Running head: Race for Attention between Different Types of Stimuli

The Race for Attention between Different Types of Stimuli Suggest Words are Faster than Color Heidi At Stathi !perimental "sychology: Stroop "aradigm

Abstract The psychological processes responsible for e!ecuting a gi#en tas$ remain a topic of interest in !perimental psychology% &n studying selecti#e attention through the use of the Stroop ffect' (uestions ha#e been raised re(uiring further in#estigation of the central aspects of cogniti#e control% To address this' we ha#e created an e!perimental design using the Stroop paradigm to test the predictions of the Horse Race model' stating word information is processed faster than color information% )* participants were re(uired to complete a stroop e!periment in the form of multiple trials on a computer' their reaction times were recorded' then calculated% +ur results seem to support the theory as they suggest the predictions of the Horse Race model are in fact correct%

&ntroduction

#ery wa$ing moment' our brain,s are presented with a range of stimuli' being processed at a rate #irtually undetectable to our conscious minds% &nformation is e#erywhere' and at any gi#en moment' we are processing this #ast scope of information through our brain,s large networ$ of receptors' which then store this information for later use% With this $nowledge' the (uestion of how our attention is distributed' and what information is processed' and at what rate may be as$ed% To answer this' the concept of -Selecti#e Attention. may be useful% Selecti#e Attention' is defined as -the process by which a person can selecti#ely pic$ out one message from a mi!ture of messages occurring simultaneously.% Simply put' this concept states that attention can be selecti#ely applied to a tas$ by ac$nowledging the information which is rele#ant to the tas$ at hand' and ignoring that which is not% Howe#er' the presence of the Stroop effect implies that the brain cannot merely ignore information which is irrele#ant to the tas$ presented% Stroop ffect is typically incorporated as a tool in e!perimental psychology to further understand and study selecti#e attention/ in broader terms' the ability of cogniti#e control' which include the psychological processes allowing people to plan' coordinate and e!ecute tas$s rele#ant to a goal% Today' many people are belie#ed to suffer from deficits in selecti#e attention such as indi#iduals with Autism0 Spectrum disorder% These indi#iduals e!hibit difficulty in shutting out irrele#ant stimuli from their en#ironment and di#erting their attention to the tas$ at hand' so much so that they are o#erwhelmed by the e!cess in stimuli and resort to compensatory beha#ior in order to cope and concentrate on one target% Furthermore' research in#estigating this phenomena suggests that those with ASD re(uire higher perceptual load in a tas$ in order to ignore distractors' consistent with pre#ious obser#ations claiming superior #isual search abilities

in such indi#iduals% Assuming these mechanisms are afflicted in ASD' the Stroop "aradigm may be a useful tool in assessing selecti#e attention in this group% "erceptual load 1amount of information that is tas$ rele#ant2 in terms of selecti#e attention' suggests when the load is low' irrele#ant distractors will be processed 1late selection2% &n contrast' when load is high the distracting information is not processed 1early selection2' therefore we understand those with ASD re(uire higher amounts of tas$ rele#ant information in order to ignore distractors% This is where the Stroop "aradigm becomes of assistance% We can anticipate the presence of the stroop effect in higher rates when presenting incongruent items as opposed to congruent items in the ASD population' which we can infer based off reaction times% Additionally' we can e!pect to obser#e a higher intensity of the effect when comparing the ASD group to a control group' under the same test conditions' with no $nown cases of ASD or disturbances in attention% To gain further insight' we will define and touch upon the highlighting features of this paradigm% Stroop Effect Today' the Stroop ffect is a well $nown' classic paradigm in the field of !perimental "sychology% Stroop pro#ides researchers with a simple' yet highly effecti#e manner of assessing the mechanisms of cogniti#e control and selecti#e attention by setting up an easy procedure in#ol#ing 3i04alent stimuli 1) stimuli/ rele#ant and an irrele#ant2% &t was first reported by 5%R% Stroop in *678 when he obser#ed that sub9ects were (uic$er to complete a list of -congruent items #s% incongruent items./ the essential point of the paradigm% The stroop e!periment generally follows the same format' howe#er it can be administered in #arious ways% The essential features include two important defining conditions: congruent and incongruent items% Congruent items refer to items where the word matches the color it is printed

