AUTOMATISATION OF ATTENTION USING STROOP TASK

Practical Report

Submitted by:

Bonigala Jaanvi

23528004

Psychology Honours
INTRODUCTION
Aim
The aim of the research is to study inhibitory control and automatisation of attention using a
Stroop Task.
Attention

Attention is the means by which we actively process a limited amount of information from
the enormous amount of information available through our senses, our stored memories, and
other cognitive processes (De Weerd, 2003; Rao, 2003).

In his book Principles of Psychology, William James defined attention as “Taking possession
of the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible
objects or trains of thoughts. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal
effectively with others.”

Types of attention

Attention can be categorized into several types based on various cognitive processes and how
they function:
Selective attention involves focusing on specific stimuli while ignoring others. It allows
individuals to concentrate on particular information, filtering out irrelevant or less important
details.

Sustained attention is also known as vigilance or concentration. It refers to the ability to

maintain focus on a single task or stimulus over an extended period. It is crucial for tasks that
require prolonged concentration, such as studying, reading, or monitoring.

Divided attention involves multitasking or simultaneously attending to multiple tasks or

stimuli. It allows individuals to allocate cognitive resources to different activities but may
result in reduced performance compared to focusing on one task at a time.

These types of attention are interconnected and often work together, depending on the task,
context, and individual cognitive abilities. The way attention is allocated can vary based on
the demands of the situation and individual preferences or strategies.

Nature of attention

Attention is a fundamental cognitive mechanism that enables us to selectively concentrate on

certain information while filtering out distractions or irrelevant stimuli. It involves the ability
to allocate mental resources to specific tasks or details, allowing us to focus, process, and
respond to relevant information effectively. This process is characterized by its selectivity,
where we prioritize certain stimuli over others due to the limited capacity of our cognitive
resources. Additionally, attention can be flexible, allowing us to shift focus voluntarily based
on goals or involuntarily in response to salient stimuli. It encompasses sustained attention for
prolonged focus and divided attention for managing multiple tasks simultaneously. The
control of attention involves cognitive processes that regulate our thoughts and actions,
aiding in directing, maintaining, and adapting our focus as needed. This intricate mechanism
operates at various levels of cognitive processing, from sensory perception to higher-order
cognitive functions, and relies on neural networks in the brain, including regions like the
prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex, for its orchestration.

Theories of attention

Filter theory
Broadbent (1958) proposed a filter theory of attention, which states that there are limits on
how much information a person can attend to at any given time. Therefore, if the amount of
information available at any given time exceeds capacity, the person uses an attentional filter
to let some information through and block the rest. The filter is based on some aspect of the
attended message such as the location of its source or its typical pitch or loudness. Only
material that gets past the filter can be analysed later for meaning.

This theory explains why so little of the meaning of the unattended message can be recalled.
The meaning from an unattended message is simply not processed. Put another way,
Broadbent’s filter theory maintains that the attentional filter is set to make a selection of what
message to process early in the processing, typically before the meaning of the message is
identified (Pashler, 1998).

Attenuation Theory
Psychologist Anne Treisman (1960) proposed a modified filter theory, which she called
attenuation theory. Instead of considering unattended messages completely blocked before
they could be processed for meaning (as in filter theory), Treisman argued that their volume
was turned down. In other words, some meaningful information in unattended messages
might still be available, even if hard to recover. She explained this idea explaining that
incoming messages are subjected to three kinds of analysis. In the first, the message’s
physical properties, such as pitch or loudness, are analysed. The second analysis is linguistic,
a process of parsing the message into syllables and words. The third kind of analysis is
semantic, processing the meaning of the message.

Late-Selection Theory
Deutsch and Deutsch (1963) proposed a theory, called the late-selection theory. It was later
elaborated and extended by Norman (1968), this theory holds that all messages are routinely
processed for at least some aspects of meaning, that selection of which message to respond to
thus happens “late” in processing.

Processing occurs to at least recognise familiar objects or stimuli. Pashler (1998) described it,
according to late selection theory: Recognition of familiar objects proceeds unselectively and
without any capacity limitations. One cannot voluntarily choose to identify or recognize
something, according to these theorists. Whether there is just one sensory input or many does
not affect the extent to which stimuli are analysed or the timing of such analyses.

