How Performance Is Affected in a Cross Modal Task - Lab Report Example

How performance is affected in a cross modal task Introduction Importance of attention The definition of attention, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary is the state or act of dedicating the mind to something. The need for paying attention is mentioned right from pre-school, whereby the pupils are always expected to pay attention to the various instructions from teachers. This continues all the way through the whole learning system to the point when one is done with education (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011). Later on in life, once one is a grown up, they are usually expected to pay attention to even more critical issues such finances, colleagues and life in general. For instance, any psychologist must always see to it that they pay attention to their clients to ensure that they may be able to get the most out of them. This comes in the form of being able to read their minds, their reactions to various stimuli, all of which will aid in drawing logical conclusions. In order for any individual to be successful, they must be able to keep their mind focussed. In doing so, they will have to avoid restlessness as well as the tendency of constantly shifting attention from one object or subject to the other (Ormrod 2008, 170). Alternatively, other, attention ids needed for the successful performance of any action, talking, walking, studying, conversing, playing, even doing laundry. Attention is, therefore, very crucial in a person’s entire life, right from childhood to adulthood, until the time one is laid to rest. According to Ormrod (2008, 171), “If we want to move information from the sensory register into working memory, at least in most cases, we must pay attention.” Our ability of paying attention is very crucial in our lives. For instance, imagine if one was walking down a staircase and they never paid attention to their perception of the steps. Certainly, such a person would trip and fall to the bottom of the staircase if not dead, with too much injury. The same applies to a student who does not pay attention to their studies; , they will not excel in their education. As posted by Ormrod (2008), several factors have the potential of affecting level of attention paid to the situation. Such factors include intensity, emotion, incongruity, novelty, motion, social cues, size and the degree of significance of the individual, amongst others. Each and every one of these factors has the potential of either raising or lowering the level of attention that one pays to a concept, person or object. Focussed vs. divided attention Inasmuch as several studies try to outline so many types of attention, there are two types; divided and focused or selective attention. The first scenario occurs in a case whereby one it trying to multitask, thereby spreading their attention over a range of objects, persons or issues. For the selective or focused attention, one identifies on item on which they concentrate their attention, thereby blocking out all other things that may need their attention. In doing this, they can focus on a particular item, thereby increasing their chances of fully understanding; hence, process the information that may be conveyed. This study focuses on the selective attention. What is selective attention? Selective attention In their study, Broadbent, Treisman and Deutsch compare selective attention to a bottleneck. They assert that just as a bottleneck restricts the rate of passage, say, the flow of milk out of the bottle, attention is also grounded on the same. The rate of flow depended on the size of the neck. Also, the bottleneck has limitations as to what may pass through, for instance, large objects may never successfully pass. According to them, they insist that not anyone person has the potential of attending to all their sensory inputs at the same time. As such, all their models are based on the bottleneck, which helps in selecting the material that passes through it. Broadbent (1958) asserted that all the information presented at a particular time from the various stimuli enter a sensory buffer. It is at this point that each and every input is selected and allowed to pass via a filter for further processing, based on its physical characteristic. Since a person’s ability of processing information is limited, the filter is designed in such a way that it prevents the system from becoming overloaded. He argues further that the left out inputs are temporarily stored in the sensory buffer, whereby they await processing; in case of delay, they decay and disappear rapidly. His main assumption was that the unattended or non-shadowed message was rejected by the filter in the initial stages of processing. This is what prompted Broadbent to carry out a study with the aim of analysing how people manage to attain selective attention. To do this, he represented his subjects with excess stimuli, too many signals, hence too much information to be processed. The model proposed by Broadbent asserted that the filter system operates on the basis of