Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/wiki/Stroop_effect
Ritardo nel tempo di azione, come quello che ho provato io quando ho
fatto The Healing!
Contents
• 1 Experiment
• 2 Experimental findings
• 3 Neuroanatomy
• 4 Theories
• 4.1 Processing speed
• 4.2 Selective attention
• 4.3 Automaticity
• 4.4 Parallel distributed processing
• 5 Cognitive development
• 6 Uses
• 6.1 Stroop test
• 7 Variations
• 7.1 Warped words
• 7.2 Emotional
• 7.3 Spatial
• 7.4 Numerical
• 7.5 Reverse
• 8 In popular culture
• 9 References
• 10 External links
Experiment
Figure 1 from Experiment 2 of the original description of the Stroop Effect
(1935). 1 is the time that it takes to name the color of the dots while 2 is
the time that it takes to say the color when there is a conflict with the
written word.[1]
The effect was named after John Ridley Stroop, who published the effect
in English in 1935 in an article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology
entitled "Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions" that includes
three different experiments.[1] However, the effect was first published in
1929 in Germany by Erich Rudolf Jaensch,[2] and its roots can be
followed back to works of James McKeen Cattell and Wilhelm Maximilian
Wundt in the nineteenth century.[3][4]
In his experiments, Stroop administered several variations of the same test
for which three different kinds of stimuli were created: Names of colors
appeared in black ink: Names of colors in a different ink than the color
named; and Squares of a given color.[1]
In the first experiment, words and conflict-words were used (see first
figure). The task required the participants to read the written color names
of the words independently of the color of the ink (for example, they
would have to read "purple" no matter what the color of the font). In
experiment 2, stimulus conflict-words and color patches were used, and
participants were required to say the ink-color of the letters independently
of the written word with the second kind of stimulus and also name the
color of the patches. If the word "purple" was written in red font, they
would have to say "red", rather than "purple". When the squares were
shown, the participant spoke the name of the color. Stroop, in the third
experiment, tested his participants at different stages of practice at the
tasks and stimuli used in the first and second experiments, examining
learning effects.[1]
Unlike researchers now using the test for psychological evaluation,[5]
Stroop used only the three basic scores, rather than more complex
derivative scoring procedures. Stroop noted that participants took
significantly longer to complete the color reading in the second task than
they had taken to name the colors of the squares in Experiment 2. This
delay had not appeared in the first experiment. Such interference were
explained by the automation of reading, where the mind automatically
determines the semantic meaning of the word (it reads the word "red" and
thinks of the color "red"), and then must intentionally check itself and
identify instead the color of the word (the ink is a color other than red), a
process that is not automated.[1]
Experimental findings
Stimuli in Stroop paradigms can be divided into 3 groups: neutral,
congruent and incongruent. Neutral stimuli are those stimuli in which only
the text (similarly to stimuli 1 of Stroop's experiment), or color (similarly
to stimuli 3 of Stroop's experiment) are displayed.[6] Congruent stimuli
are those in which the ink color and the word refer to the same color (for
example the word "pink" written in pink). Incongruent stimuli are those in
which ink color and word differ.[6] Three experimental findings are
recurrently found in Stroop experiments.[6] A first finding is semantic
interference, which states that naming the ink color of neutral stimuli (e.g.
