Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Social Facilitation01:04

Social Facilitation

Not all intergroup interactions lead to negative outcomes. Sometimes, being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is "sky" bluer than "grass" is green? Word-color associations dataset for cognitive science.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Effects of Statistical Learning on Stimulus Detection Speed Reflect Attention Rather Than Representational Changes.

Cognitive science·2026
Same author

Item-specific control of word reading as evidenced by a novel proportion wordness effect.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same author

Are fear learning, interpretation bias training and global-local processing related to social anxiety? An individual differences study.

Cognitive behaviour therapy·2026
Same author

Irrelevant Task Difficulty Modulates the Emergence of Task Conflict.

Journal of cognition·2026
Same author

The Positive Effect of Negative Stimuli: Exposure to Negative Emotional Stimuli Improves Mood in Individuals with Major Depressive Disorder.

Journal of clinical medicine·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 9, 2026

Training Synesthetic Letter-color Associations by Reading in Color
10:27

Training Synesthetic Letter-color Associations by Reading in Color

Published on: February 20, 2014

EXPRESS: The Effect of Response-code on Stroop Interference and Facilitation.

Eldad Keha1,2, Yoel Sheinenson1, Avishai Henik3

  • 1Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006)
|July 8, 2026
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Response code mapping significantly impacts manual Stroop task performance. On-screen cues and word-based labels increase interference, while response labels generally improve performance by reducing cognitive load.

Keywords:
Stroopcognitive controlexecutive functionsmodality effectresponse-code

More Related Videos

Examining Bilingual Language Control Using the Stroop Task
05:31

Examining Bilingual Language Control Using the Stroop Task

Published on: February 26, 2020

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content
07:21

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

Published on: June 29, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 9, 2026

Training Synesthetic Letter-color Associations by Reading in Color
10:27

Training Synesthetic Letter-color Associations by Reading in Color

Published on: February 20, 2014

Examining Bilingual Language Control Using the Stroop Task
05:31

Examining Bilingual Language Control Using the Stroop Task

Published on: February 26, 2020

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content
07:21

The Emotional Stroop Task: Assessing Cognitive Performance under Exposure to Emotional Content

Published on: June 29, 2016

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction

Background:

  • The manual Stroop task is widely used to study cognitive control.
  • Limited research exists on how different manual response code mappings affect performance within this task modality.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the influence of various manual response-code mappings on Stroop interference and facilitation.
  • To compare the effects of keyboard-based versus screen-based response codes.
  • To examine the impact of stimulus type (color vs. word) as response codes.

Main Methods:

  • 158 participants completed a color-word Stroop task.
  • Five response-code conditions were used: color-keys, word-keys, color-cues, word-cues, and no-label.
  • Interference and facilitation were measured across conditions.

Main Results:

  • Stroop interference was significantly greater with screen-based cues (color-cues, word-cues) compared to keyboard-based cues (color-keys, word-keys).
  • Word-based codes (word-keys, word-cues) yielded greater interference than color-based codes.
  • The no-label condition exhibited the highest interference, suggesting response labels aid performance.
  • No significant differences in facilitation were observed across groups.

Conclusions:

  • Response-code mapping is a critical design factor in manual Stroop tasks.
  • On-screen cues may increase display competition, while keyboard cues offer more stable mapping support.
  • Verbal mediation and translational models are supported by the findings regarding word codes.
  • Response labels reduce internal cognitive demands, improving performance in manual Stroop tasks.