<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Colleagues: <div><br></div><div>I am pleased to announce a new publication that might be of interest to you and your students: </div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Juvina, I., & Taatgen, N. A. (2009). A repetition-suppression account of between-trial effects in a modified Stroop paradigm. <i>Acta Psychologica, 131</i></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">(1), 72-84.</span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Times New Roman'" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Times New Roman'" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; "><h3 class="h3" style="font-size: 1.2em; font-family: arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; ">Abstract</h3><p style="line-height: 150%; ">Theories that postulate cognitive inhibition are very common in psychology and cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Hasher, Lustig, & Zacks, 2007), although they have recently been severely criticized (e.g., MacLeod, Dodd, Sheard, Wilson, & Bibi, 2003). This paper poses and attempts to answer the question whether a research program with cognitive inhibition as its main theoretical assumption is still worth pursuing. We present a set of empirical data from a modified Stroop paradigm that replicates previously reported findings. These findings refer to between-trial effects previously described in the literature on Stroop, negative priming, and inhibition-of-return. Existing theoretical accounts fail to explain all these effects in an integrated way. A repetition-suppression mechanism is proposed in order to account for these data. This mechanism is instantiated as a computational cognitive model. The theoretical implications of this model are discussed.</p></span></span></font></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>Please follow the link below to download the article: </div><div> </div><div><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.002">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.002</a></div><div><br></div><div>If your institution does not have access to this journal, please feel free to email me for a free reprint. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div> </div><div>Ion Juvina,</div><div> </div><div>Department of Psychology </div><div>Baker Hall 336A </div><div>Carnegie Mellon University </div><div>5000 Forbes Ave.</div><div>Pittsburgh, PA 15213 </div><div><br></div></body></html>