when the ink color and word do not interfere with each other) is faster than
in incongruent conditions. It is called semantic interference since it is
usually accepted that the relationship in meaning between ink color and
word is at the root of the interference.[6] The second finding, semantic
facilitation, explains the finding that naming the ink of congruent stimuli is
faster (e.g. when the ink color and the word match) than when neutral
stimuli are present (e.g. stimulus 3; when only a coloured square is
shown). The third finding is that both semantic interference and facilitation
disappear when the task consists of reading the word instead of naming the
ink. It has been sometimes called Stroop asynchrony, and has been
explained by a reduced automatization when naming colors compared to
reading words.[6]
In the study of interference theory, the most commonly used procedure has
been similar to Stroop's second experiment, in which subjects were tested
on naming colors of incompatible words and of control patches. The first
experiment in Stroop's study (reading words in black versus incongruent
colors) has been discussed less. In both cases, the interference score is
expressed as the difference between the times needed to read each of the
two types of cards.[4] Instead of naming stimuli, subjects have also been
asked to sort stimuli into categories.[4] Different characteristics of the
stimulus such as ink colors or direction of words have also been
systematically varied.[4] None of all these modifications eliminates the
effect of interference.[4]
Neuroanatomy
Brain imaging techniques including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission
tomography (PET) have shown that there are two main areas in the brain
that are involved in the processing of the Stroop task.[7][8] They are the
anterior cingulate cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.[9] More
specifically, while both are activated when resolving conflicts and catching
errors, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex assists in memory and other
executive functions, while the anterior cingulate cortex is used to select an
appropriate response and allocate attentional resources.[10]
The posterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex creates the appropriate rules
for the brain to accomplish the current goal.[10] For the Stroop effect, this
involves activating the areas of the brain involved in color perception, but
not those involved in word encoding.[11] It counteracts biases and
irrelevant information, for instance, the fact that the semantic perception of
the word is more striking than the color in which it is printed. Next, the
mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex selects the representation that will fulfil
the goal. The relevant information must be separated from irrelevant
information in the task; thus, the focus is placed on the ink color and not
the word.[10] Furthermore, research has suggested that left dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex activation during a Stroop task is related to an
individual's’ expectation regarding the conflicting nature of the upcoming
trial, and not so much on the conflict itself. Conversely, the right
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex aims to reduce the attentional conflict and is
activated after the conflict is over.[9]
Moreoever, the posterior dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is responsible for
what decision is made (i.e. whether you will say the incorrect answer
[written word] or the correct answer [ink color]).[9] Following the
response, the anterior dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is involved in
response evaluation—deciding whether the answer is correct or incorrect.
Activity in this region increases when the probability of an error is higher.
[12]
Theories
There are several theories used to explain the Stroop effect and are
commonly known as ‘race models’. This is based on the underlying notion
that both relevant and irrelevant information are processed in parallel, but
"race" to enter the single central processor during response selection.[13]
They are:
Processing speed
This theory suggests there is a lag in the brain's ability to recognize the
color of the word since the brain reads words faster than it recognizes
colors.[14] This is based on the idea that word processing is significantly
faster than color processing. In a condition where there is a conflict
regarding words and colors (e.g., Stroop test), if the task is to report the
color, the word information arrives at the decision-making stage before the
color information which presents processing confusion. Conversely, if the
task is to report the word, because color information lags after word
information, a decision can be made ahead of the conflicting information.
[15]
Selective attention
The Selective Attention Theory suggests that color recognition, as opposed
to reading a word, requires more attention. The brain needs to use more
attention to recognize a color than to encode a word, so it takes a little
longer.[16] The responses lend much to the interference noted in the
Stroop task. This may be a result of either an allocation of attention to the
responses or to a greater inhibition of distractors that are not appropriate
responses.
Automaticity
This theory is the most common theory of the Stroop effect.[17][not in
citation given] It suggests that since recognizing colors is not an
"automatic process" there is hesitancy to respond; whereas, the brain
automatically understands the meaning of words as a result of habitual
reading. This idea is based on the premise that automatic reading does not
need controlled attention, but still uses enough attentional resources to
reduce the amount of attention accessible for color information processing.
[18] Stirling (1979) introduced the concept of response automaticity. He
demonstrated that changing the responses from colored words to letters
that were not part of the colored words increased reaction time while
reducing Stroop interference.[19]
Cognitive development
In the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, several variations
of the Stroop task have been used to study the relations between speed of
processing and executive functions with working memory and cognitive
development in various domains. This research shows that reaction time to
Stroop tasks decreases systematically from early childhood through early
adulthood. These changes suggest that speed of processing increases with
age and that cognitive control becomes increasingly efficient. Moreover,
this research strongly suggests that changes in these processes with age are
very closely associated with development in working memory and various
aspects of thought.[22][23] The stroop task also shows the ability to
control behavior. If asked to state the color of the ink rather than the word,
the participant must overcome the initial and stronger stimuli to read the
word. These inhibitions show the ability for the brain to regulate behavior.
[24]
Uses
The Stroop effect has been widely used in psychology. Among the most
important uses is the creation of validated psychological tests based on the
Stroop effect permit to measure a person's selective attention capacity and
skills, as well as their processing speed ability.[25] It is also used in
conjunction with other neuropsychological assessments to examine a
person's executive processing abilities,[17] and can help in the diagnosis
and characterization of different psychiatric and neurological disorders.
Researchers also use the Stroop effect during brain imaging studies to
investigate regions of the brain that are involved in planning, decision-
making, and managing real-world interference (e.g., texting and driving).
