Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We examined whether inhibition skills were recruited during the processing of compound words. Using an individual differences perspective, we analyzed whether participants’ scores on the Stroop test predicted performance on lexical decision tasks involving compound words varying in their level of semantic opacity. The results show that inhibition is involved in the comprehension of fully opaque (e.g., ) and fully transparent (e.g., ) compound words, but we found no evidence for such an effect in the comprehension of partially opaque compound words (e.g., , ).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Benedek, M., Franz, F., Heene, M., & Neubauer, A. C.
    (2012) Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 480–485. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K.
    (1990) The resources construct in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition. Developmental Review, 10(1), 48–71. 10.1016/0273‑2297(90)90004‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90004-N [Google Scholar]
  3. Bisiach, E., Mini, M., Sterzi, R., & Vallar, G.
    (1982) Hemispheric lateralization of the decisional stage in choice reaction times to visual unstructured stimuli. Cortex, 18(2), 191–197. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑9452(82)80002‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(82)80002-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks, T. L., & Cid de Garcia, D.
    (2015) Evidence for morphological composition in compound words using MEG. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 9:215. doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2015.00215
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00215 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
    (2009) Moving beyond Kuçera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P.
    (2008) Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. 10.3758/MC.36.8.1484
    https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1484 [Google Scholar]
  7. Durgin, F. H.
    (2000) The reverse Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 121–125. 10.3758/BF03210730
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210730 [Google Scholar]
  8. El-Bialy, Rowan, Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
    (2013) Processing of English compounds is sensitive to the constituents’ semantic transparency. The Mental Lexicon8. 75–95. 10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.04elb [Google Scholar]
  9. Engle, Kane & Tuholski
    (1999) Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. InMiyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (pp.102–134). London: Cambridge Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174909.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Enright, S. J., & Beech, A. R.
    (1990) Obsessional states: Anxiety disorders or schizotypes? An information processing and personality assessment. Psychological Medicine, 20(3), 621–627. 10.1017/S003329170001713X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170001713X [Google Scholar]
  11. Frith, C. D.
    (1979) Consciousness, information processing, and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 225–35. 10.1192/bjp.134.3.225
    https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.134.3.225 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2009) Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures?Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 20–35. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) Typing time as an index of morphological and semantic effects during English compound processing. Lingue e Linguaggio, 13(2), 241–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2016) Written production of English compounds: effects of morphology and semantic transparency. Morphology, 26(2), 133–155. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑015‑9265‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9265-0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gignac, G. E., & Vernon, P. A.
    (2004) Reaction time and the dominant and non-dominant hands: An extension of Hick’s Law. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 733–739. doi:  10.1016/S0191‑8869(03)00133‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00133-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., & Goldvarg, Y.
    (2001) Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 277–293. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T.
    (1988) Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. InG. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22 (pp.193–225). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(08)60041‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., & May, C. P.
    (1999) Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. InD. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention & Performance, XVII, Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application (pp.653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Horga, G., & Maia, T. V.
    (2012) Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: a theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199 [Google Scholar]
  20. Iakimova, G., Passerieux, C., & Hardy-Bayle, M. C.
    (2006) The understanding of metaphors in schizophrenia and depression. An experimental approach. Encephale, 32, 995–1002. 10.1016/S0013‑7006(06)76279‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7006(06)76279-0 [Google Scholar]
  21. Imbrosciano, A., & Berlach, R.
    (2006) The Stroop test and its relationship to academic performance and general behaviour of young students. Teacher Development, 9, 131–144. 10.1080/13664530500200234
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530500200234 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L.
    (2011) Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 406–430. 10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Joormann, J., Yoon, K. L., Zetsche, U.
    (2007) Cognitive inhibition in depression. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 12, 128–139. 10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Juhasz, B. J.
    (2007) The influence of semantic transparency on eye movements during English compound word recognition. InR. von Gompel, W. Murray, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp.373–389). Boston, MA: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50018‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50018-5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Knight, S., & Heinrich, A.
    (2017) Different measures of auditory and visual stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 230. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A.
    (2011) Individual differences in visual comprehension of morphological complexity. InL. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1643–1648). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Libben, G.
    (1993) A Case of obligatory access to morphological constituents. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 16, 111–12. 10.1017/S0332586500002766
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500002766 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005) Everything is psycholinguistics: Material and methodological considerations in the study of compound processing. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique. 50. 267–283. 10.1017/S000841310000373X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S000841310000373X [Google Scholar]
  29. Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D.
    (2003) Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(02)00520‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J.
    (1984) Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(2), 135–138. 10.3758/BF03333784
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333784 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacGregor, L., & Shtyrov, Y.
    (2013) Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: Evidence from EEG. Brain & Language, 126, 217–229. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacLeod, C. M.
    (1991) Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 109, 163–203. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.109.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  33. Monterosso, J. R., Aron, A. R., Cordova, X., Xu, J., & London, E. D.
    (2005) Deficits in response inhibition associated with chronic methamphetamine abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79(2), 273–277. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M.
    (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sandra, D.
    (1990) On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 42, 529–567. 10.1080/14640749008401236
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sani, S. R., Tabibi, Z., Fadardi, J. S., & Stavrinos, D.
    (2017) Aggression, emotional self-regulation, attentional bias, and cognitive inhibition predict risky driving behavior. Accident; analysis and prevention, 109, 78–88. 10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M.
    (1982) Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations on knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–532. 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90017‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmidtke, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Kuperman, V.
    (2018) Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 421–439.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Stroop, J. R.
    (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. 10.1037/h0054651
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651 [Google Scholar]
  40. Traverso, L., Mantini, C., Usai, M. C., & Viterbori, P.
    (2015) The relationship between inhibition and working memory in preschoolers: Evidence for different inhibitory abilities. InG. Airenti, B. Bara, G. Sandini, & M. Cruciani (Eds.). Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science / 4th European Conference on Cognitive Science / 11th International Conference on Cognitive Science (pp.48–53). Torino, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Treisman, A., & Fearnley, S.
    (1969) The Stroop test: Selective attention to colours and words. Nature, 222, 437–439. 10.1038/222437a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/222437a0 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compound words; individual differences; inhibition; opaque; semantic transparency
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error