ArticleFrontiers in psychology2011
Additive factors do not imply discrete processing stages: a worked example using models of the stroop task.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bidirectional Interactions Between Language and Music in a Dual Task Experiment Without Syntactic Violations.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Response and conflict expectations shape motor responses interactively.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Facilitation effect of token syllable frequency in Chinese spoken word production.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- On the Locus of the Practice Effect in Sustained Attention Tests.Journal of Intelligence · 2019Article
- Towards a Process Model of Sustained Attention Tests.Journal of Intelligence · 2019Article
- Exploring Different Types of Inhibition During Bilingual Language Production.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Endogenous temporal and spatial orienting: Evidence for two distinct attentional mechanisms.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2015Article
- A cognitive framework for explaining serial processing and sequence execution strategies.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2015Article
- The meaning of additive reaction-time effects: some misconceptions.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previously, it has been shown experimentally that the psychophysical law known as Piéron's Law holds for color intensity and that the size of the effect is additive with that of Stroop condition (Stafford et al., 2011). According to the additive factors method (Donders, 1868-1869/1969; Sternberg, 1998), additivity is assumed to indicate independent and discrete processing stages. We present computational modeling work, using an existing Parallel Distributed Processing model of the Stroop task (Cohen et al., 1990) and a standard model of decision making (Ratcliff, 1978). This demonstrates that additive factors can be successfully accounted for by existing single stage models of the Stroop effect. Consequently, it is not valid to infer either discrete stages or separate loci of effects from additive factors. Further, our modeling work suggests that information binding may be a more important architectural property for producing additive factors than discrete stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.