Experiment 3: Corsi Block Tapping Test

Submitted By

Harshita Jain

3PSECO

2130530

PSY351: Psychological Statistics and Experiments

Dr Sonia David

August 15th, 2022

 Title: PEBL version of Corsi block tapping test

Introduction

A test of visual-spatial working memory is the Corsi block test. On a series of square targets

that are spatially arranged, participants are instructed to duplicate click sequences (Mueller,

2011). The length of the sequence increases with trials. The memory span of an individual is

determined by the number of correct answers provided.

Method

Aim

To assess visuospatial working memory span using Corsi block tapping test.

Plan

Administer the computerized Corsi Block Tapping Test through PEBL to the participant. The

purpose is to assess the short-term memory for visual sequences in one direction namely – a

forward task or forward response modality (Corsi, 1972; Kessels et al., 2000 as cited in

Brunetti, et al., 2014 ). The test assesses the visuospatial short-term memory of the participant

through the accurate recall of visual sequences in spatial locations that increase in length as

trials proceed. Results will be analysed to compare individual and group memory spans.

Hypothesis

H₀1. The visuospatial short-term memory span of the participant does not deviate from the

group mean.

Materials

Corsi block tapping test (Computerized test, PEBL, Mueller, 2011). The original Corsi

block tapping test measures visuospatial short-term memory and is specifically used among
populations with normal brain functioning and clinical populations with brain trauma and/or

brain lesions. A standardized computer version, adapted from the original block tapping test

by Corsi (1972), includes instructions, apparatus configuration, specific trials and scoring

measures which help in norm development (Kessels et al., 2000). In the current computerized

PEBL version, the setup consists of nine small blue squares (90-pixel sides adapted from the

original blocks of 30 mm each) presented irregularly and lit up one at a time on the computer

screen. The subject must use the mouse to click on the blocks (presented as flashing squares)

and reproduce the order they are lit (Pearson & Sahraie, 2003; LeFevre et al., 2010 as cited in

Brunetti, et al., 2014 ). The test begins with a sequence of two units presented for two trials

and, if the subject succeeds, increasingly longer sequences are presented. Each time a

maximum of two equal-unit sequences is tapped out. If the participant reproduces even one

sequence of the same length correctly, they proceed to sequences that are one item longer

(Brunetti et al. 2014). The test ends when the participant reproduces two consecutive

sequences of the same length incorrectly.

Procedure

Setting up & Arrangement

The participant is seated comfortably and the computer is set at an ideal distance at eye level,

from the participant. The settings on the device being used to administer the test, are checked

thoroughly before starting the assessment. It is ensured that the testing environment is free

from distractions and adequate lighting is provided. Rapport is established with the

participant. After the detailed instructions and queries, if any, the participant is asked to start

the test.

Sampling process

The participant is chosen based on convenience sampling.

Participant details

Name (initials):

Age:

Sex:

Education:

Process

The test begins with the standard instructions displayed on PEBL. The participant has to click

the mouse to proceed. Before the presentation of the stimulus, a visual prompt “Ready” is

given. Following this, three practice trials with a sequence length of three units are presented.

After the practice trials, the participant is prompted to respond to the main test where the

response will be counted towards the score (See appendix A - image 1). The assessment

begins with the starting sequence of two units and is presented with two trials, and

subsequently for every sequence length. After completing each trial, the participant has to

click “Done” to proceed to the next trial and is given immediate feedback about their

response - ‘correct’ if the sequence is reproduced correctly and ‘incorrect’ if the sequence is

reproduced incorrectly. On successful completion of two trials for one sequence length, the

trial shifts to the next sequence which is one item longer. In this way, the participant proceeds

till two consecutive errors are made in a given sequence length. At this point, the test is

terminated and the participant is presented with the summary report on the computer screen

(See appendix B- image 2). The participant’s span is defined by the last sequence length

reproduced with one or no errors before the task was terminated (Brunetti et al., 2014).

Instructions

The following instruction has to be given to the subject.

“You are about to take part in a test that measures your ability to remember a sequence of

locations on the screen. You will see nine blue squares on the screen. On each trial, the
squares will be lit up one at a time in sequence. Remember the sequence. When the sequence

is finished, you need to click on each square in the same order they were given. When you are

done, click the button labelled ‘done.’ If you cannot remember the order of squares, click

them in as close to the original order as you can. You will start with a sequence of two

squares, and you will get two tries for each sequence length. The sequence will increase by

one whenever you get at least one of the two sequences correct. Click the mouse button when

you are ready to begin.”

(For the practice trials) “You will first perform three practice trials to become familiar with

the test.”

Debriefing

“Thank you for your participation in this experiment. Your data will be kept confidential and

will only be used for academic purposes. The purpose of this assessment was to assess the

visuospatial memory span of the subject and interpret it according to group norms. You may

ask for any other clarifications that you have regarding this assessment.”

Controls/Precautions & Ethical Considerations

● Extraneous variables are to be controlled during the experiment.

● The participant is reminded before the experiment to be fast and accurate. If there are

any challenges faced by the participant during the course of the assessment, this could

be addressed as well.