Factors affecting attention

The existing theoretical models of attention may be too simplistic and mechanistic to explain
the complexities of attention. There are many other variables that have an impact on our
ability to concentrate and pay attention. Here are some of them:

 Anxiety: Being anxious, either by nature (trait-based anxiety) or by situation (state-based

anxiety), places constraints on attention (Eysenck & Byrne, 1992; Reinholdt-Dunne et al.,
2009).
 Arousal: Your overall state of arousal affects attention as well. You may be tired, drowsy,
or drugged, which may limit attention. Being excited sometimes enhances attention
(MacLean et al., 2009).
 Task difficulty: If you are working on a task that is very difficult or novel for you, you’ll
need more attentional resources than when you work on an easy or highly familiar task.
Task difficulty particularly influences performance during divided attention.
 Skills: The more practiced and skilled you are in performing a task, the more your
attention is enhanced (Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976).

Biological basis of attention

Attention relies on interconnected brain regions: the prefrontal cortex governs cognitive
control, goal-setting, and attentional allocation. The parietal cortex aids spatial orientation
and focusing attention. Thalamus acts as a sensory relay centre, modulating information flow
to cortical areas. Subcortical structures like the basal ganglia coordinate motor responses and
attention shifts. The temporal lobes contribute to memory and auditory attention.
Additionally, the superior colliculus guides rapid orienting responses. These regions form
neural networks crucial for different attentional functions, such as selective focus, sustained
attention, and cognitive flexibility, collectively establishing the biological basis of attention's
diverse cognitive processes.

Automatic versus controlled processing

Automatic processing refers to the subconscious, effortless, and involuntary allocation of

attention to familiar or well-practiced tasks without the need for conscious effort. It operates
swiftly and doesn't heavily tax cognitive resources. Activities like driving a familiar route or
typing for skilled individuals are examples of automatic processing. Once a task becomes
ingrained through practice, it requires minimal conscious attention.
In contrast, controlled processing demands conscious, deliberate, and effortful allocation of
attention. It involves focusing on new, complex, or challenging tasks that necessitate
concentration, decision-making, and problem-solving. Learning a new skill or solving
intricate problems requires controlled processing as it demands cognitive effort and cannot be
performed automatically without deliberate attention.

Automatic and controlled processing complement each other in cognitive functioning. Well-
practiced tasks become automatic, freeing up cognitive resources for controlled processing to
tackle novel or demanding activities. However, automatic responses might interfere with the
ability to focus on new tasks. The interplay between these modes of processing influences
how attention is distributed across various tasks or stimuli based on their familiarity and
complexity.

Effects of practice on automatisation

Many tasks that start off as controlled processes eventually become automatic ones as a result
of practice (LaBerge, 1975, 1990; Raz, 2007). This process is called automatisation (also
termed proceduralisation). For example, driving a car is initially a controlled process. Once
people start master driving, however, it becomes automatic under normal driving conditions.
Such conditions involve familiar roads, fair weather, and little or no traffic. However, when
conditions change, the same activity may again require conscious control. Again, if the roads
become icy, they will likely need to pay attention to when to brake or accelerate. Both tasks
usually are automatic when driving.
The effects of practice on automatisation show a negatively accelerated curve. In such a
curve, early practice effects are great. Later practice effects make less and less difference in
the degree of automatisation. A graph of improvement in performance would show a steeply
rising curve early on, and the curve would eventually level off. Clearly, automatic processes
generally govern familiar, well-practiced as well as easy tasks. Controlled processes govern
relatively novel as well as difficult tasks. Because highly automatised behaviours require little
effort or conscious control, we often can engage in multiple automatic behaviours. But we
rarely can engage in more than one labour-intensive controlled behaviour.

The practice effect: The rate of improvement caused by practice effects shows a pattern of negative acceleration.
The negative acceleration curve attributed to practice effects is similar to the curve shown here, indicating that the rate of learning slows
down as the amount of learning increases, until eventually learning peaks at a stable level.

Stroop effect

A well-known demonstration of the effects of practice on the performance of cognitive tasks

was given by John Ridley Stroop (1935). Stroop presented participants with a series of colour
bars (red, blue, green, brown, purple) or colour words (red, blue, green, brown, purple)
printed in conflicting colours (the word red, for example). Participants were asked to name,
as quickly as possible, the ink colour of each item in the series. When shown bars, they did so
quickly, with few errors and apparently little effort. Things changed dramatically, however,
when the items consisted of words that named colours other than that of the ink in which the
item was printed. Participants stumbled through these lists, finding it difficult not to read the
word formed by the letters.
According to Stroop (1935), the difficulty stems from the following: adult, literate
participants have had so much practice reading that the task requires little attention and is
performed rapidly. In fact, according to Stroop, literate adults read so quickly and effortlessly
that not reading words is hard. Thus, when confronted with items consisting of words,
participants couldn’t help reading them. We describe this kind of response, one that takes
little attention and effort and is hard to inhibit as automatic.

