?: A Reply to Akiva-Kabiri and Henik (2014), Gast (2014), Moeller and Frings (2014), and Zakay (2014)</title><source>Hogrefe eContent</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Grégoire, Laurent ; Perruchet, Pierre ; Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</creator><creatorcontrib>Grégoire, Laurent ; Perruchet, Pierre ; Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</creatorcontrib><description>Grégoire, Perruchet, and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) claimed that the
Musical Stroop task, which reveals the automaticity of note naming in musician
experts, provides a new tool for studying the development of automatisms through
extensive training in natural settings. Many of the criticisms presented in the
four commentaries published in this issue appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of our procedure, or questionable postulates. We maintain that
the Musical Stroop Effect offers promising possibilities for further research on
automaticity, with the main proviso that the current procedure makes it
difficult to tease apart facilitation and interference.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1618-3169</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2190-5142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000222</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24449652</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Hogrefe Publishing</publisher><subject>Automatism ; Automatism - diagnosis ; Experience Level ; Humans ; Interference (Learning) ; Music ; Musical Ability ; Naming ; Practice (Psychology) ; Reaction Time ; Social Facilitation ; Stroop Effect ; Stroop Test - standards</subject><ispartof>Experimental psychology, 2014, Vol.61 (1), p.80-83</ispartof><rights>2014 Hogrefe Publishing</rights><rights>2014, Hogrefe Publishing</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a246t-7d63da41f01ea8d5bacd64d1ca21b0a66a4e73c74c8b4d14b11fd7539b2c95623</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24449652$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grégoire, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perruchet, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</creatorcontrib><title>Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?: A Reply to Akiva-Kabiri and Henik (2014), Gast (2014), Moeller and Frings (2014), and Zakay (2014)</title><title>Experimental psychology</title><addtitle>Exp Psychol</addtitle><description>Grégoire, Perruchet, and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) claimed that the
Musical Stroop task, which reveals the automaticity of note naming in musician
experts, provides a new tool for studying the development of automatisms through
extensive training in natural settings. Many of the criticisms presented in the
four commentaries published in this issue appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of our procedure, or questionable postulates. We maintain that
the Musical Stroop Effect offers promising possibilities for further research on
automaticity, with the main proviso that the current procedure makes it
difficult to tease apart facilitation and interference.</description><subject>Automatism</subject><subject>Automatism - diagnosis</subject><subject>Experience Level</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interference (Learning)</subject><subject>Music</subject><subject>Musical Ability</subject><subject>Naming</subject><subject>Practice (Psychology)</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Social Facilitation</subject><subject>Stroop Effect</subject><subject>Stroop Test - standards</subject><issn>1618-3169</issn><issn>2190-5142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkM9LwzAUgIMobk7_AC8S8CJCXV6apu1Jxpg6nCio55Cmr9jRrTVJD_OvN2NzB08P3vver4-QS2B3wHg6BglZFIPMx5oxxjk_IkMOOYsSEPyYDA_1ATlzbskYZJmEUzLgQohcJnxI0rmj_gvpS-9qoxv67m3bdnRWVWg8nRQNUt_SZ8SOzr2jb7Zd1Q7d_Tk5qXTj8GIfR-TzYfYxfYoWr4_z6WQRaS6kj9JSxqUWUDFAnZVJoU0pRQlGcyiYllILTGOTCpMVIS0KgKpMkzgvuMkTyeMRudnN7Wz73aPzKuw32DR6jW3vFIicy5TzPAvo9T902fZ2Ha5TkDCIZfg4DhTsKGNb5yxWqrP1StuNAqa2VtXWmtpaU3uroedqP7kvVlgeOv40BuB2B-hOq85tjLa-Ng0601uLa69-UCsJClTG4l-KDX6-</recordid><startdate>2014</startdate><enddate>2014</enddate><creator>Grégoire, Laurent</creator><creator>Perruchet, Pierre</creator><creator>Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</creator><general>Hogrefe Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2014</creationdate><title>Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?</title><author>Grégoire, Laurent ; Perruchet, Pierre ; Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a246t-7d63da41f01ea8d5bacd64d1ca21b0a66a4e73c74c8b4d14b11fd7539b2c95623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Automatism</topic><topic>Automatism - diagnosis</topic><topic>Experience Level</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interference (Learning)</topic><topic>Music</topic><topic>Musical Ability</topic><topic>Naming</topic><topic>Practice (Psychology)</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Social Facilitation</topic><topic>Stroop Effect</topic><topic>Stroop Test - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grégoire, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perruchet, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Experimental psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grégoire, Laurent</au><au>Perruchet, Pierre</au><au>Poulin-Charronnat, Bénédicte</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?: A Reply to Akiva-Kabiri and Henik (2014), Gast (2014), Moeller and Frings (2014), and Zakay (2014)</atitle><jtitle>Experimental psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Exp Psychol</addtitle><date>2014</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>80</spage><epage>83</epage><pages>80-83</pages><issn>1618-3169</issn><eissn>2190-5142</eissn><abstract>Grégoire, Perruchet, and Poulin-Charronnat (2013) claimed that the
Musical Stroop task, which reveals the automaticity of note naming in musician
experts, provides a new tool for studying the development of automatisms through
extensive training in natural settings. Many of the criticisms presented in the
four commentaries published in this issue appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of our procedure, or questionable postulates. We maintain that
the Musical Stroop Effect offers promising possibilities for further research on
automaticity, with the main proviso that the current procedure makes it
difficult to tease apart facilitation and interference.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Hogrefe Publishing</pub><pmid>24449652</pmid><doi>10.1027/1618-3169/a000222</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1618-3169 |
| ispartof | Experimental psychology, 2014, Vol.61 (1), p.80-83 |
| issn | 1618-3169 2190-5142 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492672298 |
| source | Hogrefe eContent; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Automatism Automatism - diagnosis Experience Level Humans Interference (Learning) Music Musical Ability Naming Practice (Psychology) Reaction Time Social Facilitation Stroop Effect Stroop Test - standards |
| title | Is the Musical Stroop Effect Able to Keep Its Promises?: A Reply to Akiva-Kabiri and Henik (2014), Gast (2014), Moeller and Frings (2014), and Zakay (2014) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A06%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20the%20Musical%20Stroop%20Effect%20Able%20to%20Keep%20Its%20Promises?:%20A%20Reply%20to%20Akiva-Kabiri%20and%20Henik%20(2014),%20Gast%20(2014),%20Moeller%20and%20Frings%20(2014),%20and%20Zakay%20(2014)&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20psychology&rft.au=Gr%C3%A9goire,%20Laurent&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=80&rft.epage=83&rft.pages=80-83&rft.issn=1618-3169&rft.eissn=2190-5142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1027/1618-3169/a000222&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1492672298%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1501369653&rft_id=info:pmid/24449652&rfr_iscdi=true |