● The participant is allowed to try out the practice trials to understand the instructions

and use the mouse of the computer.

● The participant is debriefed after the experiment.

Analysis

The data is captured in the datasheet in PEBL. Two outputs are referred to for analysis
namely: Corsi Summary and Corsi Trial. The score on the Corsi block tapping test is the

memory span based on the last sequence that was correctly reproduced before the task is

terminated. The memory span of the individual is reported from the summary output. The

total number of actual trials that were correctly attempted and the average time taken across

actual trials are calculated. The actual trials completed successfully and the average time

taken can be used to further interpret the participant’s performance.

The group mean and standard deviation of the memory span of the group are calculated to

determine the group norms using the formula (Mean +/- 1 Std Dev). The distribution is

categorized as below average, average, and above average. The memory span of the

participant is compared with the group norms to interpret their visual-spatial memory span.

The range in the group (maximum - minimum score) for the memory span is also determined.

Furthermore, the memory span of the subject is compared to the group mean to verify the null

hypothesis.

Ethical Considerations

The data of the participant and the group were kept confidential throughout the length of the

experiment.

All of the extraneous variables which could affect the accuracy of the responses were

also under control.

The participants were debriefed regarding the experiment beforehand and were

provided with instructions regarding the pace and the content of the experiment. (cite APA

website)

Introspective Report

Initially, the test was simple since the sequences were short in length. My response time was

also short for the first few sequences. As the length of the sequence went up to six and
progressed further, the number of errors I made increased. It was difficult to keep track of the

sequence because the blocks were flashing at a very fast pace.

Results

Table 1: shows the visual-spatial memory span of the participant

Participant Number of Memory span Interpretation Average time taken across trials
correct trials (ms)

HJ 9 5.5 Above average 4096

Table 2: shows the visual-spatial memory span of the group

S.No Participant Memory span Interpretation

1 RA 5.5 Above average

2 HJ 5.5 Above average

3 SJ 6 Above average

4 AP 6 Above average

5 RM 5.5 Above average

6 PK 5.5 Above average

5.5
7 VA Above average

8 AKS 4 Below Average

9 MB 6 Above average

10 RKS 5 Average

11 AV 5 Average

12 JK 6 Above average

13 AM 5.5 Above average

14 MJ 5.5 Above average

15 AY 5 Average

16 SS 5 Average

17 AB 5.5 Above average

18 SS 5 Average

19 SA 6.5 Above average

20 VV 5.5 Above average

21 DD 5 Average

22 AV 6.5 Above average

23 TA 5 Average
 24 GG 5 Average

25 MV 6 Above average

26 AM 5 Average

27 TM 6.5 Above average

28 SS 5 Average

Mean 5.46

Std. 0.576
Dev.

Range 2.5

Table 3: shows group norms on the Corsi block tapping test

Score Interpretation

5.00 and below Below average

5.50-6.00 Average

6.00 and above Above average

* Mean = 5.46 ; Std Dev = 0.576

Discussion

Upon comparing the individual’s scores with the group, it is found that their scores do not

deviate from the Standard Deviation, and the subject is in the above-average range.
Conclusion

Subject HJ proves the hypothesis as states, “The visuospatial short-term memory span of the

participant does not deviate from the group mean.”

 References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017).

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html

Brunetti, R., Del Gatto, C., & Delogu, F. (2014). eCorsi: implementation and testing of the

Corsi block-tapping task for digital tablets. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,939.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00939

Kessels, R. P., Van Zandvoort, M. J., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & De Haan, E. H. (2000).

The Corsi block-tapping task: standardization and normative data. Applied

Neuropsychology, 7(4), 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0704_8

Mueller, S. T. (2011). The PEBL Corsi Block Test. Computer Software retrieved from

http://pebl.sf.net

The jamovi project (2022). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from

https://www.jamovi.org.
 Appendix A

Image 1
 Appendix B

Image 2
 Experiment 2: Color Stroop Effect

Submitted By

Harshita Jain

3PSECO

2130530

PSY351: Psychological Statistics and Experiments Dr Sonia David

August 9th, 2022

Introduction

The Stroop Colour and Word Test is used extensively to analyse the cognitive interference

that occurs when the processing of one stimulus delays the processing of an attribute of the

same stimulus. In the test, the participant is presented with a series of words, such as blue,

green, red, yellow, and, when, etc., and asked to recognize the colour in which the words are

displayed, and not the word itself (Scarpina. F & Tagini. S, 2017).

At the beginning of the test, the participants are made to complete a practice run to get a hang

of how the test would be conducted. The four colours, red, blue, green, and yellow, are

associated with numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Thus, the participant is asked to

press the number key which is associated with the colour in which the word is displayed. The

test measures the number of errors the participant makes in the test and the mean response

time taken by the respondent.

METHOD

Aim

Plan

Administer the computerized Colour Stroop task through PEBL to the participant. The

purpose is to assess whether the processing of one stimulus feature is interfering with the

processing of other features of the same stimulus. If there are no errors made in responding

under different stimulus feature variant conditions, then it indicates the participant’s ability to

inhibit cognitive interference while processing a particular stimulus feature.