in whereas incongruent items occur when the word does not match the color it is printed in% The rele#ant tas$ here is to identify the color that the word is presented in' not the name of the word% :sually' each stroop e!periment consists of a list of words containing #arying items' both congruent and incongruent% This is either gi#en all at once in a list where participants are as$ed to read the name of the color word' or it is featured on a computer screen with either items appearing one at a time in a random fashion per trial and as$ing each participant to press or type out their response% The latter pro#ides stronger e!perimental control and precise measurement of time 1ms2% The reaction time for each item type is recorded and then calculated with the congruent reaction time subtracted from the incongruent reaction time' gi#ing us the difference' which is the measure of the Stroop ffect% The Horse Race Model 5ust as with e#ery paradigm created in fields of e!perimental in#estigation' the reporting of the Stroop effect ser#ed to e!plain a phenomena of significance% &n this case' what stands out as important is the suggestion that people simply cannot ignore irrele#ant information% This is the main argument translated to us when obser#ing this effect% &f sub9ects reported e(ual reaction times for both item types' stroop effect would disappear because this implies the indi#idual was able to ignore the irrele#ant information% The logic behind Stroop pro#ides researchers with an ob9ecti#e measure of selecti#e attention in that the #arying (uantities of stroop are able to identify the #ariation in selecti#e attention% Results in this conte!t would then tell us that those with a low stroop effect e!hibit better attentional control than those with higher #alues of the effect% To e!plain this phenomena' many models ha#e been proposed% +ne popular model of Stroop is the Horse Race ;odel' which falls into the class of -race. models% Horse Race accounts for another significant aspect of the Stroop ffect' that is the concept of automacity 1some information is processed (uic$ly' without #oluntary' conscious

control from the sub9ect2% Some arguments claim that words are also processed in this automatic fashion' such as the #isuals we percei#e when our eyes open% Furthermore' it is assumed that differing stimuli ha#e different rates at which they are processed by our brain,s' and this is the hallmar$ of the Horse Race ;odel% The claim follows that indi#iduals respond (uic$er to word only information compared to color only considering words do ha#e a faster processing time than colors% The preceding statement is basically what the model states/ that is' #arious forms of information are racing one another% The e!periment we ha#e carried out ser#es to test the predictions highlighted by the model% +ur e!periment features two #ariables which were manipulated 1)!) factorial design2/ one being Congruency 1color word and name word match2 and &ncongruence 1color word is different from name word2% +ur second independent #ariable is the Tas$' in this case consisting of first naming the word followed by naming the color% The main effect of congruency in the Horse Race ;odel tells us that congruent stimuli will be processed faster 1shorter reaction time2 therefore drawing out (uic$er responses than obser#ed with incongruent stimuli% Furthermore' the model predicts word stimuli will be processed faster than color stimuli so we would e!pect to see shorter identification times than with color stimuli% Finally' another prediction states that when congruency and tas$ interact' they are essentially competing' as in a horse race due to both cogniti#e processing regions wor$ing simultaneously ' in turn slowing the reaction rates in total%

;ethods Subjects The experiment was carried out at Brooklyn College, where a total of 21 undergraduate Psychology majors taking an Experimental Psychology course (5 males and 16 females) participated in this stroop experiment. Materials

Our experiment was produced on Windows operating computers, which utilized in-house METACARD software via 15 LCD monitors. We used four stimulus words (red, green, blue and yellow) and four stimulus colors (red, green, blue and yellow). Procedure Every one of the stroop stimuli were presented as one color and one word, where both colors and words appeared simultaneously, however, each being independent stimuli. Words were displayed above or below colors with the color presented as a rectangle. Four congruent items and twelve incongruent items were featured. Proportionally congruent and incongruent trials had a ratio of 50/50; one block of 48 trials where participants were given the task asking them to identify the word followed by another block of 48 trials where the same group were required to name the color. The total number of trials summed up to 96, of which 48 of those trials were congruent while the remaining 48 were incongruent. The program used, randomly administered order per trial for each subject. In this portion, half of the participants were tasked with word naming followed by color naming. The remaining half was tasked with color naming followed by word naming to account for factors such as fatigue and/or boredom. Our two independent variables ( congruency and task) both featured 2 discrete levels as part of a within subjects design. This was set up as Congruency containing congruent vs incongruent items whereas Task contained the name word vs color word in each trial, moreover this was split up in order for subjects to participate in an equal number of trials for both independent variables. When trials initially started, a fixation cross in the middle of the monitor was presented for 500 milliseconds, after this followed the immediate presence of word and color stimulus, which remain on the computer screen until subjects completed typing out their response. Here they were prompted to hit the spacebar which then displayed the next item and