The actual task given to participants, to name colours, was one they had practiced much less.
Participants in one of Stroop’s (1935) subsequent experiments, given eight days of practice at
the naming task, in fact showed less interference in performing the so-called Stroop task and
became faster at naming colours with all stimuli. Moreover, a summary of the literature
suggests that Stroop interference begins when children learn to read, peaking at around
second or third grade (when reading skills develop) and then declining over the adult years
until about age 60 (MacLeod, 1991). Virtually everyone who can read fluently shows a robust
Stroop effect from an early age.

Neurological basis of Stroop effect

Attention involves a network of brain regions like the prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, and
thalamus, orchestrating cognitive control. Neurotransmitters like dopamine and
norepinephrine modulate attention, impacting arousal and saliency. Neural oscillations (alpha,
beta, gamma waves) reflect attention states. Brainstem structures regulate wakefulness via the
reticular activating system. Neuroplasticity shapes attentional abilities through experience-
dependent changes. Genetic factors also influence attentional variance. These components
interact to form the intricate biological basis of attention, where neural networks,
neurotransmitter systems, brain waves, arousal regulation, neuroplasticity, and genetics
collectively support the complex cognitive process of attention allocation and control.

Present study

The aim of the Stroop effect is to study how naming the ink colour of words can be delayed
when the word's meaning conflicts with the ink colour. It's relevant for understanding
attention, interference, and cognitive control. This phenomenon helps explore how our brain
handles conflicting information, showcasing the challenges in suppressing automatic
responses. It's used in research to study attention, perception, and cognitive processes, aiding
in clinical assessments and providing insights into cognitive functioning across various
populations.
 METHOD

Participants
1. Name: X
Age: 18
Sex: Female
Education: Undergraduate student
2. Name: Y
Age:19
Sex: Female
Education: Undergraduate student

Procedure

Arrangement of material

A power-point presentation was made to test the Stroop effect. Each condition had a total of
20 words or boxes. A total of 5 slides were made for each condition which are as follows:
1. Black text
2. Colour boxes
3. Congruent condition
4. Incongruent condition A
5. Incongruent condition B

A response sheet was used to record the correct and wrong responses as well the time taken
by each participant for each condition.

Formation of rapport

Rapport formation was successfully established with a greeting, mutual respect and
participation. Both parties were attentive with an open-minded approach. Non-verbal cues,
such as mirroring body language and maintaining eye contact, further contributed to the
establishment of a comfortable environment. The conversation flowed smoothly,
characterized by shared interests and a respectful exchange of ideas. The rapport formation
was important in building a foundation of trust, ensuring a positive and collaborative
atmosphere to have proper conduction of the research.
Instructions

The following instructions were given to the participants:

Condition 1
“In this task you will be presented with a list of words. For example, Red, Blue. As soon as
the words appear on the screen, read the list horizontally as fast as you can.”

Condition 2
“In this task, you will be presented with some coloured boxes. For example
As soon as the boxes appear on the screen, name the colours as fast as you can.”

Condition 3
“In this task, you will be presented with a list of words. For example, Red. As soon as the list
is presented on the screen, read it as fast as you can.”

Condition 4A
“In this task, you will be presented with a list of words. You are required to say the word and
not the colour of the font. For example, Red, Blue is written and you'll respond ‘red, blue’.
As soon as the list is presented on the screen, read it as fast as you can.”

Condition 4B
“In this task you will be presented with a list of words. You are required to say the colour of
the font and not what the word reads. For example, Red, Blue is written and you'll respond
‘green, red’. As soon as the list is presented on the screen, read it as fast as you can.”

Actual conduction

The volunteering participants were taken to the college lab for the conduction of research. A
general overview was given about the research topic. The researcher was equipped with a
stopwatch and a response sheet to note down the responses and times taken by the
participants. A casual conversation was made for formation of rapport. The participants were
given the instructions before showing each slide. The participant’s behaviour was observed
by the researcher. After completing the task, the participants were finally asked to give an
introspective report.
Introspective report

Participant 1 said “I tried to answer with the best of my abilities. I found the colour boxes to
be difficult, maybe because they were a little spaced. All the texts were easy to read other
than the last condition since it was hard to focus only on the font colour.”
Participant 2 said “I’ve never been so intrigued by an experiment! The black text and colour
texts (except the last one) were easy to read. Once I read the instructions for the last
condition, I immediately understood that we had to completely ignore the text so I tried
squinting my eyes. I thought it would blur my vision and somewhat help me read faster but I
still took longer than expected.”