all-or-nothing; the unattended messages are not permitted through. However, the theory put forth by Treisman for filtration disputed the theory by Broadbent. He argues that all messages are allowed through except that the unattended messages pass in an unattended form. In his argument, he used attenuation to imply reducing the level of the unattended. For instance, in case one has four music sources in the room, they can turn down or other, attenuate three in order to remain with the fourth that they then attend to. His argument was that the result was almost the same as the case when they had been turned off, as one will naturally pay attention to the highest one. His central point for disputing Broadbent’s argument was like the case whereby the unattended include some significant detail, for instance, in the event of a person’s name. In such a case, they will most probably hear their name being mentioned, though may have been amongst the unattended. Moray (1959) also had a similar study on the unattended message. Just like Treisman, his findings demonstrated that messages that were subjectively meaningful, such as the name of a person had the ability of penetrating the block. As such, he asserted that a person has very high chances of hearing instructions given in case their names are mentioned as being part of the unattended message. Oswald (1960) outlined the same findings. His findings demonstrated that in case a sleeping subject was presented with critical names and their own, it elicited a clench response that had been conditioned previously. As such, Treisman asserts that some of the unattended messages may be semantically processed. For example, he argues that in case different sentences are switched all of a sudden, the subject will most likely shadow a word or more before they revert to the attended message. Treisman’s assertions are in line with those of Deutsch and Deutsch. They argue that every message that is relayed gets to “the same perceptual and discriminatory mechanisms whether attention is paid or not; and such information is then grouped or segregated by these mechanisms” . They argue that the mechanisms of discrimination get excited by certain attributes of the incoming messages based on the present importance of weighting. The discriminatory mechanism with the highest weighting will transfer this weighting to the other classifying devices with which it has been grouped or segregated. Since there will normally be activity in a number of classifying mechanisms, a "diffuse and non-specific system is necessary" which takes up a level, at any one time, corresponding with the level of the highest discriminatory mechanism. This highest level sets a criterion by which all other levels are compared. Hence, only the discriminatory mechanism with the highest level activates the appropriate outputs (storage, motor response) and inhibits the outputs associated with the other discriminatory mechanisms. Further, the general standard of arousal will alter access output systems. Hence, for a low level of arousal (e.g. sleep), only very high level messages will be able to alter storage/motor response. Stroop effect Stroop effect is an experiment that tries to demonstrate the how the reaction of the brain gets slowed in situations it is subjected to dealing with conflicting information. The slowing down of the reaction mainly arises as a result of the competition or functions that are incompatible within the brain. The phenomenon is mainly investigated with the use of the Stroop test. When colours are presented to the subject in block shapes, say, circles or rectangles, and they are told to identify them; they will probably get them right. However, in a case whereby, instead of the block shapes, the colours are presented by the use of inconsistent colour names, they will have to take much time to respond. This is an occurrence whereby there is interference in the perception of an individual if two sets of stimuli are presented through the use presentation of words in a series of inconsistent colour inks. This study, first carried out by John Ridley Stroop, illustrated how much one’s ability to respond to the colour test is significantly slowed down by the information that is irrelevant; in print. The assumption that is made is that the names are available in the pre-speech response; however, the name that is read in the printed words has to be suppressed in order to get the right answer. This study mainly aims to show that the unattended inputs are also processed, though may not be done fully. It is because of this that the reading leads to an interference with the identification of the individual colours. Pre-speech buffer Buffer memory is used to imply the transitory products resulting from the process of processing a type of information; which remains available for any additional processing in case the required resources are availed before loss of the information. According to Cowan (1984), there is no need of having to specify whether the buffer comes as a static representation or a dynamic by-product of processing. As posited by Cowan (1984), where a buffer