Stroop Interference

Ullsperger, Bylsma, and Botvinick (2005) investigated whether the findings of Mayr, Awh, and Laurey (2003) can be replicated and how much they can be shown across different task performances. Their specific study was motivated by a prior experiment where Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) found that after an incompatible type trial reaction times were reduced and target processing occurred more frequently than flanker processing on the next trial. Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, and Cohen (2001) believed that this follows the conflict monitoring hypothesis where incompatible trials involve a conflict with the response leading to greater top-down information processing (Botvinick, Nystrom, Fissell, Carter, & Cohen, 1999). However, Mayr et. al (2003) argued that the congruency sequence effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) was due to repetition priming because of stimulus repeats in a flanker task. This may have led to a faster reaction time with repeated trials. Mayr et al. (2003) used two experiments to present evidence for their argument. Both experiments failed to show the effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) when target and stimulus items did not repeat from trial to trial.

The Stroop test consisted two major posters of word lists: Incongruent list and Neutral list. Each poster included 20 words in 2 columns of 10 words each. All letters were stenciled, capitalized and 1 ¾ inches high. Both incongruent and neutral words were listed on the 56 x 71 cm posters Stopwatch with 0.01-second accuracy was used to time to measure how long participants took to read both incongruent and neutral word lists, which is a dependent variable for this experiment.

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

The aim of this experiment is to study autonomic processes by replicating the previously carried out Stroop effect by using numbers. A number of 180 random participants aged in between 18-89 were recruited to participate in this experiment. Participants were presented with a stroop experiment task sheet which consists of three parts which was the control, congruent and incongruent conditions. Time was taken and recorded for each participant to say out the number of stars in the control condition and to say out the number of numbers in the congruent and incongruent conditions. Based on the results, participants took a considerably longer time to say the number of number in the incongruent condition than in the congruent condition.

It was found that tasks involving colors cause more interference. These two studies were similar to the present experiment, as they both required participants to verbally name colors while inhibiting themselves from naming the typed color, as fast as possible.

The article by Avital-Cohen and Tsal (2016) discussed the flanker task experiment, which asserted that distractor interference happens unconsciously as a result of focused attention toward the target. The results from the original flanker task indicated that participants had slower responses for incongruent trials, since the distractors are inconsistent with the target and would require a different response (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). However, Avital-Cohen and Tsal (2016) questioned the findings from the flanker task experiment. They decided to challenge the idea that only the target stimuli receives top-down processing, and not the distractors (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). The first experiment aimed to test whether the distractor interference is purely bottom-up processing as claimed in the flanker task. The experiment manipulated participants’ expectations of the target using the context effect - a type of top-down processing - by changing the distractors to be either letters or digits (Psych 240 lecture, 9/21/16). Then, the researchers conducted a second experiment and eliminated the ambiguity of distractors. They wanted to test whether the result from experiment 1 was caused by an overall bias or the ambiguous distractors. In experiment 2, the researchers predicted that they would obtain similar results to the first experiment only if the results were due to an overall bias effect (Avital-Cohen & Tsal, 2016). This study allows us to deepen our understanding of available

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).

This report aimed to replicate Stroop's (1935) experiment. Using the repeated measures design and a sample of 20 students, differences in verbal reaction times on two tests were observed. The one-tailed hypothesis predicted that it would take longer to say words in the Cc, this is the conflicting condition where the colour of the word differs from the colour that the word describes. It was found that, using the t-test for related data, this hypothesis could be accepted as the obtained value was much greater then the critical value. It can therefore be concluded that visual interference does affect people's verbal reactions.

The Stroop (1935) effect is the inability to ignore a color word when the task is to report the ink color of that word (i.e., to say "green" to the word RED in green ink). The present study investigated whether object-based processing contributes to the Stroop effect. According to this view, observers are unable to ignore irrelevant features of an attended object (Kahneman & Henik, 1981). In three experiments, participants had to name the color of one of two superimposed rectangles and to ignore words that appeared in the relevant object, in the irrelevant object, or in the background. The words were congruent,

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 the 1930’s, psychologists wanted to better understand how the brain processes presented information. To take it a step further, they wanted to see what happened when conflicting factors were presented and how the brain would process it. Would there be a delayed response? Would there be an error when giving the response? Psychologists were especially interested in how conflicting factors would inhibit the rate of impulse transmission in the nervous system (Eberle, 2012) and in 1935 John Ridley Stroop came up with an experiment to test the response rate of people when they were presented with conflicting factors.

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.

The study of interference in serial verbal reactions was coined by J.R Stroop and published as a journal of social psychology in 1935. The investigation focused on the interaction of stimuli and the effects on verbal reactions. The psychologists argued that interference of certain stimuli may affect the ease and convenience in performing verbal tasks. This simply means that interaction between certain counteracting stimuli may affect identification and interpretation of related and sequential verbal expected reactions. The most used concept in the experiment is the color stimuli. The authors exposed some students used as study subjects to certain color stimuli.it were evident that there were some difficulties in reading the colors, especially

The topic our group chose to experiment was “the use of the Stroop task while using both English and German as a foreign language”. The goal of our task is to test the limits of our participants’ selective attention. With our goal in mind, we want to be able to see how well our participants can ignore the stimuli of the words themselves as opposed to the ink they are printed in. We hypothesized that our participants would be able to complete the task in the foreign language faster than completing the task printed in English.

This study serves to investigate the phenomenon of the congruency sequence effect (CSE), often called conflict adaptation. A substantial amount of literature in the field of cognitive neuroscience has been dedicated to investigate the underlying mechanisms behind the CSE. Currently there are two competing views that try to answer this phenomenon: selection for action and response inhibition. Selection for action suggests that the brain focuses more on the target to cope with distraction. Competing views, such as response inhibition, instead suggests that the brain ignores distractors. The current study uses a prime-probe word task to try to distinguish between the competing accounts. To differentiate between the two hypotheses, we have employed the technique of varying the time intervals separating the distracters from the target. This increased time interval virtually eliminates the overall congruency effect and allows us to examine the underlying mechanisms. By combining this unique methodological approach and accounting for various confounds, we observed a negative congruency effect after incongruent trials. We believe that the increased time intervals separating the distracters and targets are responsible for the subjects’ ability to fully inhibit the response activated by the distracter. These findings provide compelling evidence that support the control process of response inhibition in the absence of learning and memory confounds.