The aim of the experiment is to investigate how Stroop effect and color-word representation effects the amount of time it takes to correctly state the displayed color of a word. The average performance time for participants in both conditions was 15.6 seconds, demonstrating a significant difference between the two. Further, the scores each participant received were close to the average mean for each condition. Repeated measures was ideal in order to test the amount of time the participant took to complete both sections, increasing validity. These results support Klopfer’s (1996) and M.C. Lovett’s (2005) experiments in finding the interferences of color words. It is easier for the brain to differentiate and create a response based on one stimulus. When there is Stroop or double-Stroop interference, the brain views the word and the color that it is. The obvious response is the the word, but they have to say the color. In relation to the replicated experiment by Klopfer regarding color-word similarity and Stroop, both found the interfering conditions led to the participants taking more time. Klopfer kept track of the number of participant’s errors, this experiment relied on the time it took to say …show more content…
This experiment had groups of two share computers so the partner can keep track of time, while Klopfer individually tested each participant. That probably yielded more beneficial results because lack of distractions because other groups. Moreover, opportunity sample also limited this experiment in getting an exact representative sample of the freshmen students at this high school because it was based on which teachers signed up for their class to participate. Further, there could be some outliers in the data with participants that could easily identify the color-words or if some took a longer than expected time than
Compress the safety bulb, hold it firmly against the end of the pipette. Then release the bulb and allow it to draw the liquid into the pipette.
The Stavelot Triptych is stunning in its complexity and artistry. It was created by unknown artists, around mid-12th century, possibly for Abbot Wibald, in modern-day Mosan, Belgium. This artwork is currently on display in the Jerusalem exhibit at the MET. The Stavelot Triptych not only tells the story of the True Cross, but it shows the division of the Roman Empire, division of Christianity and the artistic differences between the East and the West. This formal analysis will express how the structure/shape, color, line, composition and techniques/ textures contribute to the meaning of the triptych.
The nature of the Stroop effect results as a consequence of automaticity. People have difficulty ignoring the meaning of a word because, through practice, reading has become an automatic process. The two main explanations accounting for the Stroop effect in the past have been cognitive attentional processes involved in learning, controlled and automatic. As previously mentioned, when a process is automatic (for example reading), it is not only faster; it also does not rely on other cognitive resources. Controlled processes, for example color naming, are slow and demand more attentional resources. The theory is that an automatic process cannot successfully suppressed without causing interference of a controlled process. The second explanation, relative speed of processing, argues that the two processes involved in color naming and word reading are accomplished in parallel, but that word reading is carried out faster, assuming that the faster process will then interfere with the slower ones such as color naming (Dunbar and McLeod, 1984 as cited in Mel, 1997)
Not many materials were used in this study. I sent the participants a text message and then they replied giving me permission to use them in this experiment. The participants then completed the test on Microsoft Word and emailed it back to me. Therefore the materials that were used were: a phone, a laptop, the internet and an email account.
The materials that were used in this lab included a 100/1000 μL micropipetter, 4 agar plates with pre-poured LB broth , ice bath, hot water bath, micro centrifuge tubes, sterile loops, UV light, as well as pGLO plasmids and E.coli.
The procedure is simple. On the computer screen, twelve words are revealed one word at a time in the form of a list. After the last word, a matrix of twelve words is shown. The matrix is a table of twelve words, some of which were on the list, some of which were not. Participants in the task chose which words they believe were on the list, using free recall to select words in any order. A new list begins when participants believe they have all of the correct words from the matrix. The cycle begins again. A list of twelve words are presented, a matrix appears after the twelfth word, and participants select words according to their memory of what was on the list. There are six lists in total, with no practice trials, however there are breaks in between to express the differences in each list.