[26]
Stroop test
The Stroop effect has been used to investigate a person's psychological
capacities; since its discovery during the twentieth century, it has become a
popular neuropsychological test.[27]
There are different test variants commonly used in clinical settings, with
differences between them in the number of subtasks, type and number of
stimuli, times for the task, or scoring procedures.[27][28] All versions
have at least two numbers of subtasks. In the first trial, the written color
name differs from the color ink it is printed in, and the participant must say
the written word. In the second trial, the participant must name the ink
color instead. However, there can be up to four different subtasks, adding
in some cases stimuli consisting of groups of letters "X" or dots printed in
a given color with the participant having to say the color of the ink; or
names of colors printed in black ink that have to be read.[27] The number
of stimuli varies between fewer than twenty items to more than 150, being
closely related to the scoring system used. While in some test variants the
score is the number of items from a subtask read in a given time, in others
it is the time that it took to complete each of the trials.[27] The number of
errors and different derived punctuations are also taken into account in
some versions.[27]
This test is considered to measure selective attention, cognitive flexibility
and processing speed, and it is used as a tool in the evaluation of executive
functions.[27][28] An increased interference effect is found in disorders
such as brain damage, dementias and other neurodegenerative diseases,
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or a variety of mental disorders
such as schizophrenia, addictions, and depression.[27][29][30]
Variations
The Stroop test has additionally been modified to include other sensory
modalities and variables,[31] to study the effect of bilingualism,[32] or to
investigate the effect of emotions on interference.[33][34][35]
Warped words – Parole deformate, distorte, curvate, falsate.
For example, the warped words Stroop effect produces the same findings
similar to the original Stroop effect. Much like the Stroop task, the printed
word's color is different from the ink color of the word; however, the
words are printed in such a way that it is more difficult to read (typically
curved-shaped).[36] The idea here is the way the words are printed slows
down both the brain's reaction and processing time, making it harder to
complete the task.
Emotional
The emotional Stroop effect serves as an information processing approach
to emotions. In an emotional Stroop task, an individual is given negative
emotional words like "grief," "violence," and "pain" mixed in with more
neutral words like "clock," "door," and "shoe".[36] Just like in the original
Stroop task, the words are colored and the individual is supposed to name
the color. Research has revealed that individuals that are depressed are
more likely to say the color of a negative word slower than the color of a
neutral word.[37] While both the emotional Stroop and the classic Stroop
involve the need to suppress irrelevant or distracting information, there are
differences between the two. The emotional Stroop effect emphasizes the
conflict between the emotional relevance to the individual and the word;
whereas, the classic Stroop effect examines the conflict between the
incongruent color and word.[36]
Spatial
The spatial Stroop effect demonstrates interference between the stimulus
location with the location information in the stimuli.[38] In one version of
the spatial Stroop task, an up or down-pointing arrow appears randomly
above or below a central point. Despite being asked to discriminate the
direction of the arrow while ignoring its location, individuals typically
make faster and more accurate responses to congruent stimuli (i.e., an
down-pointing arrow located below the fixation sign) than to incongruent
ones (i.e., a up-pointing arrow located below the fixation sign).[38] A
similar effect, the Simon effect, uses non-spatial stimuli.[13]
Numerical
The Numerical Stroop effect demonstrates the close relationship between
numerical values and physical sizes. Digits symbolize numerical values
but they also have physical sizes. A digit can be presented as big or small
(e.g., 5 vs. 5), irrespective of its numerical value. Comparing digits in
incongruent trials (e.g., 3 5) is slower than comparing digits in congruent
trials (e.g., 5 3) and the difference in reaction time is termed the numerical
Stroop effect. The effect of irrelevant numerical values on physical
comparisons (similar to the effect of irrelevant color words on responding
to colors) suggests that numerical values are processed automatically (i.e.,
even when they are irrelevant to the task).[39]
Reverse
Another variant of the classic Stroop effect is the reverse Stroop effect. It
occurs during a pointing task. In a reverse Stroop task, individuals are
shown a page with a black square with an incongruent colored word in the
middle — for instance, the word "red" written in the color green — with
four smaller colored squares in the corners.[40] One square would be
colored green, one square would be red, and the two remaining squares
would be other colors. Studies show that if the individual is asked to point
to the color square of the written color (in this case, red) they would
present a delay.[40] Thus, incongruently-colored words significantly
interfere with pointing to the appropriate square. However, some research
has shown there is very little interference from incongruent color words
when the objective is to match the color of the word.[17]
In popular culture
The Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! software program,
produced by Ryūta Kawashima for the Nintendo DS portable video game
system, contains an automated Stroop Test administrator module,
translated into game form.[41]
MythBusters used the Stroop effect test to see if males and females are
cognitively impaired by having an attractive person of the opposite sex in
the room. The "myth", e.g. hypothesis, was "busted", i.e., disproved.[42]
A Nova episode used the Stroop Effect to illustrate the subtle changes of
the mental flexibility of Mount Everest climbers in relation to altitude.[43]
References
…………………….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_effect
Interferenza spaziale, simile a sopra.
