Experimental paradigm of stroop effect

Stroop effect paradigm has been extended to many experimental studies. When the classic Stroop paradigm is to name the color of a word (word), there is interference between the color of the written target word (color word) and the semantics of the target word. With the deepening of research, the classic Stroop paradigm has evolved into various variants. (Day and night trip)

Cerstadt, Hong and Diamond modified Stroop task to apply to 3-year-old preschool children. 5 to 7, forming a day and night Stroop mission. The experimental group asked the subjects to say "night" when they saw the shadow of the sun and "day" when they saw the shadow of the moon. The control group asked the subjects to say "day" when they saw one abstract figure and "night" when they saw another abstract figure. Results There was significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. There is a significant age difference in the reaction time of the experimental group, especially at 3. Five and four. Five years old. There was no significant age difference in the reaction time of the control group. The reaction time of subjects decreased with the increase of test times. The most common error pattern is that children say "day" and "night" in turn, or insist on saying "day" when they see the outline of the sun. The similarity between Night Stroop and Classic Stroop is that both require children to suppress the contradiction between word meaning and visual conflict, but the former is also a routine task. Because the experimental task is to ask the subjects to say "night" when they see the sun and "day" when they see the moon or stars. At present, the day and night Stroop paradigm is mostly used to study children's executive function as an important indicator to measure executive function. Besner and others changed the color of the previous word &d, and asked the subjects to say the color of a letter in the word, which was in a string of symbols (#, @,%,&; ) In both contexts, it is found that context seriously influences and restricts Stroop effect. Allen and others use numbers or symbols to match their numbers as materials, such as symbols (-,+++,= =,:), English letters (C, AAA, DD), matched numbers (referring to numbers consistent with their numbers, such as 1 444,333) and unmatched numbers. 1111,66), the result is that it takes longer for subjects to remember mismatched numbers than symbols and letters, which is similar to the Stroop effect of colors; It takes longer to read mismatched numbers than letters, which is similar to the reversal of Stroop effect of colors. Reading and recording matching numbers takes much less time than reading and recording letters, which is similar to the promotion of stroop effect of color.

Researchers such as Risko and Jennifer studied Stroop effect by linking visual search with Stroop paradigm. The arrangement of words 3, 5 and 7 includes 1 colored objects presented to the subjects (words of experiment 1 and 3, lines of experiment 2). Irrelevant color words are also presented in the material, and there are two situations of unity or separation from the color target position. Experiments 1 and 3 require subjects to report the color of the target color words, and experiment 2 requires subjects to judge whether the target color has ever appeared.

Although these paradigms are all improvements to the classic Stroop paradigm to some extent, they also show the diversity and variability of Stroop paradigm and the universality of its application.