Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Practicals 1-3 (Practical 2: Stroop Effect (Attention) (Our Stroop Task…
Practicals 1-3
Practical 2:
Stroop Effect (Attention)
Stroop Effect
Word reading = unavoidable
Many behaviours become automised (eg. word reading = 50% faster to read a word then name an object or colour (retrive))
Our Stroop Task
Methods
Each trial were shown a word: RED, GREEN, BLUE that was printed in either red, green or blue font colour
Task: classify asap the font colour regardless of word name
Important Difference
Indication of patient's response
Stroop: Spoken colour naming
Ours: manual key press (slower than naming, but a reduced interference effect still occurs)
Causes
Identifying colours = less common task, not automised, slower
Fast and automatic processing of written name
interferes
with non-automatic reporting of ink colour
Reading = automatically elicited so colour names are processed very quickly
Predictions
Analysed with paired sample t-test
Colour naming should be faster for congruent condition compared to incongurent
Interference
Characteristics: Interference Paradigms
3 conditons
Incongruent
Neutral
Congruent
Research Q
Does 2nd feature interfere with processing of the first?
Stimuli has 2 features
Respond to one, ignore other
Variants of Interference Task
Spatial interference: name position of word (eg. above or below a shape)
Number stroop: name number of words
Congruent: TWO TWO
Incongruent: TWO TWO TWO
Graded interference effect
Strongest effect: RED, BLUE GREEN (same colours) & TAN, BLACK, GREY (other colours)
Weaker effect: FIRE, GRASS, SKY (colour associations), PUT, TAKE, HEART (common words), SOL, HELOT (uncommon)
Slower colour naming occurs even when words are not conflicting color names
No effect: nonsense syllabules, Control (XXXX)
Interference by words
Slower less accurate incongruent to control
Interference effect: word reading interfering with process of colour naming
Incongruent trials = less accurate trials to congruent
Facilitation or interference?
Practical 1:
Phonological Similarity Effect (Working Memory)
Working memory model
Phenological loop
Phenological short term store
Articulatory control processes/verbal rehearsal process
Records visual information into phenological information
Maintains phenological info using rehersal
Actively retains
speech based information
Visuo-spatial sketchpad:
stores visual info, sets up & maintains visual images
Central executive
Integrates info, plans and controls beahviour
Episodic buffer
Holds & integrates diverse information
Phonological similarity
Experiment
Design
Within-subjects: all conditions
Effect
Articulatory suppression greatly reduces phonological similarity measures
Dependant
Proportion of letters recalled correctly
Statistical analysis
ANOVA: 2 way factorial, repeated measures
Independant
If letters sounded similar, or disimilar, and if you were engaged in articulatory suppression
Predictions
Recall = better for lists of phenologically different than for lists of phhenologically similar
Articulatory suppression should inhibit performance generally, and this effect
Method
Presented with visual stimuli and told to recall, speak 1234 for 50% of trails
Effect robustness
Effect not always eliminated
However, always greatly reduced in size
Quite robust
Practical 3:
Levels of Processing (Episodic Memory)