Interference between reading and gustative perception: Stroop effect for words and anagrams
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/f8jav878Keywords:
Taste, reading, words, anagrams, stroopAbstract
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the cross-modal interference between taste perception and linguistic representations. Taste stimuli, words and anagrams were employed. Results show that anagrams are processed faster than words, but they are less accurate on taste identification. It is argued that this effect can be interpreted as an automatism; also, findings show that congruence is critical for gustative stimuli recognition. The congruence between gustative and visual modalities generates more recognitions than incongruent and control conditions. An ecological interpretation for this stroop effect is proposed.
Downloads
References
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory: the interface between memory and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(3), 281-288.
Bertelson, P. (1999). Ventriloquism: a case of crossmodal perceptual grouping. En G. Ashersleben, T. Bachmann & J. Müsseler (Eds.) Cognitive Contributions to the Perception of Spatial and Temporal Events (pp. 347-362). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
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.
Calvert, G. A., Campbell, R. & Brammer, M. J. (2000). Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Current Biology, 10, 649-657.
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.
Driver, J. & Spence, C. (1998). Attention and the crossmodal construction of space. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 254-262.
Driver, J. & Spence, C. (2000). Multisensory perception: Beyond modularity and convergence. Current Biology, 10, 731-735.
Dyer, F.N. (1973). Interference and facilitation for color naming with separate bilateral presentations of the word and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 314-317.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin B. & Paik, M. C. (2004). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
Foley, M. A. & Foley, H. J. (2007). Source-monitoring Judgments About Anagrams and Their Solutions: Evidence for the Role of Cognitive Operations Information in Memory. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 211-221.
Halpern, B. P. (2005). Temporal characteristics of human taste judgements as calibrations for gustatory event-related potentials and gustatory magnetoencephalographs. Chemical Senses, 30, 228-234.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2008). How We Reason. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kahneman, D. (1997). Atención y esfuerzo. España: Biblioteca Nueva.
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.
Keast, R. S. J., Canty, T. M. & Breslin, P. A. S. (2004). Oral zinc sulphate solutions inhibit sweet taste perception. Chemical Senses, 26, 513-521.
Kelling, S. T. & Halpern, B. P. (1987). Taste judgements and gustatory stimulus duration: simple taste reaction times. Chemical Senses, 12, 543-562.
Kim, H., Cho, Y. S., Yamaguchi, M. & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Influence of color availability 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.
Kobayakawa, T., Ogawa, H., Kaneda, H., AyabeKanamura, S. & Saito, S. (1999). Spatio-temporal analysis of cortical activity evoked by gustatory stimulation in humans. Chemical Senses, 24, 201209.
Kuehl, R. O. (1999). Design of Experiments. Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
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, 13051314.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the stroop effect: An interactive review. Psychological Bulletin, 109 (2), 163-203.
Mitterer, H., La Heij, W. & Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (2003). Stroop dilution but not word- processing dilution: evidence for attention capture. Psychological Research, 67, 30-42.
Morrot, G., Brochet, F. & Dubourdieu. D, (2001). The color of odors. Brain Language, 79, 309-320.
Pierce, J.W. (2007). PsycoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8-13.
Prescott, J., Johnstone, V. & Francis, J. (2004). Odortaste interactions: effects of attentional strategies during exposure. Chemical Senses, 29, 331-340.
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.
Razumiejczyk, E. Macbeth, G. & López Alonso, A. O. (2008). La vinculación entre las modalidades gustativa y olfativa en el reconocimiento del sabor. Psico Logos, 17, 5-12.
Razumiejczyk, E., Bacci, C., Iriarte, M.P., Britos, P., Genovese, I., Grigera Monteagudo, D., Caselli, G. & Bellucci, P. (2010). Selección de estímulos para el estudio de los procesos cognitivos relacionados con la modalidad gustativa. Psicología y Psicopedagogía, 23.
Razumiejczyk, E., Jáuregui, M. & Macbeth, G. (2012). Interferencia stroop intermodal entre representaciones gustativas y auditivas. Revista CES Psicología, 5(2), 25-41.
Razumiejczyk, E., Macbeth, G. & Adrover, J. F. (2011). Comparación de la interferencia stroop intermodal entre representaciones gustativas y visuales por imágenes y por palabras. Boletín de Psicología, 101, 7-20.
Regan, J. E. (1978). Involuntary automatic processing in color- naming tasks. Perception & Pychophysics, 24, 130-136.
Rolls, E. T. (2004). Multisensory neuronal convergence of taste, somatonsensory, visual, olfactory, and auditory inputs. En G. A. Calvert, C. Spence & B. E. Stein (Eds.) The Handbook of Multisensory Processes. (pp. 311-331). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
Shiffrin, 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 distractkmjiors. 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.
Veldhuizen, M. G., Oosterhoff, A. F. & Kroeze, J. H. A. (2010). Flavors prime processing of affectively congruent food words and non-food words. Appetite, 54, 71-76.
Wason, P. C. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning. Structure and Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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 crossmodal stroop effects: congruent odors facilitate taste identification. Chemical Senses, 32, 337-341.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Actualidades en Psicología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 Unported license
How to Cite
