In experiment 1, participants were instructed to press a key to determine if the stimulus was red, blue, yellow, or green. On the second half of the experiment, the stimulus appeared in grey with only one colored letter which was positioned randomly. Error rates for the experiment were below 2.5% for each condition, which is quite low. Experiment 2 was the same as experiment 1 except that there were 114 data collections instead of 288 and there were 36 practice trials instead of 72. According to experiment 1 and 2 it is suggested that the effect of
Discussion The purpose of the study was to measure the effect that the Flicker Paradigm had on visual perception. The Flicker Paradigm causes a distraction while there is a change made in the image. It was designed to test how long the groups took to react to a change in the visual field. The test is meant to show that the disturbance in the visual field made it much more challenging for the viewer to notice any changes that were made in the image. The hypothesis stated that the experimental group, the group using the Flicker Paradigm, would take longer to notice the change in the visual field than the control group, which had no flicker between the altered images. This is because the disturbance in the visual field caused the brain to miss the change that was made to the image because the information was deemed as unimportant. The majority of the perceived changes occurred in the background of the scene, and were considered minor in reference to the whole scene. This was proven true from the data collected, and coincided with previous tests. (Rensink, R. A. 2000). The data in tables 1.1 and 1.3 shows the individual participant data for the test with a flicker for both tests one and two. Tables 1.2 and 1.4 represent the individual results for the tests with no flicker, or the control group. Graphs 1.1 and 1.2 showed the relationship between the time taken to recognize alterations in the images. The data was taken from the average time to recognize the change from all
Question: Do we react more quickly to visual or auditory stimuli? 1. Form hypothesis: Do you think you will react more quickly to sights or sounds? Explain why.
2. Suppose another experiment had participants say the word “now” as soon as they detected the green circle, and that the response times were between 100 and 200 milliseconds. What would you conclude about the cognitive tasks involved in these two versions of simple detection?
Patients tend to correctly identify shape, color, and motion of inputs. In a forced choice experiment, where the subject is asked to identify certain features of a visual cue, the subject will perform much better than chance even though they feel as if they are randomly guessing (2).
Alansari and Baroun (2004) had participants state whether they were color blind, dyslexic, or if they had previously ever taken the Stroop test before, it was important that these interferences were factored out in order to obtain a conclusive observation in regards to all the participants involved in the experiment. MacLeod (1991) had suggested that those with disabilities tended to show high Stroop interference, also along with those with an attention deficit disorder since maintaining concentration throughout the experiment and test is an important factor in obtaining more accurate results without a significant outlier. Also different levels of interference where shown in children and adults, it was also observed that interference began at an early age, declined in the adult years since most have a peak of cognitive development and understanding in adult years, but once again increased interference around the age of 60 (MacLeod,
Methodology In order to test this hypothesis, an experimental study was designed to calculate the time it takes for participants to respond to a cue under control or experimental conditions.
It was therefore hypothesised that the reaction times for global judgments would be faster than the reaction times of local judgments. It was also hypothesised that consistent stimuli would be faster than conflicting stimuli in the local tasks.
This was achieved by presenting central cues, indicating the position of the target letter thus increasing focus. Through these experiments they found that when a subject is in a diffuse attention state (unfocussed) SOD do cause attentional capture and increase reaction time. However, if the subject was presented with a cue this same increase in reaction time was not observed. This led them to conclude that attentional capture from SOD is not automatic and instead propose a priority based visual attention system. In 2006 Neo and Chua conducted research which built upon Yantis and Jonides’ to further demonstrate effects of attentional capture on reaction time. They investigated whether sporadic use of the SOD increased the effect of attentional capture as well as investigated whether maintaining the same position for the target letter decreased reaction times. They found that SOD attentional capture did affect reaction times and unlike in Yantis and Jonides’ experiment they concluded SOD did trigger an automaticity response when used
Explain that wearing the aids as often and as consistently as possible is essential to speech and language development for the child. The hearing aids provide access to sounds for the child and without this stimulation speech and language development will be negatively impacted. Auditory input is needed to help the child to learn to listen, if the aids are not being used and the auditory pathways of the brain are not being stimulated then the child will eventually lose that ability. The quality of the signal in the hearing aids is directly related to the child’s speech intelligibility. A high quality auditory input provides a better opportunity for learning and better speech intelligibility. Full access is important for children who are learning
1. The two independent variables were luminant cue patches (light cue, dark cue and equiluminant cue) and location of the cue and target (valid side with cue and target on same side and invalid side with cue and target on opposite sides). The dependent variable was participants’ reaction time in millisecond.
Numerical Task Stroop Effect Experiment Annette Franco University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee Abstract This study added to the well know innovation of the Stroop effect and experiment by John Ridley Stroop through a Stroop task experiment. There were twenty participants who completed two conditions, which tested reaction time. For each condition the participants were asked to read aloud the number of digits that appeared on each row as fast as they could. One condition number figure matched the number of digits. The second condition did not match the number figure with the number of digits. After the experiment was done, it showed a significant difference for reaction time between both the conditions. The Stroop task demonstrates
False Memories are fundamentally, unintended human errors, which results in people having memories of events and situations that did not actually occur. It’s worth noting that in humans there are both true and false memories, these false memories occur when a mental experience is incorrectly taken to be a representation
General Discussion From these results, we see that some subjects were able to mentally rotate an image faster than others, and that this process could take more than 30 milliseconds to complete. Our results demonstrate that participants were more than just accurate when making a judgment about the nature of mental
Nicholas Durazo KINE2202 section 002 Lab Report 1 Introduction The reaction time (RT) of students was measured in the experiment to determine whether light or sound stimulus initiates a quicker response time. The question of whether or not RT was related to movement time (MT) was also challenged. Each student performed two test in random order; one testing the reaction time of a red light stimulus, or visual reaction time (VRT); and the other testing the reaction time of a “beeping” sound stimulus, or auditory reaction time (ART). The student completed the VRT trial by simply receiving the stimulus and pressing a button. The student placing and holding their hand on a button starts the ART trial. Once the student receives the stimulus (beep) they press the adjacent button as fast as they can. The ART trial does not only include the data of the RT, but also the data from the MT. Having previous knowledge that light travels faster than sound; one can predict that VRT is faster than ART. The prediction that MT is independent upon RT can be made with the thought that there are so many opposing variables that could affect the MT of an individual unrelated RT such as old age