Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition
Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory pro...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Acta psychologica 2005-11, Vol.120 (3), p.307-326 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 326 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 307 |
| container_title | Acta psychologica |
| container_volume | 120 |
| creator | Verbruggen, Frederick Liefooghe, Baptist Notebaert, Wim Vandierendonck, André |
| description | Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. psychology and aging, 9, 491–512). In the present study, the impact of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition is further investigated. In Experiment 1, the stop signal task was combined with a traditional horizontal Simon task and with a vertical variant. For both dimensions, stopping responses was prolonged in incompatible trials, but only when the previous trial was compatible. In Experiment 2, the Simon task was combined with a spatial Stroop task in order to compare the effects of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. The results demonstrated that both types of compatibility influenced stopping in a similar way. These findings are in favor of the hypothesis that response inhibition in the stop signal task and interference control in conflict tasks rely on similar mechanisms. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68639780</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0001691805000624</els_id><sourcerecordid>68639780</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-b975a1a3d934fb049b0fec45e4d5fdab63f6a50c4980d67bf28604aca91e7df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc2KFDEQx4Mou7PrvoFIX_TWs5VOOulcBFnWVVjYy95DOh-YobvTprqFufkOvqFPYoYZXfGgUFBfvyqK-hPyisKWAhXXu62xy4z7bQPQbg8G7BnZ0E6yWjRKPicbAKC1ULQ7JxeIu5JyqugZOaetUqxjsCHxNgRvF6xSqHCJ4zqs-OPb919hZdM4myX2cYjLvjKT-5PKHuc0of-LSlP1uxOnz6W8xDS9JC-CGdBfnfwlefxw-3jzsb5_uPt08_6-tryTS90r2RpqmFOMhx646qEcyFvPXRuc6QULwrRguerACdmHphPAjTWKeukCuyRvj2vnnL6sHhc9RrR-GMzk04padIIp2cF_QdYw3jRUFpAfQZsTYvZBzzmOJu81BX2QQu_0UQp9kEIfDFgZe33av_ajd09Dp98X4M0JMGjNELKZbMQnThaSKV64d0fOl699jT5rtNFP1ruYi3TapfjvS34Civ2vCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>32342217</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Verbruggen, Frederick ; Liefooghe, Baptist ; Notebaert, Wim ; Vandierendonck, André</creator><creatorcontrib>Verbruggen, Frederick ; Liefooghe, Baptist ; Notebaert, Wim ; Vandierendonck, André</creatorcontrib><description>Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. psychology and aging, 9, 491–512). In the present study, the impact of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition is further investigated. In Experiment 1, the stop signal task was combined with a traditional horizontal Simon task and with a vertical variant. For both dimensions, stopping responses was prolonged in incompatible trials, but only when the previous trial was compatible. In Experiment 2, the Simon task was combined with a spatial Stroop task in order to compare the effects of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. The results demonstrated that both types of compatibility influenced stopping in a similar way. These findings are in favor of the hypothesis that response inhibition in the stop signal task and interference control in conflict tasks rely on similar mechanisms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-6918</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6297</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15993830</identifier><identifier>CODEN: APSOAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Activity levels. Psychomotricity ; Attention ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conditioning, Classical ; Distractor interference ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Inhibition (Psychology) ; Male ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reaction Time ; Response inhibition ; Signal Detection, Psychological ; Simon task ; Space Perception ; Spatial stroop task ; Stop signal paradigm</subject><ispartof>Acta psychologica, 2005-11, Vol.120 (3), p.307-326</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-b975a1a3d934fb049b0fec45e4d5fdab63f6a50c4980d67bf28604aca91e7df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-b975a1a3d934fb049b0fec45e4d5fdab63f6a50c4980d67bf28604aca91e7df3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691805000624$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17159394$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15993830$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Verbruggen, Frederick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liefooghe, Baptist</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notebaert, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandierendonck, André</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition</title><title>Acta psychologica</title><addtitle>Acta Psychol (Amst)</addtitle><description>Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. psychology and aging, 9, 491–512). In the present study, the impact of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition is further investigated. In Experiment 1, the stop signal task was combined with a traditional horizontal Simon task and with a vertical variant. For both dimensions, stopping responses was prolonged in incompatible trials, but only when the previous trial was compatible. In Experiment 2, the Simon task was combined with a spatial Stroop task in order to compare the effects of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. The results demonstrated that both types of compatibility influenced stopping in a similar way. These findings are in favor of the hypothesis that response inhibition in the stop signal task and interference control in conflict tasks rely on similar mechanisms.