memory exists, there are normally not less than two processing points. Firstly, stimuli that can yield information as long as the sensory trace has not decayed are usually represented in a sensory buffer. Secondly, the units that are recognised as relevant usually reside in a short term memory buffer, which may easily be accessed to assist in solving various problems. Predictions Several predictions based on an experiment to be carried out may be listed to help analyse the outcome, whether they are as expected or not. These are the various predictions that were outlined. i. In the case of cross-modal Stroop effects, the result patterns that are detailed may assist in the differentiation between the three pre-speech buffer models outlined above. The most relevant empirical questions are: a. Do the speech sounds that are not related to colour also having an effect on the performance of the participant? b. Whether the visual and auditory Stroop effect interferences are cumulative (for instance, do two modalities have more impact than in the case of either modality alone?). ii. If the buffer had the potential of containing more than the item at time, one would naturally expect that the visual and auditory effects of interferences were additive. On the other hand, as posted by Cowan and Barron (1987), in case an irrelevant input is processed sufficiently in such a manner that it has the ability of depositing the item to the pre-speech buffer, a cross-modal interference would result. In the case of the first condition, the auditory input is in conflict with the colour words. Hence, the cross-modal interference is expected to be at its strongest. However, the interference is expected to get gradually weak as the experiment proceeds to the following conditions as the interferences are withdrawn a bit by bit. Methodology The group was divided into three categories as follows. The first group had a duty of getting the participant (P) informed about the nature of the task as well as presenting them with the consent forms which they sign. The second group involved recording the total time that the participant took to respond to the various stimuli presented under each condition. The third group checks and records the responses exhibited by P. After the first round, people changed roles on a rotational basis. Participants: the selection of the sample of the participants was based on Murray’s proposal (1968). This encompassed a cross-gender, age and cultural realms. It was first confirmed that the participant was not colour blind. Procedure The experiment was conducted in a chamber that had sound attenuation, with the participants made to face one wall and the person carrying out the research behind them. In the first case, they had headphones on to block of the music on the background and left to concentrate on the task of naming colours. They then started the naming as fast as possible without making mistakes. In the second part of the experiment, the participants were presented with the flipcharts with the colours written rather than being painted on block. They were asked to do as in the first case. In the third part, the Muri headphones were then removed so that they had music from the background. This time they were asked to do the naming, both of the words and the block colours. Each time, a stopwatch was used to record how fast the participant managed to identify the colours; in all the cases outlined above. Subjects The study was based at the University of Cambridge. The study tried as much as possible to cut across gender and cultural realm. As such, the sample size was decided on in such a manner that it was considered able to represent the entire population. This entailed seven Africans, seven Indians, eight Chinese and twelve Americans. They mainly consisted of those who had gotten a credit in the course for introduction to psychology. Design The design used was based on ANOVA, with the independent variable being the auditory modality. The study was done on four levels; colour words, non-colour words, non-speech and white noise. To enhance the coming up with reliable results, the exercise ensured that all the conditions were counterbalanced across the participants. There were two major dependent variables; visual modality and response time. Materials In the first case, the colours were printed in block shapes of rectangles, and the participants asked to identify the colours. The colours used were basically six, with alterations in the settings in case of the worded colours. These were; red, yellow, green, blue, orange and purple. On the second case, the colours were printed but not in block shapes. Rather, they were in writings. And each writing ensured that there was a conflict between what could be read and the actual colour seen. For example, green was written in red colour, yellow in blue, and so on. This was the Stroop test. Subjects were then subjected to auditory stimuli through Mura headphones and a CRT-70 Realist Tape. Here again, the words were spoken in the same voice, with the colours being stated in a random order which was in direct contrast to