In the present study, the relation between interference at the early processing stages and response inhibition was investigated. In previous studies, response stopping appeared to be slowed down when irrelevant distracting information was presented. The purpose of the present study was to further explore the relationship between interference control and response inhibition. In Experiment 1, a stop signal paradigm was combined with a global/local task. The typical global-to-local interference effect is generally attributed to early processing stages, such as stimulus perception and identification. Results of this experiment demonstrated a congruency effect for both reaction time data and stopping performance. In Experiment 2, these results were replicated with a flanker task that used stimulus-incongruent but response-congruent flankers. Results of both experiments suggest that response inhibition and interference at the early processing stages interact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BandGPvan der MolenMWLoganGD (2003). Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure.Acta Psychologica112, 105–142.
2.
BotvinickMMBraverTSBarchDMCarterCSCohenJD (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.Psychological Review108, 624–652.
ColesMGHGrattonGBashoreTREriksenCWDonchinE (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous-flow model of human information-processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance11, 529–533.
5.
De JongRColesMGLoganGD (1995). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 498–511.
6.
DempsterFN (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes. In basic processing dimension. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development: Vol. 1. Foundationspp. 3–27New York:Springer-Verlag.
7.
EriksenBAEriksenCW (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
8.
EriksenCWEriksenBA (1979). Target redundancy in visual-search. Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing.Perception & Psychophysics26, 195–205.
9.
FlowersJH (1990). Priming effects in perceptual classification.Perception & Psychophysics47, 135–148.
10.
FriedmanNPMiyakeA (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General133, 101–135.
11.
FuentesLJVivasABHumphreysGW (1999). Inhibitory tagging of stimulus properties in inhibition of return: Effects on semantic priming and flanker interference.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52A, 149–164.
12.
HanSHFanSLChenLZhuoY (1997). On the different processing of wholes and parts: A psychophysiological analysis.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience9, 687–698.
13.
HanSHYundEWWoodsDL (2003). An ERP study of the global precedence effect: The role of spatial frequency.Clinical Neurophysiology114, 1850–1865.
14.
HanesDPCarpenterRHS (1999). Countermanding saccades in humans.Vision Research39, 2777–2791.
15.
JenningsJRvan der MolenMWPelhamWDebskiKBHozaB (1997). Inhibition in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as indexed by heart rate change.Developmental Psychology33, 308–318.
16.
KornblumSHasbroucqTOsmanA (1990). Dimensional overlap. Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility. A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review97, 253–270.
17.
KramerAFHumphreyDGLarishJFLoganGDStrayerDL (1994). Aging and inhibition: Beyond a unitary view of inhibitory processing in attention.Psychology and Aging9, 491–512.
18.
LevittH (1970). Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America49, 467–477.
19.
LoganGD (1981). Attention, automaticity, and the ability to stop a speeded choice response. In J. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IXpp. 205–222Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20.
LoganGD (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A user's guide to the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and languagepp. 189–239San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
21.
LoganGDCowanWB (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action. A theory of an act of control.Psychological Review91, 295–327.
22.
LoganGDIrwinDE (2000). Don't look! Don't touch! Inhibitory control of eye and hand movements.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review7, 107–112.
23.
LoganGDSchacharRJTannockR (1997). Impulsivity and inhibitory control.Psychological Science8, 60–64.
24.
MilhamMPBanichMTWebbABaradVCohenNJWszalekTKramerAF (2001). The relative involvement of anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex in attentional control depends on nature of conflict.Cognitive Brain Research12, 467–473.
25.
MillerJNavonD (2002). Global precedence and response activation: Evidence from LRPs.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A, 289–310.
26.
NavonD (1977). Forest before trees. Precedence of global features in visual-perception.Cognitive Psychology9, 353–383.
27.
NiggJT (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from ognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy.Psychological Bulletin126, 220–246.
28.
ProverbioAMMinnitiAZaniA (1998). Electrophysiological evidence of a perceptual precedence of global vs. local visual information.Cognitive Brain Research6, 321–334.
29.
RidderinkhofKR (1997). A dual-route processing architecture for stimulus–response correspondence effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibilitypp. 119–131Amsterdam:Elsevier.
30.
RidderinkhofKR (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks.Psychological Research–Psychologische Forschung66, 312–323.
31.
RidderinkhofKRBandGPHLoganGD (1999). A study of adaptive behavior: Effects of age and irrelevant information on the ability to inhibit one's actions.Acta Psychologica101, 315–337.
32.
RidderinkhofKRUllspergerMCroneEANieuwenhuisS (2004). The role of medial frontal cortex in cognitive control.Science306, 443–447.
33.
RidderinkhofKRvan der MolenMW (1995). When global information and local information collide. A brain potential analysis of the locus of interference effects.Biological Psychology41, 29–53.
34.
RidderinkhofKRvan der MolenMWBashoreTR (1995). Limits on the application of additive factors logic. Violations of stage robustness suggest a dual-process architecture to explain flanker effects on target processing.Acta Psychologica90, 29–48.
35.
SchacharRLoganGD (1990). Impulsivity and inhibitory control in normal development and childhood psychopathology.Developmental Psychology26, 710–720.
36.
SternbergS (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica30, 276–315.
37.
StevensMLammertynJVerbruggenFVandierendonckA (in press). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform.Behavior Research Methods.
38.
TaylorTLIvanoffJ (2003). The interplay of stop signal inhibition and inhibition of return.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56A, 1349–1371.
39.
Van VeenVCohenJDBotvinickMMStengerVACarterCS (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing.Neuroimage14, 1302–1308.
40.
VerbruggenFLiefoogheBVandierendonckA (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and the Stroop task.Acta Psychologica116, 21–37.
41.
VerbruggenFLiefoogheBVandierendonckA (in press). On the difference between response inhibition, negative priming: Evidence from simple and selective stopping.Psychological Research.
42.
VivasABFuentesLJ (2001). Stroop interference is affected in inhibition of return.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review8, 315–323.
43.
WilliamsBRPonesseJSSchacharRJLoganGDTannockR (1999). Development of inhibitory control across the life span.Developmental Psychology35, 205–213.
