The Limitations Of A Replication And Intention And Benefits Of The RIT

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).

Attention is thought to be selective-focused on one subject at a time. Traditionally, it has been assumed that automatic processing is involuntary, it does not require attention, and is relatively fast; whereas, controlled processing is voluntary, does require attention, and is relatively slow. We can conclude from this that the more we repeat a certain material or tasks the more it becomes automatic and effortless to us.

In the second phase of the experiment, the task and stimuli were the same, but following this phase, all of the subjects reported having seen the patterns. ERPs recorded over the occipital pole differed in amplitude from 220 to 260 msec for the pattern stimuli compared with the random arrays regardless of whether subjects were aware of the patterns. At subsequent latencies (300–340 msec) however, ERPs over bilateral occipital-parietal areas differed between patterns and random arrays only when subjects were aware of the patterns. Finally, in a third phase of the experiment, subjects viewed the same stimuli, but the task was altered so that the patterns became task relevant. Here, the same two difference components were evident but were followed by a series of additional components that were absent in the first two phases of the experiment. We hypothesize that the ERP difference at 220–260 msec reflects neural activity associated with automatic contour integration whereas the difference at 300–340 msec reflects visual awareness, both of which are dissociable from

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

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.

Abrupt appearance of an object within peripheral visual fields are sudden onset distractors (SOD) and they can have effects on attention and reaction times. Attentional capture occurs when a distractor stimulus appears in a field of vision and pulls focus away from the task at hand. This has the effect of increasing reaction times as it diverts a subject’s attention while the brain registers and processes the new information. When the brain is focussed upon a specific task the distractor captures attention and thus can increase reaction time through this visual processing mechanism. This demonstrates automaticity, a reflex which is both not inhibited by increasing cognitive load (load-insensitivity criterion) and not voluntarily controlled (intentionality criterion). The attentional

The trials for each of the six conditions were presented in a random order. The experimenter controlled for differences among participants by having them set their own equiluminant point for the cue stimuli and eliminated luminance differences by embedding the stimuli in a random luminance noise. The experimenter also controlled for outliers by eliminating response

final experiment Johnson, Hollingworth, and Luck tested to see whether whole-array stimuli would generate a binding deficit. The main alteration that researchers used was color and shape rather than that of the use of color and orientation. This study used a 3-digit number that each participant was to repeat aloud during experiment. Displayed for participant was a stimulus randomly assigned a positon or centered on the display screen. A small time allotment was given for participants to respond. Findings suggest that overall accuracy was highest within the whole display in the color only condition. Johnson, Hollingworth, and Luck conclude that having a multitude of objects to focus on, memory performance remained near 65% correct in the dual-task binding condition. (Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008)

While Klein (2000)'s research did aim to recreate this phenomenon clearly, the current study differentiated its self by introducing the letters L and T as cues to which provided no information about the location of the target as the presentation. As presentation of a single cue meant it was four times more likely for a cue and a target to appear on the same side. The purpose of this variation was that a majority of previous studies had presented the facilitation effect and the IOR effect in a scenario where the cues were equally as

Three things were concluded from this experiment. First, picture rotations took longer to perform than letter rotations. Second, there were no sex differences in reaction times for either stimulus presented, and third, there was a linear increase in reaction times as angular disparity of both stimuli sets increased (Desrocher, smith & Taylor, 1995).

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.

79). They go on to mention that the reason cited most often as reason for change blindness is that the second scene overwrites the first scene, from the 2000 study from Enns & Di Lollo. Even though “people can monitor between one and four items for change”(Luck & Vogel, 1997), Treisman & Gelade in 1980 said that attention is needed to bind features to objects and Resnick (2000) said that we needed that attention to “encode a coherent representation”. Even then, Resnick says those representations are “highly volatile” can be overwritten with new information

Measures of CC have commonly included tasks requiring attention to internal (local) details, such as tasks which require the neglect of canonical arrangement of dots when counting, a Homograph Reading Task (Burnette et al., 2005) and the Embedded Figures Tasks (EFT) (Baron-Cohen & Hammer, 1997). More recently, a measure focusing on biases towards global processing rather than local was conducted using hierarchical (global / local) Navon figures (Deruelle et al., 2006). Findings were still found to support those of local-focused measures.

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

This study was a seminal replication on attention blink similar to the one done by Raymond et al, in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. This study predicted that there would be a higher accuracy for identifying the first target, T1 and lower accuracy for the second target, T2 depending on the lag, given that T1 was accurately reported. 193 students participated in the experiment. This experiment was a part of the course requirement. There was a stream of 19 letters, each lasting for 100 ms. The target letters, T1 and/or T2, to be identified were either a ‘J’ or a ‘K’ or both from the stream of 19 letters presented. In this study, a total of 60 trials were conducted for each participant. For T1, there were 30 ‘J’ and 30 ‘K’ targets. T2 comprised of 24 J, 24 K and 12 null targets. The participants were asked to decide whether they saw the letters J, K, both or neither following the RSVP stream. They were asked to do so by using a button click mechanism. At the end of all the trials, the participants were presented with a summary of their performance report. It was observed that the percentage of T1 reported does not vary significantly as a function of lag. Also, the percentage of T2 reported varied as a function of lag. At greater lag positions, it was seen that the percentage of T2 reported goes above that of T1.