Simon effect
Jump to navigation Jump to search
In psychology, the Simon effect is the finding that reaction times are usually
faster, and reactions are usually more accurate, when the stimulus occurs in
the same relative location as the response, even if the stimulus location is
irrelevant to the task. It is named for J. R. Simon who first published the
effect in the late 1960s. Simon's original explanation for the effect was that
there is an innate tendency to respond toward the source of stimulation.
Method
A typical demonstration of the Simon effect involves placing a participant
in front of a computer monitor and a panel with two buttons on it, which
he or she may press. The participant is told that they should press the
button on the right when they see something red appear on the screen, and
the button on the left when they see something green. Participants are
usually told to ignore the location of the stimulus and base their response
on the task-relevant color.
Participants typically react faster to red lights that appear on the right hand
side of the screen by pressing the button on the right of their panel
(congruent trials). Reaction times are typically slower when the red
stimulus appears on the left hand side of the screen and the participant
must push the button on the right of their panel (incongruent trials). The
same, but vice versa, is true for the green stimuli.
This happens despite the fact that the position of the stimulus on the screen
relative to the physical position of the buttons on the panel is irrelevant to
the task and not correlated with which response is correct. The task, after
all, requires the subject to note only the colour of the object (i.e., red or
green) by pushing the corresponding button, and not its position on the
screen.
Explanation
According to Simon himself (1969), the location of the stimulus, although
irrelevant to the task, directly influences response-selection due to an
automatic tendency to 'react towards the source of the stimulation'.
Although other accounts have been suggested (cf. Hommel, 1993),
explanations for the Simon effect generally refer back to the interference
that occurs in the response-selection stage of decision making.
Neurologically there could be involvement of the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex, as well as the Anterior cingulate cortex, which is thought to be
responsible for conflict monitoring. The Simon Effect shows that location
information cannot be ignored and will affect decision making, even if the
participant knows that the information is irrelevant.
Logical argument for response selection:
The challenge in the Simon effect is said to occur during the response
selection stage of judgment. This is due to two factors which eliminate the
stimulus identification stage and the execution state. In the stimulus
identification stage the participant only needs to be cognitively aware that
a stimulus is present. An error would not occur at this stage unless he or
she were visually impaired or had some sort of stimulus deficit. As well,
an error or delay cannot occur during the execution state because an action
has already been decided upon in the previous stage (the response
selection stage) and no further decision making takes place (i.e. you cannot
make a change to your response without going back to the second stage).
Practical implications
A knowledge of the Simon effect is useful in the design of man-machine
interfaces. Aircraft cockpits, for example, require a person to react quickly
to a situation. If a pilot is flying a plane and there is a problem with the left
engine, an aircraft with a good man-machine interface design (which most
have) would position the indicator light for the left engine to the left of the
indicator light for the right engine. This interface would display
information in a way that matches the types of responses that people
should make. If it were the other way around, the pilot might may respond
incorrectly and adjust the wrong engine.
References
• Simon, J. R., and Wolf, J. D. (1963). Choice reaction times as a
function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age.
Ergonomics, 6, 99–105.
• Simon, J. R. & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: the
effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
• Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation.
Journal of experimental psychology, 81, 174–176.
• Bernard Hommel (1993). "Inverting the Simon effect by intention:
Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial
information" (PDF). Psychological Research. 55: 270–279.
doi:10.1007/bf00419687.
…………………..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_processing_in_the_brain
Language processing refers to the way humans use words to
communicate ideas and feelings, and how such communications are
processed and understood. Language processing is considered to be an
uniquely human ability that is not produced with the same grammatical
understanding or systematicity in even human's closest primate relatives.
[1]
Throughout the 20th century the dominant model[2] for language
processing in the brain was the Geschwind-Lichteim-Wernicke model,
which is based primarily on the analysis of brain damaged patients.
