The lateralized Stroop: A meta-analysis and its implications for models of semantic processing

被引:24
作者
Belanger, HG [1 ]
Cimino, CR [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ S Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00508-4
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 [病理学与病理生理学]; 100213 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
摘要
The prevailing theory in the literature concerning the lateralization of Stroop effects involves a speed of processing account (see MacLeod. 1991). Because the left hemisphere (LH) demonstrates an overall advantage relative to the right hemisphere (RH) on most verbal tasks, interference effects are hypothesized to be greater in the LH than in the RH. Inspection of the data, however, reveals that many studies find no difference in magnitude of Stroop interference between the hemispheres. Given findings within the lateralized semantic printing literature. this is not surprising. A meta-analysis on a subset of lateralized Stroop experiments Was conducted to determine whether or not the LH produces significantly more interference than the RH in this paradigm. Based on a number of exclusionary criteria, a total of 19 different studies were included, representing a potential 26 effect size estimates or differential interference. The effect size representing interference using congruent conditions as the baseline (d + = .06) reveals that there is no significant difference between the hemispheres in magnitude of the Stroop interference effect. The LH interference effect was d + = .73, which is significant. Likewise, the RH interference effect, d + = .67, was significant. In Summary, while there was no significant difference between the hemispheres, each hemisphere, when examined independently, did exhibit significant within hemisphere interference effects. These findings are presented in light of the lateralized semantic priming literature. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:384 / 402
页数:19
相关论文
共 95 条
[1]
Frontal tests do not detect frontal infarctions after ruptured intracranial aneurysm [J].
Ahola, K ;
Vilkki, J ;
Servo, A .
BRAIN AND COGNITION, 1996, 31 (01) :1-16
[2]
HEMISPHERIC-DIFFERENCES IN MATCHING STROOP-TYPE LETTER STIMULI [J].
ALIVISATOS, B ;
WILDING, J .
CORTEX, 1982, 18 (01) :5-21
[3]
ALLISON T, 1999, J INT NEUROPSYCH SOC, V5, P136
[4]
[Anonymous], 1998, RIGHT HEMISPHERE LAN
[5]
LEXICAL DECISION, PARAFOVEAL ECCENTRICITY AND VISUAL HEMIFIELD [J].
BABKOFF, H ;
GENSER, S ;
HEGGE, FW .
CORTEX, 1985, 21 (04) :581-593
[6]
Prefrontal regions play a predominant role in imposing an attentional 'set': evidence from fMIRI [J].
Banich, MT ;
Milham, MP ;
Atchley, RA ;
Cohen, NJ ;
Webb, A ;
Wszalek, T ;
Kramer, AF ;
Liang, ZP ;
Barad, V ;
Gullett, D ;
Shah, C ;
Brown, C .
COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH, 2000, 10 (1-2) :1-9
[7]
FINGER-TAPPING INTERFERENCE AS PRODUCED BY CONCURRENT VERBAL AND NONVERBAL TASKS - AN ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN LEFT-HANDERS [J].
BATHURST, K ;
KEE, DW .
BRAIN AND COGNITION, 1994, 24 (01) :123-136
[8]
SUMMATION PRIMING AND COARSE SEMANTIC CODING IN THE RIGHT-HEMISPHERE [J].
BEEMAN, M ;
FRIEDMAN, RB ;
GRAFMAN, J ;
PEREZ, E ;
DIAMOND, S ;
LINDSAY, MB .
JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 1994, 6 (01) :26-45
[9]
BERGEN AME, 1994, AM J MENT RETARD, V98, P732
[10]
What kind of attention modulates the Stroop effect? [J].
Besner, D ;
Stolz, JA .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 1999, 6 (01) :99-104