Abstract
The current study measures response times based on four different exercises involving the reading of numbers and row length. The Stroop effect is measured using mean reaction times to each sheet, and the t-tests for each comparison are calculated. According to the results, response time measurably decreases when order and number are shuffled.
Introduction
Cognitive conflict processing involves the selection of one stimulus among competing stimuli, requiring the ability to selectively attend to particular features in an environment. The Stroop effect is an experiment that is intended to determine one's ability to ignore conflicting stimuli while focusing on one single targeted dimension (Henkin et al., 2010). The Stroop effect measures the response and reaction times of subjects. It is one of the most extensively studied phenomena in cognitive neuroscience (Henkin et al., 2010). The Stroop effect is mostly used to study conflict processing in visual modalities, though there is some auditory modality data provided (Henkin et al., 2010).
The overall component of Stroop effects are the conflict between informationt hat is taken from linguistic parts of a stimulus, and the perceptual component that corresponds with it (Pothos & Tapper, 2009). Emotional Stroop tasks are used to determine conflicts between emotional states and visual stimuli; the primary approach stems from elementary associative learning processes between elements. This type of conflict determines just how much reaction time is affected by the emotional response to a certain color or visual stimulus. In emotional Stroop tests more so than other types of tests, the associations between the emotional cue and the target are made automatic more quickly (Pothos & Tapper, 2009).
One incongruity that arises within emotional Stroop tests is the presence of inconsistent findings, which can stem from differing effects of stimulus valence and arousal (Dresler et al., 2009). It has been determined that the level of arousal is the primary source of emotional interference, and not the valence of the emotional stimuli; the more arousing the stimuli, the greater the level of interference. When considering the level of anxiety someone undergoes during cognitive conflict processing, it has been made clear that response time decreases with the greater level of anxiety experienced by the subject (Dresler et al., 2009).
Working memory load is the amount of total information that can be carried by a human mind at one time. The level of WM load possessed by a human being can determine their baseline level of reaction time. Distractor processing is the ability for the human mind to deal with and work through distracting or conflicting stimuli; these are known as Stroop stimuli (Gao et al., 2007).
In order for people to figure out what action needs to be performed regarding an object or event, information has to be gathered on the object that is to be reacted against. Its size, speed, color, trajectory and the like are factored into the object before taking an action, which leads to the response time humans typically experience. The more complicated a cognitive process is, especially combining certain sets of information (such as color, order, and number), the longer the reaction time (Luo et al., 2010).
References
Chunming, L., Lupianez, J., Xiaolan, F., & Xuchu, W. (2010). Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: the role of onset versus offset cues. Psychological Research, 74(3), 277-290.
Dresler, T., Meriau, K., Heekeren, H. R., & der Meer, E. v. (2009). Emotional Stroop task: effect of word arousal and subject anxiety on emotional interference. Psychological Research, 73(3), 364-371.
Henkin, Y., Yaar-Soffer, Y., Gilat, S., & Muchnik, C. (2010). Auditory Conflict Processing: Behavioral and Electrophysiologic Manifestations of the Stroop Effect. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(7), 474-486.
Pothos, E., & Tapper, K. (2010). Inducing a Stroop Effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 1021-1033.
Quanying, G., Zhe, C., & Russell, P. (2007). Working Memory Load and the Stroop Interference Effect. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 146-153.
