The purpose of the study was to examine whether there is a significant difference in the reaction time to detect the target stimulus at locations where a previously task-irrelevant cue appeared compared to the uncued locations. A within-subjects design was used to examine the reaction time in different conditions among the participants. The paired t-test was used to compare reaction time based on the cue and uncue locations. The inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm was used where the convenience sampling technique was used to recruit the participants into the study. There were 100 trials and two conditions where each of the participants was subjected to all the conditions. The study hypothesized that the reaction time to detect the target stimulus would be slower at cue locations compared to the uncued locations. The paired t-test was run and established that their reaction time for the cue locations was significantly lower compared to uncued locations. However, the paired samples t-test showing did not support that hypothesis that more errors for the cued condition compared to uncued conditions.
IOR Experiment with and Reaction Time and Location of the Target
IOR Experiment
Introduction
The duration between cue and target is vital. Klein (2000) indicates that there is a relationship between IOR and the cue-target, and points out that individuals tend to respond more quickly to cued compared to uncued targets. There is limited evidence on the effects of reaction time on the cued and uncued locations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine if there is a significant difference in the reaction time to detect the target stimulus at locations where a previously task-irrelevant cue appeared, compared to the uncued locations. The reaction time is measured based on two groups that are the cue and uncue locations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The study measured the independent variable: the location of the target categorized into two groups: the cue and uncue locations. The dependent variable was the reaction time to detect the target stimulus. Shifting of attention is vital in allocating attentional resources to foster efficient stimuli in the process of information. Visual attention shifting was assessed where the behavioral variables were measured using the Reaction Time (RT) and correct answer. The study hypothesizes that the reaction time to detect the target stimulus will be slower at locations where a previously task-irrelevant cue appeared compared to the uncued locations. A one-tailed test was employed to establish whether the reaction time to detect the target stimulus is modulated by cuing. It should be shorter at the cued than at the uncued location when the target's location is short (facilitation effect) (Chun, 2000). Conversely, reaction time to detect the target stimulus should be longer at the cued than at the uncued location when the target's location is long.
Method
Participants
Thirty-three participants participated in the study with male (n =15) and female (n =18). The convenience sampling was employed in recruiting the 100 participants. It is a non-probabilistic method where the samples or participants are selected into the study from part of the population that can be easy recruited. There are five parts of the population: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. This technique is good because the subjects are sampled because they are easily accessible. Fifteen male participants comprised 46 %, while the female was 54 % (n =18). All the participants were subjected to all the conditions. The study has conducted one session with 100 trials. However, the participants were not compensated.
Design
The study used the within-subjects design, suggesting that all the participants participated in all conditions. The two condition were cued and uncued locations. The repeated measures method was used to examine the different conditions among the participants. In this case, there were two conditions carried by each of the participants. Hence, the paired t-test is employed to examine if there is a significant difference in the reaction time between the two conditions. Further, there are two variables in this experiment: dependent and independent variables. The independent variable is the location of the target, and the dependent variable, the reaction time to detect the target stimulus. The two conditions for the location of the target are cued location and uncued location. The reaction time is a variable measured in milliseconds (ms), and the location is a nominal variable measured using the cued and uncued location.
Procedure
Within-subject design where all participants participated in both conditions. Each of the trials started by showing the fixation cross, placeholders, and a presentation of both the left or the right placeholder. For the long Cue-target Onset Asynchrony (CTOA) group, there was a representation of the cue at fixation. Both groups were displayed with a brief presentation of the target inside one of the two peripheral placeholders. Then, it was followed by making the presentation inside the placeholders ( Posner & Cohen, 1984 ). There was an unequal number of presentations of the cue both on the left and right. The Repeated measurements were performed in 100 trials to examine the changes in visual-spatial attention ability.
Results
The study tested the hypothesis that reaction time to detect the target stimulus will be slower at locations where a previously task-irrelevant cue appeared compared to the uncued locations. This hypothesis was supported, with a paired sample t-test showing significantly slower reaction time for the cued ( M = 412.450 ms, SD = 87.013 ms) compared to the uncued ( M = 333.045 ms, SD = 74.528 ms) condition, t (32) = 3.09, p < 0.05. For a visual depiction of these significant differences, see figure 1. The second prediction tested was the hypothesis that the average percentage of errors would be greater for the cued trials compared to the uncued trials. This hypothesis was not supported, with the second paired samples t-test showing more errors for the cued condition ( M = 97.95 %) compared to the uncued condition ( M = 97.55%), t (32) = 0.73, n.s .”
Discussion
The study's objective was to examine if there is a significant difference in the reaction time to detect the target stimulus at locations where a previously task-irrelevant cue appeared 300 ms before the target compared to the uncued locations. A paired t-test was used to test the hypothesis. The study supported the hypothesis that the r eaction time to detect the target stimulus will be slower at cue locations. Thus, suggesting that the r eaction time to detect the target stimulus will be slower at cue locations compared to the uncued locations. Further, the study did no support the hypothesis that the average percentage of errors would be greater for the cued trials compared to the uncued trials. Therefore, this implies that there was a significant improvement in the time taken for the participants to detect a target stimulus. Hence, suggesting an increase in timing of cognitive processes. The results from the graph indicated that there was a reduction in the amplitude level. Hence it is easy to process than before.
The study is limited to small sample size. The sample size does not give a clear picture of the population. Hence, there is a need for the study to increase the sample size to increase precision and representation. Future studies should be done in the areas of Neurofeedback among the male children with disability in reading on Visual-Spatial Attention. According to Sadeghi & Nazari (2015), the Neurofeedback will be used because it employs immediate feedback that is computer-based program to assess children brainwave activity. The researcher will the relationship between inhibition of return and male children with reading disabilities.
Conclusion
The topic on reaction time on the target location has been the focus of this paper. It provided a model that enables the study to examine if there is a significant difference in the reaction time based on the cued and uncued locations. Further, understanding the visual attention shifting provides useful cues for understanding reaction time to detect the target stimulus.
References
Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in cognitive sciences , 4 (5),
170-178.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 , 138-146.
Posner, M. I. (2018). Attention and the detection of signals Michael I. Posner, Charles RR
Snyder, and Brian J. Davidson. Human Perception , 43.
Posner, M.I. & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In Bouma, H. and Bouwhuis,
D.G. (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes (pp. 531-556). Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Figure 1. Mean reaction times for cued trial were significantly higher than the mean reaction times for uncued trials.
Figure 2. The percentage of correct responses to the cued trials were higher than the percentage of correct responses to the uncued trials.
