تأثیر اثر استروپ و فاصله‌های زمانی بین دو محرک بر دوره بی‌پاسخی روانشناختی

نویسندگان
سعید البوغبیش 1
رسول عابدان زاده 1
ناهید شتاب بوشهری 1
افخم دانشفر 2
1 داشنگاه شهید چمران اهواز
2 دانشگاه الزهرا تهران
چکیده
چکیده:

پیش زمینه و هدف: هدف از انجام این پژوهش بررسی اثر استروپ بر دوره بی­پاسخی روانشناختی است.

مواد و روش­ها: این پژوهش از نوع نیمه تجربی بود برای این منظور تعداد 20 نفر از دانشجویان پسر دانشگاه شهید چمران با میانگین سنی 54/1±45/23 سال به صورت در دسترس انتخاب شدند. از شرکت­کنندگان آزمون تکلیف دوگانه به عمل آمد این آزمون شامل چهار فاصله زمانی 50، 100، 300 و 900 هزارم ثانیه بین شروع ناهمزمان دو محرک در دو حالت همخوان و ناهمخوان برای محرک اول و دوم بود.

یافته­ها: نتایج آزمون اندازه­گیری مکرر با سطح معناداری (05/0 P>) نشان داد که محرک­های همخوان از محرک­های ناهمخوان زمان پاسخ سریع‌تری دارند؛ در فاصله­های زمانی کوتاه فرایند خودکار خواندن کلمه با فرایند نام­گذاری کلمه باعث ایجاد تداخل نمی­شود.

نتیجه­گیری: بنابراین عامل استروپ در فاصله­های زمانی کوتاه بی‌تأثیر بود. تفاوت درون‌گروهی و عدم سازگاری درونی دو محرک در توالی تکلیف دوگانه ناهمخوان-همخوان عامل افزایش زمان پاسخ به محرک دوم بود؛ بنابراین می­توان گفت که افزایش پیچیدگی محرک اول باعث بیشترین تأخیر در پاسخ دوم می­شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
اثر استروپ
زمان واکنش
تکلیف دوگانه
توجه انتخابی
حالت همخوان
حالت ناهمخوان

عنوان مقاله English

The Effect of Stroop Effect and Stimulus Onset Asynchronies on the Psychological Refractory Period

نویسندگان English

saeed Alboghbeish 1
Rasool Abedanzadeh 1
nahid Shetab Boushehri 1
Afkham Daneshfar 2
1 Shahid Chamran University Of Ahvaz
2 Alzahra University Of Tehran
چکیده English

Abstract

Background & Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of strop on the psychological refractory period.

Materials & Methods: The present study is of semi-experimental. 20 students of Chamran University of Ahwaz, chosen in reach; participated in the study with average age of 23/45±1/45. Each of the participants did a test of strop effect dual task within four intervals of 50, 100, 300, 900 ms between asynchronous onset of the tasks in both congruent and incongruent conditions.

Results: The results of repeated measurement test with (p>0/05) significant indicate that response time of the congruent stimulant is quicker compared with the incongruent one. In short intervals, the automatic process of reading the word had no overlap with the process of naming the word.

Conclusion: Therefore, strop effect in short intervals was not effective and the incongruent condition of strop effect makes the analysis of stimulant complex during the phase of choosing the response. Intra-group difference and internal inconsistency of two stimulants within the sequence of congruent and incongruent dual task increased the response time of the second stimulant. So, increase in the complexity of the first stimulant causes the longest delay of the second one.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

stroop effect
reaction time
Dual Task
Sectional attention
congruent
incongruent
De Jong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(5), 965.
Dell’Acqua, R. Job, R. Peressotti, F. & Pascali, A. (2007). The picture-word interference effect is not a Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 717-722.
Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(2), 216.
Fagot, C. & Pashler, H. (1992). Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1058.
Fischer, R. & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
Gold, J. I. & Shadlen, M. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 535-574.
Hartley, A. A. (2001). Age differences in dual-task interference are localized to response-generation processes. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 47.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (p. 246). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kapoula, Z. Lê, T. T. Bonnet, A. Bourtoire, P. Demule, E. Fauvel, C. ... & Yang, Q. (2010). Poor Stroop performances in 15-year-old dyslexic teenagers. Experimental brain research, 203(2), 419-425.
Karlin, L. & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 20(2), 167-178.
Logan, G. D. & Delheimer, J. A. (2001). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 668.
Logan, G. D. & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological review, 108(2), 393.
Logan, G. D. & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1072.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 163.
Magen, H. & Cohen, A. (2002). Action-based and vision-based selection of input: Two sources of control. Psychological Research, 66(4), 247-259.
Melzer, I. Kurz, I. Shahar, D. Levi, M. & Oddsson, L. I. E. (2007). Application of the voluntary step execution test to identify elderly fallers. Age and ageing, 36(5), 532-537.
Meyer, D. E. & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological review, 104(1), 3.
Norman, D. A. (1969). Memory while shadowing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(1), 85-93.
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 358.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological bulletin, 116(2), 220.
Pashler, H. (2000). 12 Task Switching and Multitask Performance. Control of cognitive processes, 277.
Piai, Vitória, Ardi Roelofs, and Roemer van der Meij. Event-related potentials and oscillatory brain responses associated with semantic and Stroop-like interference effects in overt naming. Brain research 1450 (2012): 87-101.
Schmidt, R. A. & Lee, T. (2005). Motor control and learning. Human kinetics.
Strobach, T. Schütz, A. & Schubert, T. (2015). On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 403.
Telford, C. W. (1931). The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 1.
Van Maanen, L. & Van Rijn, H. (2008). The picture-word interference effect is a Stroop effect after all. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 645-650).
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’and the timing of high‐speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43(1), 2-19.
Zarghi, A. Zali, A. Tehranidost, M. Zarindast, M. Khodadadi, S. (2011). Application of cognitive computerized test in assessment of neuro-cognitive domain. Pejouhandeh, 16(5), 241-5. (In Persian).
Zylberberg, A. Ouellette, B. Sigman, M. & Roelfsema, P. R. (2012). Decision making during the psychological refractory period. Current Biology, 22(19), 1795-1799.