摘要：In the classic Stroop effect, the time spent to name the color of an incongruent stimulus (GREEN in blue) is longer than the time necessary to name the color of a congruent stimulus (BLUE in blue). In the “Stroop matching task”, volunteers are instructed to compare attributes of two stimuli, in which one of them is necessarily a Stroop stimulus. Our aim was to investigate whether the order of stimulus presentation can explain some contradictory results and reveal the imposition of high-order cogni- tive resources in conflict resolution. Our results confirmed that the strategy adopted in the task depended on the order in which stimuli were presented. In the “Stroop-Bar” order, using the interval between stimuli to solve the conflict inherent to the Stroop stimulus is possible, which is otherwise not possible in the “Bar-Stroop” order. However, these strategies cannot explain the discrepancy in the results reported in the literature.
其他摘要：In the classic Stroop effect, the time spent to name the color of an incongruent stimulus (GREEN in blue) is longer than the time necessary to name the color of a congruent stimulus (BLUE in blue). In the “Stroop matching task”, volunteers are instructed to compare attributes of two stimuli, in which one of them is necessarily a Stroop stimulus. Our aim was to investigate whether the order of stimulus presentation can explain some contradictory results and reveal the imposition of high-order cogni- tive resources in conflict resolution. Our results confirmed that the strategy adopted in the task depended on the order in which stimuli were presented. In the “Stroop-Bar” order, using the interval between stimuli to solve the conflict inherent to the Stroop stimulus is possible, which is otherwise not possible in the “Bar-Stroop” order. However, these strategies cannot explain the discrepancy in the results reported in the literature.
