Effects Of Automatic Word Reading And Identifying Direction

The Stroop effect is demonstrated by the reaction time to determine a color when the color is printed in a different color’s name. Participants respond slower or make more errors when the meaning of the word is incongruent with the color of the word. Despite knowing the meaning of the word, participants showed incapability of ignoring the stimulus attribute. This reflects a clear instance of semantic interference and an unfathomed failure of selective attention (Stroop, 1935).

The following research studies the effects of distractions on working memory in order to test this theory. Given the research, it is hypothesized that information processing will be adversely affected by distractions.

An interesting challenge arises when a task such as color naming is identified as both controlled and automatic, by varying the other task involved. Color naming is identified as a controlled process when the other task is word reading, but as an automatic process when the other task is shape naming. Cohen, Dunbar and McClelland (1990) proposed an alternative explanation of the Stroop effect, which does not distinguish between automatic and controlled processing. Instead, they proposed that automaticity is a range, and that Stroop interference depends on the relative degree of learning the particular tasks, not on processing speed.

The Stroop effect was tested on four different tasks. Nineteen Queens College students were recruited by flyer, and each were assigned to a word reading task, color reading task, color inhibition task, and word inhibition task. They were timed using a stopwatch function on a cell phone, to name the color, or word to the quickest of their ability. In the order from longest reaction time to shortest: inhibition color naming task, color naming task, inhibition word reading, and word reading. This study shows that people can read words more quickly than they can name colors, and that inhibiting an automatic response to color/word tasks will take longer to do than tasks that do not involve inhibition.

The Stroop experiment by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935 was performed in order to analyze the reaction time of participant’s stimuli and desired results while also obtaining a collective result of color interference and word reading(Stroop, 1935; Lee & Chan, 2000). In the experiment three forms of the test were given, the first consisting of color patches, the second had the color words printed in black and the other was an incongruent test beaming the color did not match the color word

It has been well established that human attention does not accommodate multitasking. The “cocktail party effect” described by Dr. Adam Gazzaley shows that true multitasking is impossible: during a cocktail party, someone can listen to a conversation while shifting their attention to look at another individual having a different conversation but can only notice minor details about the other conversation, such as the sound of their name (Richtel, 62). In addition, the possibility that a person can focus on two different things at once is further diminished by how the two main forms of human attention, bottom-up and top-down, function. Top-down attention is involved in focusing on goals and tasks like writing a paper, making a meal, or driving; on the other hand, bottom-up attention is what causes someone’s attention to focus on something instantly, such as the sounding of a fire alarm or a sound from a cell phone (Richtel, 105-6). This means that a driver’s focus (top-down attention) can be taken completely off the road by a vibration or noise that comes from their cell phone’s capturing their bottom-up attention.

The Stroop experiment can be traced back as far as the nineteen century around the time of some particular works of Cattell and Wundt. The experiment was first written about in 1929 in German. The experiment was name after John Ridley Stroop after he had written the article “Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions,” which was published in 1935.there have been over 700 replications of this experiment

Controlled Vs Automatic processes: A modified version of a Stroop experiment using colour-associated and colour neutral words.

In the control group, Stroop (1935) printed all of the words in black. In both conditions, Stroop (1935) printed the words twice in each row and twice in each column. Stroop (1935) did not print the colors in the corresponding color of ink and also did not repeat words in a row or column. For his first experiment, Stroop (1935) used 70 college student volunteers. Half of the students (half of each sex) completed the control, then the experimental sheet, then experimental sheet again, and then the control (Stroop, 1935).

In Stroop’s (1935) interference article, it was discovered that there is more interference in color naming then color reading. The experiment described in the article tested whether there was more interference from words or from colors (Stroop 1935). Two tests were administered each with a separate control. The RCNd test determined how fast one could read color names where the color was different from the color name while the NCWd test determined how fast one could name colors where the color was different from the word on the page. The mean time for 100 responses increased from 63.3 seconds on the RCNd test to 110.3 seconds on the NCWd test or an

We often tend to live our everyday lives without paying much attention to the factors that contribute to our every movement and function. Have you ever wondered what triggers your brain to complete simple tasks, such as reading road signs, or knowing how to follow a guided set of instructions? John Ridley Stroop became specifically interested in the part of the brain that measures selective attention [1]. Oftentimes, in order to maintain balance, the brain will carry out the action that is most common and easy and will stop the action that will take more work and effort. The process explained in the previous sentence is known as inhibition, and it regularly occurs in our minds [2]. Stroop gave participants a list of colors, such as green,

In his historic study, Stroop found that reading names of colors interfered with individuals’ ability to name the ink color the word was printed in when the two differed (i.e., the word “BLUE” written in red ink) (1935). However, the basis of this phenomenon can be traced back to Cattell who found that naming colors and pictures took twice as long to accomplish than reading the word these colors or pictures represented (1886). He concluded that this was due to reading being an automatic process while identifying colors or pictures requires a conscious effort (Cattell, 1886). MacLeod (1991) reflects that it was Cattell’s work which strongly influenced future psychologist including Stroop.

In Stroop's experiment, the stimulus presented contains two kinds of information (word meaning and the color of writing it), and the processing of these two kinds of information is different. When these two pieces of information are input at the same time, it is difficult to do the processing on only one of the pieces of information and not on the other. Because of the ease with which words are processed, people tend to report meaning. However, this experiment does not allow this reaction. Therefore, the two processing processes are prone to competition, resulting in a difference in the speed of the reaction, resulting in confusion and confusion of the meaning of the word in its writing. For example, Many low-level human behaviors are automatic, in that a passport serves to elicit the behavior in the absence of conscious awareness or

In 1935, John Ridley Stroop conducted an experiment at George Peabody College for teachers in the United States. Stroop used 70 college undergraduates as subject in his experiment, he compared times for reading names of colours and naming colours themselves. The aim was to determine if the colour of the word affected the ability to read it. In the experiment, there was three different conditions. In the first condition participants were asked to read words as quickly as possible whereas participants had to name the ink colour in which each word were printed as quickly as possible in second condition. In a third condition (the incongruent condition), participants had to name the ink colour in which each word was printed, but in this condition the words themselves were colour names. For example, the word ‘GREEN’ was presented in the colour orange and you were required to read this colour instead of the word itself. Stroop found that the participants were much slower at naming the ink colours when the stimuli were themselves colours as (third condition), indicating that a possible explanation for the Stroop effect is that people quickly and automatically process the meaning of the word.

We are replicating J.R. Stroop’s original experiment The Stroop Effect (Stroop, 1935). The aim of the study was to understand how automatic processing interferes with attempts to attend to sensory information. The independent variable of our experiment was the three conditions, the congruent words, the incongruent words, and the colored squares, and the dependent variable was the time that it took participants to state the ink color of the list of words in each condition. We used repeated measures for the experiment in order to avoid influence of extraneous variables. The participants were 16-17 years of age from Garland High School. The participants will be timed on how long it takes them to say the color of the squares and the color of the words. The research was conducted in the Math Studies class. The participants were aged 16-17 and were students at Garland High School. The results showed that participants took the most time with the incongruent words.