10.5061/DRYAD.JWSTQJQ91
Pickering, Martin
University of Edinburgh
McLean, Janet F.
Abertay University
Gambi, Chiara
0000-0002-1568-7779
Cardiff University
Interference in the shared-stroop task: a comparison of self- and
other-monitoring
Dryad
dataset
2021
Language production
joint action
Stroop
FOS: Psychology
Economic and Social Research Council
https://ror.org/03n0ht308
RES-062-23-0376
2021-07-14T00:00:00Z
2021-07-14T00:00:00Z
en
https://psyarxiv.com/s359a/
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5086351
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s359a
1328037 bytes
5
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Co-acting participants represent and integrate each other’s actions, even
when they are not required to monitor one another. However, monitoring the
actions of a partner is an important component of successful interactions,
and particularly of linguistic interactions. Moreover, monitoring others
may rely on similar mechanisms to those that are involved in
self-monitoring. In order to investigate the effect of monitoring on
shared linguistic representations, we combined a monitoring task with the
shared Stroop task. In the shared Stroop task, one participant named the
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 colour
of words in the other colour or did not respond. Crucially, participants
either had to provide feedback about the correctness of their partner’s
response (Experiment 3) or did not (Experiment 2). The results showed that
interference was greater when both participants responded than when they
did not, but only when partners provided feedback. We argue that feedback
increased joint task interference because in order to monitor their
partner, participants had to represent their target utterance, and this
representation interfered with self-monitoring of their own utterance.
Verbal responses were collected using DMDX and onset latencies were
measured using CheckVocal (see references below). To prepare the data for
analyses, after removing all incorrect responses, onset latencies below
200 milliseconds were removed (1 trial) before we conducted a recursive
trimming procedure in which the criterion cut-off for outlier removal was
established independently for each participant in each condition, by
reference to the sample size in that condition. Error totals used in
accuracy analysis do not include the removed outliers. Forster, K. I.,
Forster, J. C. 2003 DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond
accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 35,
116-124. (10.3758/BF03195503) Protopapas, A. 2007 CheckVocal: A program
to facilitate checking the accuracy and resposne time of vocal responses
for DMDX.
The dataset includes two columns: RT reports the original onset latencies
before any exclusion and before the trimming procedure. RTTrimmed reports
the trimmed RT and it shows NA for values that were removed as outliers.
See README for more details.