RTs across Dual Stimuli, Gender, GPA and Trialt-ype

Hartanto Hartanto

doi:10.22146/jpsi.29671

RTs across Dual Stimuli, Gender, GPA and Trialt-ype

Hartanto Hartanto

(Submitted 27 October 2017)

(Published 2 April 2018)

Abstract

This psychophysics experiment of the Eriksen Flanker Task experiment is built in four independent variables (stimuli, gender, GPA, and trial-type) with one dependent variable (RTs). CAF was also examined between stimuli arrow and letter. The data was analyzed using the four-way ANOVA. The result revealed that 1) Arrow stimuli needed few RTs than letter stimuli (F value = 17.964, and p-value = 2.34e-05). 2) In gender, there was a significantly different effect of RTs between female and male groups(F value = 91.203, p-value = 2e-16 (p < 0.001). 3) In trial-type, incongruent trial required more RTs than congruent trial (F value = 144.569, p-value = <2e-16 (p < 0.001). 4) Arrow stimuli was more accurate than letter with t-value = 6.4099, df = 2220.5, p-value = 1.773e-10. The result found the differences between the stimuli were caused by horizontal and vertical attention, so were in trial-type with parallel and focus phase. Across gender, the male group has proven to be faster in both stimuli than the female counterpart. This RTs pattern suggests that in conflict flanker task research, people tend to show the same architecture processing. Therefore the finding is quite universal in many research.

Keywords

flanker task; flanker effect; CAF

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.22146/jpsi.29671

References

Adam JJ, Paas FG, Buekers MJ, Wuyts IJ, Spijkers WA, Wallmeyer P. (1999). Gender diOEerences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies. Ergonomics, 1999, 42(2), 327- 335.

Atmaca, S. Sebanz, N. & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Exp Brain Res, 211, 371–385. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9

Anderson, B. (2014). Computational Neuroscience and Cognivite Modelling. SAGE Publications Inc.

Bernard J. B. Chung S. T. L. (2011). The dependence of crowding on flanker complexity and target-flanker complexity. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 1–16.

Bugg, J, M. (2014). The relative attractiveness of distractors and targets affects the coming and going of item-specific control: Evidence from flanker tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys, 77, 373–389. doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0752-x.

BBC Horizon. (2014). Is Your Brain Male or Female.http://www.bbc.co.uk/program mes/b04knbny.

Bonnet,C. & Dresp, B. (1993). Methods and Design – A fast procedure for studying conditional accuracy function. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1993, 25, 2-8.

Blais, C. Stefanidi, A. & Brewer, G,A. (2014). The Gratton effect remains after controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions. Frotier in Psychology, 05, 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01207

Carreiras, M. Quinones, I. Hernandez-Cabrera, J,A. & Dunabeitia, J, A. (2015). Orthographic Coding: Brain Activation for Letters, Symbols, and Digits. Cerebral Cortex, 25(12), 4748–4760.

Chanceaux, M. Mathot, S. & Grainger, J. (2014). Effects of number, complexity, and familiarity of flankers on crowded letter identification. Journal of Vision November 2014, 14(7). doi:10.1167/14.6.7

Chen, C. Yang, J. Lai, J. Li, H. Yuan,J. & Abbasi, N,H. (2015). Correlating Gray Matter Volume with Individual Difference in the Flanker Interference Effect. PLoS ONE, 10(8), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136877 .

Dalmaijer, E. S., Mathôt, S., & der Stigchel, S. (2014). PyGaze: An open-source, cross- platform toolbox for minimal-effort programming of eyetracking experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 913–921.

Durlack, J. A. (2005). How to Select, Calculate, and Interpret Effect Sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9), 917–928.

de Fockert, J, W. (2013). Beyond Perceptual Load and Dilution: a review of the role of working memory in selective attention. Frontier in Psychology, 04, 1-12.

Ghinescu, R. Schatchman, T.R. Ramsey, A,K. Gratton, G. Fabiani, M. (2016). Conflict Adaptation and Cue Competition during Learning in an Eriksen Flanker Task. PLoS ONE, 11(12), 1-19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167119

Hazeltine, E. & Mordkoff, J,T. (2014). Resolved but not forgotten: Stroop conflict dredges up the past. Frontier of Psychology, 5(1327), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01327

Hartanto. (2016). Pengenalan Analisis Statistik dengan Software R. Magnum Publising, Bantul, Yogyakarta.

Hubner, R. Steinhauser, M. & Lehle, C. (2010). A Dual-Stage Two-Phase Model of Selective Attention. First publ. in: Psychological Review 117 (2010), 3, 759- 784. doi: 10.1037/a0019471

Hubner, R. & Lehle, C. (2007). Strategies of Flanker Coprocessing in Single and Dual Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology/Human Perception and Performance 33(1), 103-123

Jain,A. Bansal, R. Kumar,A. & Singh,K,D. (2015). A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 5(2), 124 – 127. doi:10.4103/2229-516X.157168

Judge, J. Taylor, P, J. (2008). Gender differences on the semantic flanker task using transposed-letter target words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 65(10). 2008-2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.67 6654.

Kraus, F. & Lindemann, O. (2014). Expyriment: A Python library for cognitive and neuroscientific experiments. Behav Res (2014), 46, 416–428. doi: 10.3758/s13428- 013-0390-6.

Mayr,U. Awh,E. & Laurey,P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nat, Neurosci. 6, 450– 452. doi:10.1038/nn1051

Mordkoof. (1996). Selective Attention and Internal Constraints: There Is More to the Flanker Effect Than Biased Contingencies.

McLean,S,P. Garza, J,P. Wiebe,S,A. Dodd, M,D. Smith,K,B. Hibbing, J,R. & Espy,K,A. (2013). Applying the Flanker Task to Political Psychology: A Research Note. Political Psychology, Vol. xx, No. xx, 2013. doi: 10.1111/pops.12056

Postle. B,R. (2015). Essentials of cognitive neuroscience. 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rouder,J,N & King,J,W. (2003). Flanker and negative flanker effects in letter identification. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65(2), 287-297

Stins, J, F. Polderman, J,C,T. Boomsma,D,I. & Geus, E,J,C. (2007). Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: Evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 2007, 3(3), 409-417. doi: 10.2478/v10053- 008-0005-4.

Shiraev, E,B & Levy, D,A. (2010). Cross- Cultural Psychology – Critical Thinking and Contemporary Applications. 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.

Ryan, R. (2009). Self Determination Theory and Wellbeing. Journal of WeD Research Review, 1, 1 – 2.

Wells, I,C. & Hamm, J,P. (2009). The Effect of Inverting Stimuli in a Flanker Task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 33 – 39. doi: 10.1037/a0013440.

Wylie, S,A, van den Wildenberg, W,P,M. Ridderinkhof, K,R. Bashore, T,R. Powell,V,D. Manning, C,A. & Wooten, G,F. (2009). The effect of speed-accuracy strategy on response interference control in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 47(0), 1844–1853. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.0 25.

Zhou, P. & Liu, X. (2013). Attentional Modulation of Emotional Conflict Processing with Flanker Tasks. PLoS ONE March 2013, 8(3), 1-8 doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0060548

Zhu, Y. Zhou, Q. & Ye, X,D. (2016). Competing with visible and invisible competitors in flanker tasks. Social behavior and personality, 2016, 44(11), 1815–1824. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.11. 1815.

https://github.com/marsja

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope- relationships/201402/brain-differences- between-genders

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.