The experiment is a demonstration of reaction time of a task . The Stroop experiment employs two basic processes of cognition; attention (“the concentration of mental effort on sensory or mental events”) and automaticity (“a cognitive process that does not require conscious thought as a result of existing cognitive structures or highly practiced tasks.”). The Stroop Effect is all about being able to say the colour of the word and not the colour the word are saying. For example, the word “red” is portraying the colour green so instead of saying the colour is red you say green. It said that it is easier to make out the colour when it is the same as the word “red” (congruent) than saying the colour of the word when the word has a different color than it is portraying “blue” (incongruent). In this case it is that inference is taking place.
We will look into research done by Asano and Yokosawa (2013) that looked learning in grapheme synesthesia. Previous research has shown that there are individual differences in grapheme synesthesia. There are still some unknown factors that determine the impact of grapheme synesthesia. Their study included seventeen Japanese grapheme synesthetes with their first language being Japanese. They were wanting to find the determinants involved in the “synesthetic color for graphemes of Hiragna, a phonetic script in the Japanese language, and the English alphabet” (Asano and Yokosawa, 2013, p. 1). The participants reported that linguistic sounds didn’t create a synesthetic experience for them. To make sure that the study was genuine, they also had six females who did not have synesthesia be the controlled
Although there was some criticisms about the above experiment, Craik and Tulving performed more experiments each time refining the D.O.P. model. There were thoughts that the structural tasks were easier and not as much time had to be spent on them therefore people did not have as long to look at those words and could not study them like the other tasks. Craik and Tulving then made the structural task take equally as long as the other tasks. The results remand the same as the previous experiments. Craik and Tulving also originally started with five tasks, but then narrowed it down to three to avoid a ceiling effect. The self-referent task was later added to model by Rogers.
Experiment one was a word-search task extending past research by Marsh and Bower (1993). It aimed to test two different concepts. Firstly, to test how rela...
In 2013, The Journal of Memory and Language published a research-backed cognitive psychology article titled “How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in masked priming” by Kenneth I. Forster. Forster, a professor of Psychology at the University of Arizona, assesses that “when a masked word intervenes between the prime (L1 (native language)) and the target (L2 (second language), three words must be processed simultaneously, and that under these conditions, form priming is eliminated altogether and identity priming is reduced, suggesting that the capacity of the lexical processor does not extend to three words”. It is argued that the differential effect of the intervenor on identity and form priming can be explained using the assumption that priming takes place at the level of form as well as the level of meaning. Forster, through this research, generalizes the information collected from all the higher degree seeking individuals as if to say that since this is true for college freshman it must be true for all grade levels. Even though I understand his questions and his motives in not only the questions he asks but also his experiments and the objectives he was trying to achieve by stating that “each time we read a word, we must recover the stored information about the phonology, syntax, and semantics of that word. Moreover, this information must be retrieved extremely rapidly and because so much processing has to be done, it seems obvious that the processing of one word must overlap to some degree with the processing of the next word” (1). Though Forster offers many valid points pertaining to the amount of words we can read at once, he fails to acknowledge those who do not fall into this category by only testing U...
...tudying psychology at the University of Canberra using normal distractor and special distractor words when participants are presented with lists of words. The methods of this experiment are similar to the methods of Roediger and McDermotts’s study (1995) study. It is predicted that given how robust previous studies have found false memories to be (Wright et.al. 2005) it is likely these students will be just as susceptible to the effects of false memories and will be likely to report seeing special distractor words as often as they report seeing the original list of words.
For the first experiment, two groups of participants were either randomly assigned to a cubicle with a diffused cleaner scent present, or to a control group where no diffused scent was present. Participants were then asked whether a string of letters appearing on a computer screen contained any real words by pressing either a "yes" or "no" button. Words were either cleaning related such as "cleaning" and "hygiene," or were control words such as "table"...
Cunillera, Toni, Càmara, Estela, Laine, Matti, & Rodríguez-Fornells, Antoni. (2010). Words as anchors: Known words facilitate statistical learning. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 134-141. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000017
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological review, 88(5), 375.