Lab 2
Change Detection, Simon Effect, Spatial Cuing, & Stroop Effect
Change Detection, Simon Effect, Spatial Cuing, & Stroop Effect
Proportion Correct for No Flicker: Reaction Time (ms) to No Flicker:
1.0 3236.125
Proportion Correct for Flicker: Reaction Time (ms) to Flicker:
.75 . . 8578.625
● How does the pattern of your individual data relate to the pattern of results predicted? Hint: See the lab introduction, the predicted results that come with your output, and the text.
As predicted, my trials were most accurate when there was no flicker effect. Without that momentary break in my vision, I was able to spot a change, or lack of change, more accurately and faster. My fastest trials were the ones where, by chance, I was looking at the spot where the change occurred. As the lab explains when addressing robustness, when someone knows where to look, they are usually very accurate and quick to respond (MindTap, 2014). However, when my attention was diverted for mere milliseconds, my visual perception and brain were not quick to spot what changed, as I did not store most image details in my memory (Goldstein, 2019). In those trials, I had to examine the scene in segments, making my response time much slower.
● How did the gray field (the flicker) affect your proportion correct and RT? Why does the gray field tend to negatively affect accuracy and RT? Why are we measuring both RT and accuracy? What does this tell you about how different people approach a task like this?
The gray field slowed my proportion of correct answers and increased my response time. This flash between images triggered change blindness, my inability to recognize the alteration. This study examines both RT and accuracy in consideration of each individual perceiving and processing the images differently. How I scanned each image, or shifted my overt attention, was likely influenced by the high salience (Goldstein, 2019). But after that, we tend to use top-down processing, which is affected by our knowledge and experience, and unique to each person.
What implications does this experiment on change blindness and flickers have regarding real-world situations? Try to describe a specific sort of real-world situation: What would be the flicker in your example? Ensure that your example is your own, rather than one from course materials.
Navigating our real world, we are bombarded with stimuli, some constant and some rapidly changing. Although I like to think I am aware of everything happening around me, that is just not always the case. Recently, I was very confused to see my daughter get off the school bus wearing different clothes than those she left in. Upon asking why she was wearing something different, she assured me that was what she left in.
Every morning, I pick out her clothes. On this particular day, I actually saw her get dressed and spent the entire morning in her presence, except when I went to the bathroom (flicker). During that break, when she was momentarily out of my vision and she quickly changed, my change blindness was triggered, explaining why I failed to notice that she was wearing something different.
Condition Reaction Time (ms)
Consistent 565.940
Inconsistent 598.100
● How does the pattern of your individual data relate to the pattern of results predicted?
Reminiscent of Posner’s study that used pre-cuing, my processing time was improved when the stimulus was on the same side as my response key, resulting in a faster RT, as the trials predicted results state.
● Identify the independent and dependent variables in this lab.
In this experiment, the location of the square is the independent variable while the dependent variable is my response time, which is the time between the square appearing to when I hit my response key on the keyboard (MindTap, 2014).
Mean Response Time
Condition Reaction Time (ms)
Valid 367.562
Neutral 330.300
Invalid 343.250
● Did your individual results match the predicted results? If so, how so? If not, why not?
My results were slightly different than those predicted. My fastest RT were in the trials that were neutral, with my valid trials having a slower response time, which is the reverse of what trial predicted. Similar to the predicted results, my invalid trials had the longest response time.
● If the spotlight model is false, what should your results have looked like, assuming you could pay attention to everything on the screen?
According to Posner’s theory, information processing is most effective where my attention is directed (Goldstein, 2019). Covert attention allowed me to detect the square in the fringe, despite having my eyes fixed on the focal point, but my RT was affected (Goldstein, 2019). As his theory would suggest, the global data showed fastest RT was for the valid trials. However, if the spotlight model was false, my processing time would not be affected by having my attention directed at the center signal and there would be no consistent difference in RT between valid and invalid trials.
● How could we apply the concept of invalid cues in a specific real-world situation, for example, “faking someone out” while playing a particular sport or game? Feel free to make up your own example or elaborate on one above. What would be the invalid cue in your example?
In our real-world environment, we often receive signals or cues that help us predict what comes next and how we should respond. However, we sometimes encounter invalid cues that require additional processing time and affect our response. For example, I almost hit a car recently due to an invalid cue. While on a highway, the car in front of me had on their right blinker, indicating they were to get off the exit we were passing. Anticipating them to be getting off, based on their signal light (as well as past experience), I did not slow down and almost rear-ended them. I should have realized their error when they did not slow down or veer to the right, but the invalid cue of the signal light delayed my proper response.
Mean Reaction Time Same (ms): 872.125
Mean Reaction Time Different (ms): 1059.167
● Did your individual results match the predicted results? If so, how? If not, why not?
As predicted, my RT for the “same” trials were faster than my RT for the “different” trials. When the font and word matched, I was very quick to accurately respond. However, when they were different, the word and font were conflicting, meaning I could not rely on my automatized reading of the color, requiring additional time to process the font color and correctly respond (Goldstein, 2019).
● Identify the independent and dependent variables in this demonstration.
In the Stroop Effect lab, the independent variable was whether or not the word and font color were the same or different. The dependent variable was how long it took me to respond once the stimulus appeared (MindTap, 2014).
Consider the role of new research in advancing the field of cognitive psychology. Applying research to new populations or taking a specific research methodology and applying it in a new way are strategies that can be used to develop new research questions and keep the field growing and evolving. As an example, clinical psychologists have applied the Stroop effect to the study of emotion. An emotional Stroop test involves measuring reaction time in naming the font color of words, but words are either emotionally neutral (like tree or plate) or emotional (murder or death). People with certain mental health issues, like major depression, show a more pronounced emotional Stroop effect.
● Can you think of a different way to apply the Stroop test?
The Stroop test can be used for a number of applications. Other than assessing cognitive skills, especially executive functioning, this test can be used in diagnosing learning disorders. In addition to being a tool used for better diagnostics, the Stroop test can be very effective in determining the efficacy of intervention strategies, a cheap, easy, quick way to monitor progress and improvements for particular therapies (Tryon, 2014).
References –
Goldstein, B. E. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.). Cengage.
MindTap - Cengage Learning. (2014). Ng.cengage.com; Cengage Learning. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5868562500252548489124156979&eISBN=9781337408301&id=2075336089&snapshotId=3952969&
Tryon, W. W. (2014). Stroop Test - An Overview . Www.sciencedirect.com; Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/stroop-test