The contribution of meaning to the detection of task conflict.

The colour-word Stroop task produces both information conflict (detection of the ink colour vs word meaning) and task conflict (respond to the ink colour vs read the word). In this study, we measured both reaction time and pupil dilation, and the neutral stimuli in our study were non-readable letter strings as well as meaningless non-readable stimuli (i.e.

Neutral stimuli and pupillometric task conflict.

It has been suggested that the interference in the Stroop task arises due to both information conflict (color vs. word meaning) and task conflict (respond to the color vs. read the word).

What Klein's "Semantic Gradient" Does and Does Not Really Show: Decomposing Stroop Interference into Task and Informational Conflict Components.

The present study suggests that the idea that Stroop interference originates from multiple components may gain theoretically from integrating two independent frameworks. The first framework is represented by the well-known notion of "semantic gradient" of interference and the second one is the distinction between two types of conflict - the task and the informational conflict - giving rise to the interference (MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000; Goldfarb and Henik, 2007). The proposed integration led to the conclusion that two (i.

Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm.

A contingency learning account of the item-specific proportion congruent effect has been described as an associative stimulus-response learning process that has nothing to do with controlling the Stroop conflict. As supportive evidence, contingency learning has been demonstrated with response conflict-free stimuli, such as neutral words. However, what gives rise to response conflict and to Stroop interference in general is task conflict.