Change Detection Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        In this lab, I detected change quicker and more accurately without a flicker. This is consistent with the predicted pattern of results. Researchers expect that participants will be slower to detect change and less accurate when a flicker is present (Goldstein, 2019). Although my response time and accuracy were only slightly more inaccurate and slightly slower with a flicker present, it is still reflective of these predictions.  

●        The reason my response time and accuracy fell short with a flicker present is because the grey space flashed between the images floods the loco-motion signal that would ordinarily detect change; with this signal distracted, change becomes more difficult to detect (Goldstein, 2019). We measure both response time and accuracy because we want to measure how a person is attending to the object. If the response time is slower, that means they are spending more time scanning the object searching for a change. If their accuracy is lacking, that means that their brain sees a change even when there is none or fails to see a change at all. Not detecting a legitimate change is referred to as change-blindness and researchers believe this is a leading cause for many car accidents (Goldstein, 2019). By measuring both RT and accuracy, we can understand both attention and detection.

●        One real-world example I can think of relates to playing sports. My youngest son is an excellent basketball player, and he seems to just have a natural born talent for the game. As a mom, I attend many of his games and can attest first-hand to his occasional change-blindness. If he has no distractions and isn’t on a court competing in a game, he can make every basket he shoots. Sometimes in the middle of a game, though, he somehow doesn’t see a player jumping up in front of him to block his shot. I believe this can be attributed to change-blindness. He lines up his shot, looks over to ensure another player doesn’t have a better position for him to pass to, then looks back and shoots the ball, failing to see the opponent that had just run in front of him. The moment he looks away from his line of sight briefly, he’s met with a change he wasn’t able to detect when he looks back to shoot.

Simon Effect Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Although only slightly, researchers expect response times to be slightly slower when the cues are incongruent with the actual location of the target (Goldstein, 2019). My results were consistent with this prediction. Even though my response time was only a tad slower when the cues were incongruent, it was still slower, nonetheless.

●        In this lab, the independent variable was the location in which the target appeared and the dependent variable was the time it took me to respond once I recognized the target.

Spatial Cueing Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Researchers predict that when comparing response times of valid and invalid cues to those of neutral cues, response times will be slower for invalid cues and faster for valid ones (Goldstein, 2019). My results were mixed as my response times were slower for invalid cues than they were for valid ones, but my response times were slowest for neutral cues. This seemed odd to me that I’d respond quicker to an invalid cue than I would for a neutral one. I was otherwise distracted during this trial, though so I’m assuming some results were skewed for reasons other than spatial cuing.

●        If the spotlight model is false, my results would have been consistent regardless of where the cue was directing my attention. If the cue pointed left, I knew that the target could appear anywhere, but was more likely to be to the left. Therefore, my attention was inadvertently directed to the left during those cues. This is reflected in my quickest response times being that of valid cues.

●        The concept of invalid cues can be applied to basketball. As I mentioned previously, my son is a very good player, but he’s also human so he definitely gets tricked at times by spatial cueing. If a player has a ball and is leaning to the right with his head turned slightly in the same direction his body is, that cues my son that he should be going left to intercept him (when they’re facing one another). If my son starts running in the direction the player’s body language is cuing, and the player suddenly pivots left and starts running away, my son will have to redirect his movements- which takes extra time that could allow the other player to get away. In basketball, even a response time that is slowed by milliseconds can make a huge difference in blocking a play. Spatial cueing is often used to determine where to go and block but can be misleading when the intent is to fake someone out.

Stroop Effect Lab

Data:

Lab Questions

●        Researchers predict that response times will be faster when the word matches the color of the ink, and slower when the word is different than the color its written in (Goldstein, 2019). This is likely due to our reading being more automized than our color identification is, therefore, it’s more difficult to identify an incongruent color because we cannot ignore the word- we automatically read it. My response times were consistent with this prediction as I was much slower to react when the word didn’t match the color it was written in. Being a college student, my reading is very automized, but I do not participate in color identification nearly as often. It makes sense that my brain automatically reads the word instead of allowing me to ignore it in favor of identifying the color instead.

●        In this trial, the independent variable is the congruency of the font color and words; that is, whether the color was the same in which the word read or not. The dependent variable in this trial is the time it takes me to respond to the stimulus.

Module Question

Another way to apply the Stroop test would be to test patients with Alzheimer’s to determine which functions have been lost. If a person can easily name a color, then it stands to reason that their automized process of reading is not doing well. This can help us implement strategies that might improve this function. If their reaction times are as slow as control participant’s that do automize their reading, then we can assume this cognitive function is holding up well.

References

Goldstein, E. B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology (5th ed.) Cengage. https://www.cengage.com/