</description><subject>Activity levels. Psychomotricity</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Conditioning, Classical</subject><subject>Distractor interference</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhibition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Response inhibition</subject><subject>Signal Detection, Psychological</subject><subject>Simon task</subject><subject>Space Perception</subject><subject>Spatial stroop task</subject><subject>Stop signal paradigm</subject><issn>0001-6918</issn><issn>1873-6297</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc2KFDEQx4Mou7PrvoFIX_TWs5VOOulcBFnWVVjYy95DOh-YobvTprqFufkOvqFPYoYZXfGgUFBfvyqK-hPyisKWAhXXu62xy4z7bQPQbg8G7BnZ0E6yWjRKPicbAKC1ULQ7JxeIu5JyqugZOaetUqxjsCHxNgRvF6xSqHCJ4zqs-OPb919hZdM4myX2cYjLvjKT-5PKHuc0of-LSlP1uxOnz6W8xDS9JC-CGdBfnfwlefxw-3jzsb5_uPt08_6-tryTS90r2RpqmFOMhx646qEcyFvPXRuc6QULwrRguerACdmHphPAjTWKeukCuyRvj2vnnL6sHhc9RrR-GMzk04padIIp2cF_QdYw3jRUFpAfQZsTYvZBzzmOJu81BX2QQu_0UQp9kEIfDFgZe33av_ajd09Dp98X4M0JMGjNELKZbMQnThaSKV64d0fOl699jT5rtNFP1ruYi3TapfjvS34Civ2vCA</recordid><startdate>20051101</startdate><enddate>20051101</enddate><creator>Verbruggen, Frederick</creator><creator>Liefooghe, Baptist</creator><creator>Notebaert, Wim</creator><creator>Vandierendonck, André</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051101</creationdate><title>Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition</title><author>Verbruggen, Frederick ; Liefooghe, Baptist ; Notebaert, Wim ; Vandierendonck, André</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-b975a1a3d934fb049b0fec45e4d5fdab63f6a50c4980d67bf28604aca91e7df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Activity levels. Psychomotricity</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Conditioning, Classical</topic><topic>Distractor interference</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhibition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Response inhibition</topic><topic>Signal Detection, Psychological</topic><topic>Simon task</topic><topic>Space Perception</topic><topic>Spatial stroop task</topic><topic>Stop signal paradigm</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Verbruggen, Frederick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liefooghe, Baptist</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Notebaert, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandierendonck, André</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta psychologica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Verbruggen, Frederick</au><au>Liefooghe, Baptist</au><au>Notebaert, Wim</au><au>Vandierendonck, André</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition</atitle><jtitle>Acta psychologica</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Psychol (Amst)</addtitle><date>2005-11-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>120</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>307</spage><epage>326</epage><pages>307-326</pages><issn>0001-6918</issn><eissn>1873-6297</eissn><coden>APSOAZ</coden><abstract>Previous studies demonstrated that interference control in stimulus–stimulus compatibility tasks slowed down stopping in the stop signal task (e.g., Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. F., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and inhibition: beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention. psychology and aging, 9, 491–512). In the present study, the impact of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition is further investigated. In Experiment 1, the stop signal task was combined with a traditional horizontal Simon task and with a vertical variant. For both dimensions, stopping responses was prolonged in incompatible trials, but only when the previous trial was compatible. In Experiment 2, the Simon task was combined with a spatial Stroop task in order to compare the effects of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. The results demonstrated that both types of compatibility influenced stopping in a similar way. These findings are in favor of the hypothesis that response inhibition in the stop signal task and interference control in conflict tasks rely on similar mechanisms.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>15993830</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0001-6918 |
| ispartof | Acta psychologica, 2005-11, Vol.120 (3), p.307-326 |
| issn | 0001-6918 1873-6297 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68639780 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Activity levels. Psychomotricity Attention Biological and medical sciences Conditioning, Classical Distractor interference Female Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Inhibition (Psychology) Male Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reaction Time Response inhibition Signal Detection, Psychological Simon task Space Perception Spatial stroop task Stop signal paradigm |
| title | Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T06%3A15%3A47IST&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=Effects%20of%20stimulus%E2%80%93stimulus%20compatibility%20and%20stimulus%E2%80%93response%20compatibility%20on%20response%20inhibition&rft.jtitle=Acta%20psychologica&rft.au=Verbruggen,%20Frederick&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=120&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=307&rft.epage=326&rft.pages=307-326&rft.issn=0001-6918&rft.eissn=1873-6297&rft.coden=APSOAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68639780%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=32342217&rft_id=info:pmid/15993830&rft_els_id=S0001691805000624&rfr_iscdi=true |