Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task
In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop perfor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Attention, perception & psychophysics perception & psychophysics, 2023-10, Vol.85 (7), p.2277-2295 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2295 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 2277 |
container_title | Attention, perception & psychophysics |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | Unsworth, Nash Miller, Ashley L. |
description | In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop performers tended to demonstrate larger preparatory pupillary responses than low Stroop performers. In Experiment 2, when participants were given pre-cues indicating the congruency of the upcoming trial (MATCHING vs. CONFLICTING), high Stroop performers had larger preparatory pupillary responses for incongruent trials compared to congruent trials, whereas low Stroop performers demonstrated similar preparatory pupillary responses on both incongruent and congruent trials. These results suggest that variation in Stroop performance is partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, there was limited evidence that preparatory control processes partially account for the relation between working memory capacity and performance on the Stroop. Overall, these results provide evidence that individual differences in Stroop performance are partialy due to variation in preparatory control. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2833997956</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2833997956</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-8f1296327d76ece563fb57af36263ec64d199bb28e64c722c99cc8b50e5cee903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwBzigHrkUkrhNmgsSmviSJoEESNyiNnWho2tK0h7YryesY0cOlm359Sv7IeSU0QuQaXbpGSQsiSmHEDJl8XqPTJlKIAYFb_u7mrMJOfJ-SakAIekhmYBMqJQqm5Krp6GrmyZ335GxzmGT9-gjW0Wdwy53eW83k7Z3tonqNuo_MHoOje2iPvefx-SgyhuPJ9s8I6-3Ny_z-3jxePcwv17EBhLZx1nFuBLAZSkFGkwFVEUq8woEF4BGJCVTqih4hiIxknOjlDFZkVJMDaKiMCPno2_n7NeAvter2hsMh7doB695BqCUVMF5RvgoNc5677DSnatX4UHNqP7lpkduOnDTG256HZbOtv5DscJyt_IHKghgFPgwat_R6aUdXBt-_s_2B1cieaE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2833997956</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Unsworth, Nash ; Miller, Ashley L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Unsworth, Nash ; Miller, Ashley L.</creatorcontrib><description>In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop performers tended to demonstrate larger preparatory pupillary responses than low Stroop performers. In Experiment 2, when participants were given pre-cues indicating the congruency of the upcoming trial (MATCHING vs. CONFLICTING), high Stroop performers had larger preparatory pupillary responses for incongruent trials compared to congruent trials, whereas low Stroop performers demonstrated similar preparatory pupillary responses on both incongruent and congruent trials. These results suggest that variation in Stroop performance is partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, there was limited evidence that preparatory control processes partially account for the relation between working memory capacity and performance on the Stroop. Overall, these results provide evidence that individual differences in Stroop performance are partialy due to variation in preparatory control.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1943-3921</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1943-393X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-393X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37407798</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Attention - physiology ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognitive Psychology ; Cues ; Humans ; Memory, Short-Term - physiology ; Psychology ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Stroop Test</subject><ispartof>Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023-10, Vol.85 (7), p.2277-2295</ispartof><rights>The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-8f1296327d76ece563fb57af36263ec64d199bb28e64c722c99cc8b50e5cee903</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-8f1296327d76ece563fb57af36263ec64d199bb28e64c722c99cc8b50e5cee903</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37407798$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Unsworth, Nash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Ashley L.</creatorcontrib><title>Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task</title><title>Attention, perception & psychophysics</title><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><description>In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop performers tended to demonstrate larger preparatory pupillary responses than low Stroop performers. In Experiment 2, when participants were given pre-cues indicating the congruency of the upcoming trial (MATCHING vs. CONFLICTING), high Stroop performers had larger preparatory pupillary responses for incongruent trials compared to congruent trials, whereas low Stroop performers demonstrated similar preparatory pupillary responses on both incongruent and congruent trials. These results suggest that variation in Stroop performance is partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, there was limited evidence that preparatory control processes partially account for the relation between working memory capacity and performance on the Stroop. Overall, these results provide evidence that individual differences in Stroop performance are partialy due to variation in preparatory control.</description><subject>Attention - physiology</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Stroop Test</subject><issn>1943-3921</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMhiMEYmPwBzigHrkUkrhNmgsSmviSJoEESNyiNnWho2tK0h7YryesY0cOlm359Sv7IeSU0QuQaXbpGSQsiSmHEDJl8XqPTJlKIAYFb_u7mrMJOfJ-SakAIekhmYBMqJQqm5Krp6GrmyZ335GxzmGT9-gjW0Wdwy53eW83k7Z3tonqNuo_MHoOje2iPvefx-SgyhuPJ9s8I6-3Ny_z-3jxePcwv17EBhLZx1nFuBLAZSkFGkwFVEUq8woEF4BGJCVTqih4hiIxknOjlDFZkVJMDaKiMCPno2_n7NeAvter2hsMh7doB695BqCUVMF5RvgoNc5677DSnatX4UHNqP7lpkduOnDTG256HZbOtv5DscJyt_IHKghgFPgwat_R6aUdXBt-_s_2B1cieaE</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Unsworth, Nash</creator><creator>Miller, Ashley L.</creator><general>Springer US</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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task</title><author>Unsworth, Nash ; Miller, Ashley L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-8f1296327d76ece563fb57af36263ec64d199bb28e64c722c99cc8b50e5cee903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Attention - physiology</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Stroop Test</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Unsworth, Nash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Ashley L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Attention, perception & psychophysics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Unsworth, Nash</au><au>Miller, Ashley L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task</atitle><jtitle>Attention, perception & psychophysics</jtitle><stitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</stitle><addtitle>Atten Percept Psychophys</addtitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>2277</spage><epage>2295</epage><pages>2277-2295</pages><issn>1943-3921</issn><issn>1943-393X</issn><eissn>1943-393X</eissn><abstract>In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop performers tended to demonstrate larger preparatory pupillary responses than low Stroop performers. In Experiment 2, when participants were given pre-cues indicating the congruency of the upcoming trial (MATCHING vs. CONFLICTING), high Stroop performers had larger preparatory pupillary responses for incongruent trials compared to congruent trials, whereas low Stroop performers demonstrated similar preparatory pupillary responses on both incongruent and congruent trials. These results suggest that variation in Stroop performance is partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, there was limited evidence that preparatory control processes partially account for the relation between working memory capacity and performance on the Stroop. Overall, these results provide evidence that individual differences in Stroop performance are partialy due to variation in preparatory control.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>37407798</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1943-3921 |
ispartof | Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023-10, Vol.85 (7), p.2277-2295 |
issn | 1943-3921 1943-393X 1943-393X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2833997956 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Attention - physiology Behavioral Science and Psychology Cognitive Psychology Cues Humans Memory, Short-Term - physiology Psychology Reaction Time - physiology Stroop Test |
title | Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A53%3A03IST&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=Pupillary%20correlates%20of%20preparatory%20control%20in%20the%20Stroop%20task&rft.jtitle=Attention,%20perception%20&%20psychophysics&rft.au=Unsworth,%20Nash&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=2277&rft.epage=2295&rft.pages=2277-2295&rft.issn=1943-3921&rft.eissn=1943-393X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13414-023-02751-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2833997956%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=2833997956&rft_id=info:pmid/37407798&rfr_iscdi=true |