China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Response Selection and Principles of Compatibility
Published in Robert W. Proctor, Van Zandt Trisha, Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems, 2018
Robert W. Proctor, Van Zandt Trisha
A closely related phenomenon to the Simon effect is the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935/1992). People performing the Stroop task name the ink colors of words that spell out color names. For example, the word “green” could be printed in red ink, and a person’s task is to say “red.” The Stroop effect occurs when the word and the ink color conflict. People find it very difficult to say “red” to the word “green” printed in red ink. Stroop interference occurs in many tasks, not all of which involve colors (MacLeod, 1991). The difference between the Stroop and Simon effects is that the Stroop effect seems to arise from conflicting stimulus dimensions, whereas the Simon effect seems to arise from conflicting response dimensions. Explanations of the Stroop effect have tended to focus on response competition, much like explanations of the Simon effect (e.g., De Houwer, 2003).
Attention in Perception and Display Space
Published in Christopher D. Wickens, Justin G. Hollands, Simon. Banbury, Raja. Parasuraman, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2015
Christopher D. Wickens, Justin G. Hollands, Simon. Banbury, Raja. Parasuraman
We have seen that moving display elements together in space will aid their parallel processing and increase the likelihood of interference for focused attention. What if the display elements were combined into a single stimulus object, the focus of research on object-based attention (Scholl, 2002)? The classic laboratory demonstration of this phenomenon is called the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935; MacLeod, 1992). In the Stroop task, the participant is asked to report the ink color of a set of stimuli. In a control condition, the participant is shown a row of four Xs (XXXX). Each row is a different ink color, and the participant must report the color of each row. This is analogous to the single letter control of the flanker task. In the critical response conflict condition, the stimuli are color names, printed in ink that does not match (e.g., the word BLUE is printed in red ink). The results are dramatic: Reporting ink color is slow and error prone relative to the control condition. When participants err, they read the word instead of reporting the ink color. There is response conflict between the word and the color, slowing processing. Like the flanker paradigm, irrelevant information interferes with the production of the correct response. The difference, however, is that the relevant and irrelevant information are part of the same stimulus object in the Stroop effect.
Cursor movements to targets labelled “stop”: a kinematic analysis
Published in Ergonomics, 2022
J. G. Phillips, L. R. D. Pringle, B. Hughes, A. Van Gemmert
The traditional Stroop effect elicits response conflicts by providing people with two disparate response options: a reading response and a colour-naming response. The well learnt reading response conflicts with the less well-practised colour-naming response (Augustinova and Ferrand 2014; MacLeod 1991). The present study will consider conflict in response to written stimuli signifying action. This study will sometimes use a readable imperative stimulus—‘MOVE!’, to prompt the participants to move a cursor to a labelled target containing the words ‘+GO+’ or ‘STOP’. The task involves S-S confusion, as the presentation of a task relevant stimulus, in the form of a target, can be in conflict with a task irrelevant stimulus, namely a written label on the target (Kornblum 1992). The use of a readable imperative cue should encourage semantic processing (Sugg and McDonald 1994; Blais and Besner 2006). Whereas the presence of a congruent (+GO+) or incongruent label (STOP) on the target, if processed automatically, should generate response conflict. Basically a ‘shut down’ task requires a movement to the target, while ignoring the labels. If response conflict is generated in the form of a degree of hesitancy or obstacle avoidance (Tipper, Howard, and Jackson 1997; Welsh, Elliott, and Weeks 1999), this could then be documented by kinematic analysis of cursor motion (Douglas and Mithal 1997; Phillips and Triggs 2001).