However, due to improvements in intra-cortical electrophysiological
recordings of monkey and human brains, as well non-invasive techniques
such as fMRI, PET, MEG and EEG, a dual auditory pathway[3][4] has
been revealed. In accordance with this model, there are two pathways that
connect the auditory cortex to the frontal lobe, each pathway accounting
for different linguistic roles. The auditory ventral stream connects the
auditory cortex with the middle temporal gyrus and temporal pole, which
in turn connects with the inferior frontal gyrus. This pathway is
responsible for sound recognition, and is accordingly known as the
auditory 'what' pathway. The auditory dorsal stream connects the
auditory cortex with the parietal lobe, which in turn connects with inferior
frontal gyrus. In both humans and non-human primates, the auditory dorsal
stream is responsible for sound localization, and is accordingly known as
the auditory 'where' pathway. In humans, this pathway (especially in the
left hemisphere) is also responsible for speech production, speech
repetition, lip-reading, and phonological working memory and long-term
memory. In accordance with the 'from where to what' model of language
evolution.[5][6] the reason the ADS is characterized with such a broad
range of functions is that each indicates a different stage in language
evolution.
Contents
• 1 Neurological mechanism of language processing
• 2 History of neurolinguistics
• 3 Anatomy of the auditory ventral and dorsal streams
• 4 Auditory ventral stream
• 4.1 Sound Recognition
• 4.2 Sentence comprehension
• 4.3 Bilaterality
• 5 Auditory dorsal stream
• 5.1 Sound localization
• 5.2 Guidance of eye movements
• 5.3 Integration of locations with auditory objects
• 5.4 Integration of phonemes with lip-movements
• 5.5 Phonological long-term memory
• 5.6 Phonological working memory
• 5.7 Evolution of language
• 6 See also
• 7 References
Sentence comprehension
In addition to extracting meaning from sounds, the MTG-TP region of the
AVS appears to have a role in sentence comprehension, possibly by
merging concepts together (e.g., merging the concept 'blue' and 'shirt to
create the concept of a 'blue shirt'). The role of the MTG in extracting
meaning from sentences has been demonstrated in functional imaging
studies reporting stronger activation in the anterior MTG when proper
sentences are contrasted with lists of words, sentences in a foreign or
nonsense language, scrambled sentences, sentences with semantic or
syntactic violations and sentence-like sequences of environmental sounds.
[96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103] One fMRI study[104] in which
participants were instructed to read a story further correlated activity in the
anterior MTG with the amount of semantic and syntactic content each
sentence contained. An EEG study[105] that contrasted cortical activity
while reading sentences with and without syntactic violations in healthy
participants and patients with MTG-TP damage, concluded that the MTG-
TP in both hemispheres participate in the automatic (rule based) stage of
syntactic analysis (ELAN component), and that the left MTG-TP is also
involved in a later controlled stage of syntax analysis (P600 component).
Patients with damage to the MTG-TP region have also been reported with
impaired sentence comprehension.[13][106][107] See review[108] for
more information on this topic.
Bilaterality
In contradiction to the Wernicke-Lichtheim-Geschwind model that
implicates sound recognition to occur solely in the left hemisphere, studies
that examined the properties of the right or left hemisphere in isolation via
unilateral hemispheric anesthesia (i.e., the WADA procedure[109]) or
intra-cortical recordings from each hemisphere[95] provided evidence that
sound recognition is processed bilaterally. Moreover, a study that
instructed patients with disconnected hemispheres (i.e., split-brain
patients) to match spoken words to written words presented to the right or
left hemifields, reported vocabulary in the right hemisphere that almost
matches in size with the left hemisphere[110] (The right hemisphere
vocabulary was equivalent to the vocabulary of a healthy 11-years old
child). This bilateral recognition of sounds is also consistent with the
finding that unilateral lesion to the auditory cortex rarely results in deficit
to auditory comprehension (i.e., auditory agnosia), whereas a second
lesion to the remaining hemisphere (which could occur years later) does.