this was repeated until the end of all trials (all intervals following after 500 ms after hitting the space key). Results The mean reaction times recorded for each of the conditions are featured in table 1 (last page). These values support the prediction of the Horse Race Model simply because reaction times for word stimuli (congruent vs incongruent) were indeed processed faster than those for color stimuli (congruent vs incongruent). Results showing the main effect for both task and congruency errors show significance (as seen in table 2). Here, color stimulus results were F(1,14) = 77.490, MSE = 13734.195, p<.05. Word stimulus results were F(1,14) = 23.529, MSE = 6404.924, p<.05 and color/word interaction results were F(1,14) = 17.408, MSE = 5617.186, p<.0. Discussion According to the e!perimental results' the Horse Race ;odel,s main predictions were correct and deemed significant implications% Howe#er this result comes as no surprise and must be dually noted because this effect has been obser#ed and replicated (uite fre(uently% 4arious research on the topic' such as the literature discussed in ;ac<oed,s wor$' where he affirms-the Stroop task has become a common tool in understanding how we draw meaning from words (MacLoed, 1991) is supported by our results. This quick and easy design has successfully presented researchers with the means to study cognitive processes, at least through one objective lens. However, although we have seemed to gain some substantial knowledge on these processes, MacLoed introduces another lens from which we may profit, should we study it. Stemming from these results, he mention the color- word task, highlight the point that the task required of the subject when faced with a multidimensional stimulus is a crucial determinant of the pattern of

interference obser#ed.' also adding that -if the wrong word can slow in$0naming performance' then intuiti#ely the right word ought to speed performance. 1;ac<oed' *66*2% 3earing such (uestions in mind allows us to put these results into perspecti#e' this being that there is much more to learn about the functions of the brain' what information brea$s through the barriers of attention more rapidly relati#e to other forms of information' and much more% 3ut what we can conclude with' at least for now is that our e!perimental results not only show word identification to be processed faster than that of color' but we also determined from the data that congruent and incongruent word identification are faster than incongruent color recognition and congruent color recognition % Additionally' we seemed to ha#e supported the main idea behind the Horse Race model by answering the (uestion of whether different cogniti#e functions are utili=ed when identifying independent stimuli such as words or colors% The model suggests there are different brain mechanisms behind this' in addition to the word stimuli being processed in an automatic fashion' all of which our results reinforce%

References Stroop' 5% R% 1*6782% Studies of interference in serial #erbal reactions% 5ournal of !perimental "sychology' *>' ?@70??)% ;ac<oed' C%;% 1*66*2% Half a century of research on the stroop effect% :ni#ersity of Toronto' Scarborough Campus%

Figures Table * ;ean Reaction times of congruentAincongruent items in word and color tas$s

Table 1 (mean reaction times) Mean Std. Deviation N color_con color_incon word_con word_incon 999.80 183.939 15 1179.93 175.771 15 813.33 143.961 15 833.67 126.900 15

Table 2(Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts) Measure M!"S#$!_1 %&'e ((( Su) o* Source color !rror/color0 word !rror/word0 color 1 word !rror/color1word0 .inear .inear color .inear .inear .inear .inear .inear .inear word S+uares 1064268.017 192278.733 150700.817 89668.933 95760.150 78640.600 d* 1 14 1 14 1 14 Mean S+uare 1064268.017 13734.195 150700.817 6404.924 95760.150 5617.186 17.048 .001 23.529 .000 , 77.490 Si-. .000