Stroop Effect Analysis

In another study, five experiments were conducted to determine if coloring a single Stroop element reduced automaticity or slowed the processing of a color. The results demonstrated that indeed it slowed processing of congruent and neutral stimuli more than it slows processing of incongruent stimuli (Monahan, 2001).

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.

Attention is considered to be a core cognitive process, it refers to how people actively process specific information in the environment. Attention refers to how people select from information and stimuli in the environment, facilitating processing of some of the stimuli and inhibiting processing of others. "Everyone knows what attention is, it is the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought...It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state. “This definition of attention was proposed by psychologist William James (1890). This review will focus on literature that gives explanation to selective attention. Selective attention refers to the process where a person is able to select out of many stimuli and focus on the one they want and ignore other stimuli.

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

In the Stroop task, participants are asked to name the colour of the ink that a colour word is written in, while ignoring the written the word (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The task is comprised of congruent words, where the ink colour and the written word match and incongruent words, where the ink colour and the written word do not match. The Stroop task has illustrated that participants respond slower and less accurately when the word is incongruent compared to when it is congruent (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). The difference in the accuracy and speed of responses between the congruent and incongruent words is called the Stroop Effect (Goldfarb et al., 2011; Raz et al., 2006). Research has suggested that this occurs

The participants were presented with stimuli of two components which was displayed to them on screen. One stimuli was the coloured rectangular patch (3.5x5.5cm). This patch was presented in a variety of difference colours; yellow, red, green and blue. The other stimuli that was presented to the participants was a word, which either matched up to one of the four colours, however could have been in-congruent or congruent or a natural, control 'word ' being XXXXX. As well being presented with the patch, the words would also appear, in size 24, in the centre of the patch. There were four conditions for when the word appeared; 0ms (simultaneously), 100ms, 200ms or 350ms.

Early studies have widely researched attention with selective processing (Driver, 2001). Broadbent (1958) filter theory of attention states that certain information does not require focal attention. It is based on certain stimulus attributes such as colour and shape (Friedenberg, 2012). A previous study carried out by Treisman and Schmidt (1982) proposes that when attention is diverted from a display of several figures, the participants incorrectly combine the features of colour and shape therefore increases the illusory conjunctions portrayed by the participants (Tsal, 1989). Another study by Shaw (1978) found that reaction time of participant to identify targets varied with the probability that a target would appear in a particular display location. These results indicate that different amounts of attention towards the targets are distributed to different positions in the visual field. However, Houck and Hoffman (1986) found that the feature integration of colour and orientation can sometimes be accomplished without attention (James et al.,

Stimuli have been known to be everywhere throughout nature today, tragically we don't know about its nearness. Frequently we end up actualizing thoughtfulness regarding sift through the jolts that is not concerning and concentrate more on the boosts that hint at a much pivotal cautioning. Although it is expressed that regardless of how hard somebody needs to focus on a few boosts, it is conceivable that they may have issues to do as such in each circumstance. "When you shift your focus from one thing to another, a tiny "gap" in attention is created lasting about half a second. This gap is known as an attentional blink” (Shapiro, K. L. (1994). This content will give data on Attentional squint how it identifies with consideration, and explanation

In 1935, the Stroop Effect was first established by John Ridley Stroop. Research done by John Ridley Stroop emphasizes the processing of words that it has on the more studious challenge of naming just the ink color. The Stroop Effect is a proof of interference in the reaction time of an exercise. In the Stroop Effect, subjects are tested only on naming colors of incompatible words and of control patches (MacLeod 1991). Many tests can be distributed, all varied in the colors and words. Any color can be used; the same goes with any word being used. Subjects receive a time of how long it took them to read each test; where the subjects find a time difference between the different tests. When taking some of these tests, people may experience a mental sensation comparable to running in a swimming pool (Bower 1992).

Interference is basically looking at the word and seeing both the color and the meaning. It confuses the brain and forces it to make a choice. Experiences and memory have taught people that the meaning of the word is more important than the color of the word. ("Stroop effect - mind games or an illusion?," n.d., p. 04) This is why many people have trouble when the color of the word differs from the color the word names. There’s a theory on interference that focuses on human memory. It says that interference occurs when a person tries to recall information. It also states that learned information conflicts with new information. Interference and the Stroop effect are used to compare brain development in young children, most likely to look for any mental problems or things like that. Interference is also very largely present in condition such as brain damage, ADHD, dementia, alcoholism, and many others. ("Stroop effect - mind games or an illusion?," n.d., p. 04) Selective attention plays a critical role in the brain’s ability to process task-related stuff. The Stroop effect shows a great deal of conflict in the brain between well-leaned behavior, and a decision that requires that behavior to be repressed. The participants need to filter their automatic reading skill in order to name the color of the word. (Leung, Skudlarski, Gatenby, Peterson, & Gore, 2000, p.

The cognitive task of the Stroop task is the proof that an interference of a task has a reaction time delay. From the moment I saw the Stroop effect on my textbook and on the power point in lecture class, I grew an interest to this subject. I found it a mentally challenging task; it was tricky and therefore grasped my attention and wanted to further explore this cognitive task. As stated by MacLeod, “The Stroop effect, however, is more than a cognitive curiosity; it continues to play a key role in the understanding of attention” (MacLeod, 1992). The Stroop task shows an interesting effect, but most importantly has served as a tool to further our knowledge on attention and cognition.

Psychology has been strategically split into three levels of analysis, biological, cognitive, sociocultural. Each one specific to different process in our brain and its functions. The brain remains a mystery but throughout history researchers big and small have taken it into their own hands to help us understand how it works. For this internal assessment a study pertaining to the cognitive level of analysis will be replicated. The study was originally conducted by J. Ridley Stroop in 1935 under the name : Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions. The same study is commonly known as the Stroop Effect. The aim of this study was to identify to what extent does conflicting stimuli affect verbal serial recognition. For the purposes of

The study written about here’s aim was to look at the development of selective attention by using the cross-model Stroop test. The study used fifteen 4-5 year olds, fifteen 6-7 year olds, fifteen 9-11 and thirty undergraduates to participate in the study. The participants were tested individually in a lab and were told they would play a computer game, the aim of the game was to name to colour that appeared of the computer screen however they were wearing head phones and sometimes they would hear a word that could confuse them. The participants were given multiple trial, the first consisting of 18 rounds that occurred in silent conditions, giving the participants a chance to practice and

Research carried out on attention has mainly been associated with the selective processing of incoming sensory information. It proposes, to some degree, our awareness of the world depends on what we choose to focus on and not simply the stimulation received by our senses. Attention is often linked to a filter that screens out most potential stimuli whilst allowing a select few to pass through into our conscious awareness, however, a great deal of debate has been devoted to where the filter is situated in the information processing chain (Martindale, 1991). Psychologists have made extensive contributions to this subject matter in the past century. Notable examples include Donald Broadbent's filter theory of attention (1958), which set the

The brain’s recognition of objects and labels is instantaneous because of which incongruent stimuli greatly interfere in the brain’s ability to correctly label objects. The goal of our research was to examine the effects of incongruent labels on response time, illustrated through the Stroop test. The Stroop test is a well-known visual processing test created to determine how the cognitive process can be inhibited by what is seen and interpreted visually. Our specific Stroop task approached the interference between shapes and words, rather than colors and words. Participants were asked