all of the words printed. The participants were then told to ignore the auditory information in the process of naming the colours. Under here, the auditory information was treated as the unattended message while taking the visual as the attended message. Results Response time The various reaction times were then determined. The mean colour reaction time was 10.918, with a standard deviation of 4.1772. The people reaction time was averagely 11.438 and a standard deviation of 4.6533. The music reaction time was 10.779, with a standard deviation of 4.1061. Lastly, the time of reaction towards the white noise had a mean of 10.872 and a standard deviation of 4.0415. The table below show the average response times. The colour word conditions caused larger effect on the visual response than in the case of the control condition. Error data In the visual Stroop conditions, occasionally the participant stated the interfering word instead of the correct colour (0.85% of all items). This, however, got a bit rare in the visual control conditions. The mean errors that were suffered in the measurements were quite insignificant. The colour error rate was 0.85%, with a standard deviation of 1.287, people error rate 0.81%, with a standard deviation of 0.849%. Music error rate was 0.85% with a standard deviation of 1.120, and lastly the white noise error rate being 0.88% with a standard deviation of 1.033. Post hoc, Turkey tests carried out between the mean pairs in the cases of the auditory conditions eventuated paramount differences between the colour-word conditions against the other three (alphabet, p < .05; music, p < .01; and silence, p < .01). These led to the rise of the result of about 0.05 mean difference. This is as shown in the table below. Table 1: response time data Descriptive Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Colour reaction time 26 10.918 4.1772 People reaction time 26 11.438 4.6533 Music reaction time 26 10.779 4.1061 White noise reaction time 26 10.872 4.0415 Valid N (listwise) 26 Table 2: error data Descriptive Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Colour error rate 26 .85 1.287 People error rate 26 .81 .849 Music error rate 26 .85 1.120 White noise error rate 26 .88 1.033 Valid N (listwise) 26 Table 3: ANOVA ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Colour reaction time Between Groups 119.866 2 59.933 4.357 .025 Within Groups 316.368 23 13.755 Total 436.234 25 People reaction time Between Groups 31.180 2 15.590 .703 .505 Within Groups 510.161 23 22.181 Total 541.342 25 Music reaction time Between Groups 2.946 2 1.473 .081 .923 Within Groups 418.565 23 18.198 Total 421.511 25 White noise reaction time Between Groups 60.841 2 30.420 2.013 .156 Within Groups 347.506 23 15.109 Total 408.347 25 Table 4: multiple comparisons. (The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.) Multiple Comparisons LSD Dependent Variable (I) People error rate (J) People error rate Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Colour reaction time 0 1 5.1983* 1.7639 .007 1.549 8.847 2 2.1940 1.7639 .226 -1.455 5.843 1 0 -5.1983* 1.7639 .007 -8.847 -1.549 2 -3.0043 1.9824 .143 -7.105 1.097 2 0 -2.1940 1.7639 .226 -5.843 1.455 1 3.0043 1.9824 .143 -1.097 7.105 People reaction time 0 1 1.6929 2.2399 .457 -2.941 6.326 2 -1.2786 2.2399 .574 -5.912 3.355 1 0 -1.6929 2.2399 .457 -6.326 2.941 2 -2.9714 2.5174 .250 -8.179 2.236 2 0 1.2786 2.2399 .574 -3.355 5.912 1 2.9714 2.5174 .250 -2.236 8.179 Music reaction time 0 1 .5548 2.0289 .787 -3.642 4.752 2 -.3524 2.0289 .864 -4.549 3.845 1 0 -.5548 2.0289 .787 -4.752 3.642 2 -.9071 2.2803 .694 -5.624 3.810 2 0 .3524 2.0289 .864 -3.845 4.549 1 .9071 2.2803 .694 -3.810 5.624 White noise reaction time 0 1 3.3479 1.8486 .083 -.476 7.172 2 -.2521 1.8486 .893 -4.076 3.572 1 0 -3.3479 1.8486 .083 -7.172 .476 2 -3.6000 2.0777 .097 -7.898 .698 2 0 .2521 1.8486 .893 -3.572 4.076 1 3.6000 2.0777 .097 -.698 7.898 Discussion The study entailed the performance of Stroop test by the participants, which involved spoken response, as well as other types of auditory conditions. As expected, the Stroop interference was achieved. However, the additional effects were of primary interest. The main conclusions were; i. The spoken colour word had very substantial interference with the performances of the participants. ii. The interference that arose from both the written and spoken colour words was found to be additive (in case both the interferences were present, performance was much more derailed than in the case of either of them). iii. No interference arose from the music or spoken non-words, neither was there any facilitation. Issues in the study and how they may be overcome There, however, is a need for more work before an effective determination whether the buffer described in the experiment is identical to Baddley’s phonological buffer, “ articulatory loop” described. Klapp, Greim and Marshburn (1981), instead, equated the articulatory loop with an auditory store. In their findings, irrelevant, or other, disruptive input was overcome by the relevant auditory information. However, according to Baddeley, the