[111][112] Finally, as mentioned earlier, an fMRI scan of an auditory
agnosia patient demonstrated bilateral reduced activation in the anterior
auditory cortices,[35] and bilateral electro-stimulation to these regions in
both hemispheres resulted with impaired speech recognition.[80]
Evolution of language
It is presently unknown why so many functions are ascribed to the human
ADS. An attempt to unify these functions under a single framework was
conducted in the ‘From where to what’ model of language evolution.[5][6]
In accordance with this model, each function of the ADS indicates of a
different intermediate phase in the evolution of language. The roles of
sound localization and integration of sound location with voices and
auditory objects is interpreted as evidence that the origin of speech is the
exchange of contact calls (calls used to report location in cases of
separation) between mothers and offspring. The role of the ADS in the
perception and production of intonations is interpreted as evidence that
speech began by modifying the contact calls with intonations, possibly for
distinguishing alarm contact calls from safe contact calls. The role of the
ADS in encoding the names of objects (phonological long-term memory)
is interpreted as evidence of gradual transition from modifying calls with
intonations to complete vocal control. The role of the ADS in the
integration of lip movements with phonemes and in speech repetition is
interpreted as evidence that spoken words were learned by infants
mimicking their parents’ vocalizations, initiailly by imitating their lip
movements. The role of the ADS in phonological working memory is
interpreted as evidence that the words learned through mimicry remained
active in the ADS even when not spoken. This resulted with individuals
capable of rehearsing a list of vocalizations, which enabled the production
of words with several syllables. Further developments in the ADS enabled
the rehearsal of lists of words, which provided the infra-structure for
communicating with sentences.
https://imotions.com/blog/the-stroop-effect/
To see and interact with the world, we first need to understand it. Visual
processing is one way we do this, and is composed of many parts. When
we see an object, we don’t just see its physical attributes, we also
comprehend the meaning behind them. We know that a chair needs legs
because the seat needs to be raised, we know that the wood comes from
trees, we know we could sit in it, and so on. There is information that we
process about the things we see without even being aware of that
processing.
So when John Ridley Stroop asked people to read words on a sheet of
paper in 1929, he knew that their automatic processing would come into
play, and could offer a breakthrough insight into brain function.
Research from as early as 1894 had shown that associations of even
nonsense syllables would become embedded into a person’s
understanding, and could interfere with how they processed and recalled
these syllables, despite no real meaning being attached to them. It was
therefore clear, even in the beginnings of contemporary psychological
research, that associations are powerful and pervasive.
Examples of the different test types that are used in the Numerical
Stroop.
This experiment shows that, with all else being controlled for,
incongruence in numerical size will cause the greatest interference,
increasing the delay in comprehension. An interesting feature with the
Numerical Stroop is that the interference is found for both types of
incongruence – when the numbers are incongruent with size, then a delay
is shown for reporting the size, as well as for reporting the numbers. This
effect reveals that the automatic processing is not just limited to words,
suggesting that the brain looks for normal patterns in a variety of presented
stimuli, as it appears to struggle when this doesn’t occur.
After we’ve set up eye-tracking and added a participant list, we can add
AOIs to the words, so that we can view and analyze data for each. Below
is an image of how this looks:
The Stroop test in iMotions with AOIs placed over the color words.
A heatmap showing the level of fixation across the words shown in the
Stroop test.
Alternatively, we can insert each word of the Stroop test within the survey
setup, and use the keyboard input function for the participant to answer
each word color. This would also allow us to investigate the error rate in a
more systematic manner. This is shown across the two images below.
Using Qualtrics
Finally, we can see how this test is implemented in iMotions using the
Qualtrics survey function. This is easily implemented, and appears in a
similar way to the above surveys that are built by iMotions. One of the
advantages of using Qualtrics is that feedback to participant answers can
be immediately provided, should this be desired. The following image
shows how the stimulus presentation appears on screen.
The participant can then click on the corresponding color to answer the
question. If an incorrect answer is chosen, the response would be shown as
below.
The participant can then proceed to complete other questions, and their
answers will be recorded, allowing later analysis and visualization of the
results.
With all of the information completed and data analyzed, we can now start
to discern which words showed the greatest amount of Stroop interference
(the latency produced when naming the color that the word is printed in).
Having several paradigms with different colors, words, and with only
blocks of colors will provide more baseline information and control for
experimental error. Ultimately this gives a good basis for the participant
data to be normalized, and compared with more validity. We can now test
if there is any difference with the words of interest and potentially start to
draw conclusions about the implicit thoughts of participants (with the
example above, it could be that participants who are hungrier would spend
a longer duration in naming the colors of the words, suggesting those
words are more salient to them).
Conclusion
The Stroop test is a widely-used, well established methodology that
reveals various brain functions, and implicit cognitive workings. The
original article has now been cited over 13,000 times and that number will
surely continue to rise well into the future. With iMotions, it’s easy to start
asking questions with the Stroop Task and to get to the answers quickly.
Contact us and hear how we can help with your research needs and
questions.