Hypotheses

H01.There is no difference in the accuracy or errors made between the three conditions of the
colour naming task

H02.There is no difference in the mean response time between the three conditions of the

colour naming task

Materials

Colour Stroop Task on PEBL. The Stroop effect is named after John Ridley Stroop (Stroop.

J R, 1935). This is one of the frequently used tests to measure the selective attention capacity

of the subject. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) version of the test is

used in the current experiment (Mueller & Piper, 2014). The task consists of three conditions

where subjects are expected to identify the colour of the words presented on the screen.

Condition 1 Congruent (C). In this condition, the meaning of the words and the colour of the

words are the same.

Condition 2 Incongruent (I). In this condition the meaning of the words and colour of the

words are different.

Condition 3 Neutral (N). In this condition, the meaning of the words is not related to any

colours.

Procedure

Setting up & Arrangement

The participant is seated comfortably. Rapport has to be established. After the basic

orientation to the test, the participant will be asked to start the test.

Intake process

The participant has been chosen based on convenience sampling.

Participant details

Name (initials):
Age:

Sex:

Education:

Process

Numbers 1 to 4 will be assigned to colours such as Red, Blue, Yellow and green. The

participant will be instructed to identify the colour of the word, presented on the screen for a

few milliseconds, by pressing the assigned number on the keypad. A few practice trials have

to be given to reduce the interference of response delay. After the practice trial, the

participant will be asked to continue the experiment. The three conditions have a total of 56

trials in each, including 8 practice trials under each condition. Hence, there are a total of 24

practice trials, and 48 actual trials in each condition.

Instructions

The following instructions are to be given to the participant.

“You are about to take part in a task in which you will be asked to determine the colour that

written words appear. Sometimes, the words will be actual colour names. When this happens,

try not to respond with the written colour name, but only with the colour of the word with the

1-2-3-4 keys on the top of the keyboard. Colours assigned to each number are: 1 = red 2 =

blue 3 = green 4 = yellow. Kindly respond as fast as possible.”

Debriefing

Thank you for your participation in this experiment. Your data will be kept confidential and

will only be used for academic purposes. The purpose of this experiment was to see if

irrelevant stimuli interfere and create conflict with colour-naming abilities when put under
certain conditions. The majority of people show the existence of the conflict. If you have any

further queries regarding the experiment, you can ask.

Controls/Precautions & Ethical Considerations

• Extraneous variables, like environmental distractions, participant anxiety etc. are

controlled during the test to the best of the ability of the experimenter.

• The participant is given some practice sessions to learn the number associated with

colour.

• The participant is debriefed after the experiment. Analysis

o The data is captured on PEBL in terms of average response time and accuracy

(number of errors made). Three columns are to be considered from the PEBL

excel data sheet for calculation - rt, random-error and incongruence error. The

‘cond’ column indicates the respective three conditions, which are presented

in random order. The effect of the irrelevant stimuli on colour naming is

calculated based on average response time and accuracy. Mean response time

has to be calculated separately for each condition under actual trials, and the

accuracy of response is expressed through the total number of errors made as

random and incongruence errors. Mean accuracy is calculated by computing

the statistical mean of all the errors across all actual trials, separately for each

condition.

Ethical Considerations

The confidentiality concern related to psychological testing was upheld throughout

the duration of the test. The self-administering nature of the test ensured that the
 respondent’s results could not be associated with their respective identity

Introspective Report

The simplicity of the test astounded me at first, but when I actually started attempting

to answer, it became increasingly taxing. The screen kept blurring out my vision, and

the excess concentration made me mildly dizzy. Regardless, the test itself was very

simple, provided the instruction given was not complex in nature. However, the

length of the test was extremely long, which made it difficult to concentrate on giving

the right answer. As the pace of the recurrence increased, the difficulty related to

answering also increased. Other than that, the test was extremely simple, leaving out

the fact that it was very long and monotonous.

Results and Discussion

Table 1

Summary table of Mean response time and mean accuracy across Congruent, Incongruent

and Neutral Stimulus conditions

Name Condition Mean Response time Mean accuracy

HJ Congruent 1
830.292
Incongruent
894.979 0.958
Neutral 1
867.354

Discussion
After taking the test, the results show a disparity between the three conditions as stated in the

hypotheses. There seems to exist a difference in the Mean Response time, such that

Congruence is at 830.292, Incongruence is at 894.979, and Neutral is at 8667.354.

Though minimal, there exists a disparity in the Mean Accuracy of the respondent between the

Congruent, Incongruent and Neutral conditions, it is 1, 0.958 and 1, respectively. Conclusion

HJ disproves the hypotheses, as stated “There is no difference in the accuracy or errors made

between the three conditions of the colour naming task,” and “There is no difference in the

mean response time between the three conditions of the colour naming task.”

References

Scarpina, F, & Tagini, S. (2017). The Stroop Color and Word Test. Frontiers in Psychology,

8, 557. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557

Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The psychology experiment building language (PEBL)

and PEBL test battery. Journal of neuroscience methods, 222, 250-259.

Stroop, John Ridley (1935). Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.