phonological buffer acts as a storage for a series of active encoding and rehearsal processes. For the case of the auditory stimuli, there is an automated entrance as opposed to the visual which depends on the assistance of an encoding process, and is therefore disrupted by the irrelevant articulation (Murray, 1968; Peterson & Johnson, 1971). As such, the auditory input that is relevant will automatically enter the phonological buffer rather than the visual input that is blocked (Klapp et al., 1981). The other issue that remains unresolved is the question of the limitation of the speech buffer in terms of capacity, and in case; then how. To be considered is the possible, both the number of items that may be stored concurrently and the speech duration that may be successfully stored (Schweickert & Boruff, 1968). As such, there is a need to consider the limits exhibited in the number of consecutive or concurrent irrelevant items which the interference of the colour-naming summates. References BROADBENT, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press. COWAN, N. (1984). On short and long auditory stores. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 341-370. COWAN, N. (1987). Auditory memory: Procedures to examine two phases. In W. A. Yost & C. S. Watson (Eds.), Auditory processing of complex sounds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DEUTSCH, J. A., &: DEUTSCH, D. (1%3). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80-90. Eysenck, Michael W. Cognitive psychology: a student’s handbook / Michael W. Eysenck & Mark T. Keane.Edition:5th ed.Publisher: Psychology Press, 2005. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Attention. Retrieved from:                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attention MORAY, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56-60. MURRAY, D. J. (1968). Articulation and acoustic confusability in short term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 679-684. Ormrod, J. (2008). Human Learning (5th Ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ. STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662. TREISMAN, A. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242-248. TREISMAN, A. M. (1964). The effect of irrelevant material on the efficiency of selective listening. The American Journal of Psychology, 77, 533-546. TREISMAN, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282-299. APPENDICES 1. STIMULI ONE: COLOUR IN BLOCK SHAPES 2. STIMULI TWO: COLOUR IN WORDS 3. INFORMATION SHEET Title of the Project: I am a third year psychology undergraduate from the University undertaking a study into ……………………………………. (describe your study in a few lines). If you agree to take part you will be asked ………….. (brief description what the participant will be asked to do). It is expected that the experiment will last ………………………………. Any data you do provide today will remain both confidential and anonymous and will be used only for the purposes outlined here. You may use the contact number below should any queries or concerns arise in the future. You will have an opportunity to answer questions now and at the end of the experiment. Please note that any information you may supply today will only be used for the purposes outlined here, participation in the study is voluntary and you may withdraw your assistance at any time if you wish and without explanation. Thank you for your participation. Researcher: Name of researcher, his/her telephone number and his/her email address. Supervisor: Name of researcher, his/her telephone number and his/her email address. This study has been approved by the School of Psychology Ethics Committee Registration Protocol Number: 4. DEBRIEF FORM PROJECT TITLE: WRITE YOUR DEBRIEFING SPEECH HERE: Explain briefly the aims and the background of the study and what is it that you were hoping to find. Are the results expected to have any practical/theoretical benefits? PROVIDE MORE EXPLANATIONS IF THERE WAS A DECEPTION INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY. For Projects Involving Deception, you may want to add the following statement: [As a participant you will be asked not to discuss the study with others until the study is completed (end date of study)]. Do you have any further questions? Do you wish to be informed as to the outcome of the study? Thank you for participating in this study. You may contact us in the future on: Name of the student researcher, and his/her email address Name of the supervisor, his/her telephone number and email address. 5. CONSENT FORM Project Title: Statement by Participant 1) I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily. 2) I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason. If I withdraw from the study, the data that I have submitted will also be withdrawn at my request. 3) I understand that the information that I will submit will be confidential, and used only for this study 4) I agree to take part in the above study …………………………………. …………….. ……………………………… Name of Participant Date Signature …………………………………. …………….. ……………………………… Name of Researcher Date Signature Read More