Stroop interference refers to the finding that it takes longer to name the color ofan incongruent color 1I'0rd (e.g., the 1I'0rd blue sholl'n in green) than it does to name the color of a nel/tral stiml/II/s (e.g .. a series ofnumber signs sholl'n in green). Incongruent color-lI'ord stiml/li can differ in the similarity betll'een the color in II'hich the 1I'0rd is primed and the color denoted by the 1I'0rd (e.g., the 1I'0rd blue sholl'n in green I'S. yellow). This research sholl's that the amount of imerference obtained is related to color-\l'ord similarity, suggesting that 1I'0rd-reading and color-naming processes interact at a conceptuallel'el prior to response emission.The stimuli used in the typical Stroop color-word task can be classified to reflect the relation between the color in which the word is printed and the color denoted by the word: The two colors are the same for congruent stimuli (e.g., the word green in green), they are different for incongruent stimuli (e.g., the word red in green), and there is no relation between the two for neutral stimuli (e.g., a string of number signs in green). Subjects typically take longer to name the colors of incongruent stimuli than of neutral stimuli; that is, incongruent stimuli result in interference (Stroop, 1935). A less reliable finding is that color naming is faster for congruent stimuli than for neutral stimuli; congruent stimuli may result in facilitation (see MacLeod, 1991).When measuring facilitation and interference, researchers typically pool the response latencies to all congruent, incongruent, and neutral stimuli separately and then subtract the average response latency to neutral stimuli from the latencies to the congruent and incongruent stimuli. However, by pooling across all incongruent stimuli, one might be pooling across stimuli whose elements vary in similarity. Take, for example, the two stimuli yellow in orange and yelloll' in purple. The color denoted by the word (yellow) is more similar to the print color of the first stimulus than it is to that of the second. That is, the color-lI'ord similarity of the first Stroop stimulus is greater than that of the second. The empirical question that this research addresses is, do color-word Stroop stimuli that vary in their color-word similarity yield equivalent amounts of interference?Naming the print color of Stroop stimuli involves two processes, word reading and color naming, and interference is thought to occur when the processes yield incongruent outputs, As MacLeod (1991) pointed out, many theorists in the 1970s believed that word reading and color naming operated in parallel up to the point where a response was selected (e.g.
Four experiments investigated the perception of correlations from scatterplots. All graphic properties, other than error variance, that have been shown to affect subjective but not objective correlation (r) were held constant. Participants in Experiment 1 ranked 21 scatterplots according to the magnitude of r. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants made yes/no judgments to indicate whether a scatterplot was high (signal) or low (noise). Values of r for signal and noise scatterplots varied across participants. Differences between correlations for signal and for noise scatterplots were constant in r in Experiment 2, and constant in r2 in Experiment 3. Standard deviations of the ranks in Experiment 1 and d' values in Experiments 2 and 3 showed that discriminability increased with the magnitude of r. In Experiment 4, faculty and graduate students in psychology and sociology made point estimates of r for single scatterplots. Estimates were negatively accelerated functions of objective correlation.
A mask of a face rotated about its vertical axis of symmetry can appear to oscillate rather than rotate. Do stimulus features (e.g., shape) or cognitive factors (e.g., differential familiarity with convex and concave views of faces) explain this new illusion? In Experiment 1, differential familiarity was varied across stimuli by using familiar and unfamiliar objects rotating at 4 rpm and within stimuli by showing the objects upright and inverted. True motion was seen more with unfamiliar objects than with familiar objects and more with an inverted mask than with an upright mask. The results of Experiment 2, which was done with static views, suggest that the upright and inverted masks present similar structure to the visual system. In Experiment 3, the objects were shown rotating at 8 rpm; the results are similar to those of Experiment 1. These experiments favor a differential familiarity account of this illusory motion. Cognitive constraints on perceived motion and perceived rigidity are discussed.
Prior research suggests that "closer" interface styles, such as touch and tangible, would yield poorer performance on problem solving tasks as a result of their more natural interaction style. However, virtually no empirical investigations have been conducted to test this assumption. In this paper we describe an empirical study, comparing three interfaces, varying in closeness (mouse, touchscreen, and tangible) on a novel abstract problem solving task. We found that the tangible interface was significantly slower than both the mouse and touch interfaces. However, the touch and tangible interfaces were significantly more efficient than the mouse interface in problem solving across a number of measures. Overall, we found that the touch interface condition offered the best combination of speed and efficiency; in general, the closer interfaces offer significant benefit over the traditional mouse interface on abstract problem solving.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.