Unit 8 Lab Report Sample

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

Following classical conditioning the data show a decrease in variability and in the latency between stimulus presentation and the response. There is also a change in trend from increasing to no trend.

The estimated sample to be taken should be 9 lettuce plants/ roots to have the 95% level of confidence and within the 10% of population mean.

In a quiet college classroom, participants were individually tested, with a seat positioned in view of a computer, and a seat on the side for the experimenter to sit. There were four tasks for the participants to complete, that were timed. The participants were told that if they were to make an error by naming the wrong color, to correct it and read the next color, as the experimenter would write how many errors

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 simulated time of the drive (day or night) were varied across the trials. Eye movements were

Because rats see brightness more clearly than they see color, the two patterns will be constructed of equal-width stripes along the surface of the material with the colors white-blue-light green-blue (“model” pattern) and white-light green-blue-light green (“mimic” pattern). The rats will have an unlimited amount of time to make a decision (the latency to their decision will be recorded) but they can only make one (whether or not they made the correct decision is also recorded). The test will be performed several times with each group to provide a large sample

This activity allows the participant to observe the responses for the L, M, and S cones. This activity shows that the cones have different response rates to different lights. For instance, the S cones, which are short wavelength cones, have a high firing rate with 90% amplitude of blue light. However, the L cones, which are long wavelength cones, have a strong firing rate with 90% amplitude of red light. This is consistent with the length of the light wavelengths. For instance, the M cones, which has medium wavelength respectively responds to medium wavelength light, which is green

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.

A controlled process is a task which is new or unique to the person. It is serial, takes heavy demands on attention, requires conscious efforts to direct attention towards the task and is slow. Whereas an automatic process is a task which has already been learned. It can be parallel, makes no demands on attention, does not need conscious direction of attention towards the task and is fast. This implies that when we are presented with a word, the action of stating its color is a relatively new task compared to the already learnt behavior to read just words. Therefore, reading is seen as the automatic process which interferes with the slower controlled process of stating the color. With the alteration of the original Stroop Effect experiment, the automaticity model is discredited due to the fact that instead of stating the word the participant points at the observed color instead. This nonverbal response, pointing at the color, is not believed to be an automatic process, thus the automaticity model is questioned when researchers note an interference in the speed of processing in incongruently colored

In the original version of this experiment, participants saw a static rectangular display made up of a number of identical objects. At the start of the trial, a few of these objects briefly blinked, indicating that they were the targets

Participants seeking to measure the contrast sensitivity over differing spatial frequencies used the instructions as a guide to perform this experiment. The experiment implored the use of a computer to display the screen images necessary to test the ability of participants contrast sensitivity. The standard computer keyboard was necessary to allow the participants to indicate the order that the target stimulus is present. This particular experiment used a random order showing the target stimulus in different orders to allow the participant the ability to test their contrast sensitivity to the differing spatial frequencies.

The aim of this experiment was to replicate the experiment Stroop (1935). This study was the basis of the Stroop effect, which says that common tasks such as identifying a color can be interfered by automated processes, such as reading.

Signal Detection Task. A 25-minute signal detection task was used in this study. E-Prime software (version 1.1; Psychology Software Tools, Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) was used to run the task. This task is designed to assess individual’s tendency of regulating their behaviors based on prior reinforcements and is validated in several studies (Bogdan & Pizzagalli, 2006; Pizzagalli, Jahn, & O’Shea, 2005; Pizzagalli, Iosifescu, Hallett, Ratner, & Fava, 2008). It began with a 500ms presentation of an asterisk, followed by a mouthless cartoon face. Then, either a long (13mm) or short (11.5mm) mouth will be presented for 100ms. Participant were asked to determine whether a short or a long mouth was presented on the previously

Design and Stimuli. The experiment was run using a within-subject design, and consisted of 105 trial sessions. The experiment included seven different rotation angles, and for each level of a rotation variable (e.g. 0 degrees, 60 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees), 15 trials were presented. In each trial, participants were shown an original pair of three-dimensional figures. The task involved contrasting each pair of three-dimensional items, and then deciding whether the items were of a non-mirrored or mirrored orientation. The apparatus was set so that the left stimulus could be rotated, and that the size of the stimulus would equal 300 pixels. There was a 1000 millisecond delay before a stimulus was presented on screen for each trial, and the center of each stimulus was located 0.15 from the fixation stimulus on screen. The stimulus or rather the figure presented would remain on screen until participants responded by pressing ‘s’ for an identical item or ‘m’ for a mirror reflection.