Q1
The independent variable was the color information while the dependent variable was attention attraction. Both variables are of nominal level, i.e. the variation of color information or attraction of attention does not vary upon the change of the color or the person to whom they attract attention.
Q2
The research was subjective, especially in treating RTs (reaction times) above 1500 ms as misses and 300 ms as anticipatory. There is no proper control or a basis upon which the researcher sets this criterion of exclusion. Besides, there is no background check of the participant to analyze if they could be color blind to a certain wavelength that could affect the results.
Q3
The researchers ensured that the participant became comfortable before undertaking the study to avoid unwanted variables that would influence their perception. Moreover, the researcher informed the subjects that the location of the cues did not predict that the target removing the possibility anticipatory problems. The participants defined their equip-Luminant point of the signal stimuli.
Q4
The magnocellular stream specializes in processing transient data and is weak at fine signaling and do not differentiate input from long and medium wavelength. On the other hand, the parvocellular stream handles fine details, but has color-opponent receptive cells. Studies show that magnocellular stream dominates the attentive guidance, and cues derived entirely from color fail to capture the attention of individuals. In this regard, Snowden (2002) investigated how the color information in both the magnocellular and parvocellular streams affect attention.
Q5
The results showed that the RTs were shorter on the valid attempts than the wrong ones, and the luminance cue did not change the reaction times. There was no any indication of interaction between cue luminance and validity. Therefore, Snowden reached a tentative conclusion that the P stream was responsible for pure chromatic cueing.
Q6
Using six participants, I would set up a discrimination task. I would create a background screen consisting of central fixation cross and two outline boxes measuring 4o by 4o placed at 6o from a fixation in both the upper and left visual fields. I would then come up with two cue types 1.5o by 1.5o to occur within the outline boxes. I would then rotate one of the cues (red grating 9c/d) at 45o to stimulate the P-pathway. The M-cue would stimulate the M-pathway. Both would have an equal probability of moving up and down. The participants would then press a button with the right index figure when the grating is horizontal or an adjustment button with the fight middle finger when the grating is vertical. I would then present both cues for 75 ms randomly to the left and right allocation and the reactionary times (Riesa and Hopfinger, 2011).
The expected result would show that the parvocellular streams are not sensitive to motion. The high spatial resolution of the parvocellular stream tends to focus on the chromatic aspects other than motion. However, the temporal resolution is quite low, making the functionality of the parvocellular stream and the magnocellular cells synergistic.
The implication of the result would vary depending on the point of focus. In the perspective of Snowden’s study, the result would offer support for the conclusion that P-cells are dominant in chromatic signals that do not influence motion. Therefore, the P-cells are not responsible for movement in isolation.
References
Riesa, A. J., and Hopfinger, B. J., (2011). Magnocellular and parvocellular influences on reflexive attention. Science Direct. Volume 51, Issue 16, 15 August 2011, Pages 1820– 1828. Retrieved on May 23, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698911002197
Snowden R. J. (2002). VISUAL ATTENTION TO COLOR: Parvocellular Guidance of Attentional Resources? American Psychological Society. VOL. 13, NO. 2, MARCH 2002. Pdf file.
