Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring
Co-actors represent and integrate each other's actions, even when they need not monitor one another. However, monitoring is important for successful interactions, particularly those involving language, and monitoring others' utterances probably relies on similar mechanisms as monitoring on...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Royal Society
2022-04-01
|
| Series: | Royal Society Open Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220107 |
| _version_ | 1828367567251570688 |
|---|---|
| author | Martin J. Pickering Janet F. McLean Chiara Gambi |
| author_facet | Martin J. Pickering Janet F. McLean Chiara Gambi |
| author_sort | Martin J. Pickering |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Co-actors represent and integrate each other's actions, even when they need not monitor one another. However, monitoring is important for successful interactions, particularly those involving language, and monitoring others' utterances probably relies on similar mechanisms as monitoring one's own. We investigated the effect of monitoring on the integration of self- and other-generated utterances in the shared-Stroop task. In a solo version of the Stroop task (with a single participant responding to all stimuli; Experiment 1), participants named the ink colour of mismatching colour words (incongruent stimuli) more slowly than matching colour words (congruent). In the shared-Stroop task, one participant named the ink colour of words in one colour (e.g. red), while ignoring stimuli in the other colour (e.g. green); the other participant either named the other ink colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants either provided feedback about the correctness of their partner's response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). Interference was greater when both participants responded than when they did not, but only when their partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback increased interference because monitoring one's partner enhanced representations of the partner's target utterance, which in turn interfered with self-monitoring of the participant's own utterance. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:59:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-09fd4345267b40b2ac58f4ea71e42903 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2054-5703 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:59:29Z |
| publishDate | 2022-04-01 |
| publisher | The Royal Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Royal Society Open Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-09fd4345267b40b2ac58f4ea71e429032022-12-22T02:08:49ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032022-04-019410.1098/rsos.220107Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoringMartin J. Pickering0Janet F. McLean1Chiara Gambi2Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland, UKSchool of Applied Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland, UKSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, 70 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UKCo-actors represent and integrate each other's actions, even when they need not monitor one another. However, monitoring is important for successful interactions, particularly those involving language, and monitoring others' utterances probably relies on similar mechanisms as monitoring one's own. We investigated the effect of monitoring on the integration of self- and other-generated utterances in the shared-Stroop task. In a solo version of the Stroop task (with a single participant responding to all stimuli; Experiment 1), participants named the ink colour of mismatching colour words (incongruent stimuli) more slowly than matching colour words (congruent). In the shared-Stroop task, one participant named the ink colour of words in one colour (e.g. red), while ignoring stimuli in the other colour (e.g. green); the other participant either named the other ink colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants either provided feedback about the correctness of their partner's response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). Interference was greater when both participants responded than when they did not, but only when their partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback increased interference because monitoring one's partner enhanced representations of the partner's target utterance, which in turn interfered with self-monitoring of the participant's own utterance.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220107language productionjoint actionmonitoringStroop |
| spellingShingle | Martin J. Pickering Janet F. McLean Chiara Gambi Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring Royal Society Open Science language production joint action monitoring Stroop |
| title | Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring |
| title_full | Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring |
| title_fullStr | Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring |
| title_full_unstemmed | Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring |
| title_short | Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring |
| title_sort | interference in the shared stroop task a comparison of self and other monitoring |
| topic | language production joint action monitoring Stroop |
| url | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220107 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT martinjpickering interferenceinthesharedstrooptaskacomparisonofselfandothermonitoring AT janetfmclean interferenceinthesharedstrooptaskacomparisonofselfandothermonitoring AT chiaragambi interferenceinthesharedstrooptaskacomparisonofselfandothermonitoring |