Behavioural observations

Non-verbal cues, such as mirroring body language and maintaining eye contact were
observed. The participants were focused and attentive to the instructions provided, depicting
compliant behaviour. The participants found the black text, congruent and incongruent
condition A to be easy. Both the participants took quite some time in identifying the colour of
the box and the text in incongruent condition B due to automatization of attention.

Precautions

 The instructions should be standard for all the participants to avoid any discrepancies.
 Informed consent should be taken from the participants for participating in the
experiment.
 External variables must be controlled as much as possible during the test.
 Participant should be given some practice sessions with the examples provided to ensure
their understanding of the instructions.
 It should be made sure that the participant is not nervous or anxious to have appropriate
results.

Limitations

 The research was only conducted on female students and approximately of the same age
group since the experiment was conducted in the college premises.
 Since the Stroop effect requires the participant to read words, a certain amount of literacy
is required, deeming this Stroop task unfit for young children and infants.
 The research is more of a descriptive analysis, not an inferential analysis.
 The authenticity of the data could be questioned as the data is collected by 66 students
which might cause the mean to be inaccurate.
 Since the Stroop effect requires the participant to read words, a certain amount of literacy
is required, deeming this Stroop task unfit for young children and infants.
 The Stroop effect also bars the colour-blind population from taking the test because they
will not be able to identify the colour of the font.

Analysis of data

The Stroop task was conducted by 66 students on 2 participants each. The study was analysed
through descriptive analysis using mean and standard deviation of the errors committed and
time taken by 132 participants in total.

RESULTS

The raw scores of participants 1 & 2

Conditions Participant 1 Participant 2

Time taken Errors Time taken Errors

Condition 1 8.78 0 6.68 0

(Black text)

Condition 2 9.18 0 12.17 0

(Colour boxes)

Condition 3 9.76 0 6.67 0

(Congruent)

Condition 4A 11.7 0 6.88 0

(Incongruent A)

Congruent 4B 11.9 0 17.13 0

(Incongruent B)
The time taken by total no. of participants

Conditions Average Standard deviation

Condition 1 0.327731092 0.652365236

(Black text)

Condition 2 0.411764706 0.796302522

(Colour boxes)

Condition 3 0.428571429 0.78730853

(Congruent)

Condition 4A 0.739495798 1.531932339

(Incongruent A)

Congruent 4B 2.235294118 2.392452406

(Incongruent B)

The errors made by total no. of (132) participants

Conditions Average Standard deviation

Condition 1 9.600336134 1.686681092

(Black text)

Condition 2 11.74840336 2.178483372

(Colour boxes)

Condition 3 9.219579832 1.961454145

(Congruent)

Condition 4A 10.27142857 2.68742435

(Incongruent A)

Congruent 4B 18.12302521 3.668645562

(Incongruent B)
Graph representing average of errors and time taken by 132 participants

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4A Condition 4B

Time taken Errors

INTERPRETATION & DISCUSSION

The aim of the research was to study inhibitory control and automatisation of attention using
a Stroop Task. Stroop effect was named after John Ridley Stroop (1935). The Stroop effect is
a psychological phenomenon demonstrating interference in reaction time when individuals
were asked to name the font colour of words while ignoring the word's meaning. For
instance, if the word "Green" is written, participants will likely take longer to name the colour
"red" compared to if the word were printed in a congruent colour (e.g., the word "Red"). This
delay occurs because reading words is an automatic process, and it interferes with the
identification of font colours, revealing the struggle between automatic reading and deliberate
attention to colour information.

A group of 66 students conducted this task on 2 participants each. This task consisted of 5
conditions, each having 20 words (or boxes). Each researcher conducted the test on 2
participants present in the college premises. The test was conducted using a power point
presentation in a lab-setting to minimise any external variables. The researchers were
equipped with a response sheet to record the responses and a lab-provided stopwatch to
observe the time taken. It was ensured that the participants sat comfortably through the
process of rapport formation to avoid any discrepancies in the observations.
In condition 1, the participants were presented with black text. They were required to simply
read the black text. In this condition, participant 1 made zero errors and took 8.78 seconds
whereas participant 2 made zero errors completing the task in 6.68 seconds. Considering the
data collected by the group, the average of the time taken in seconds came out to be 9.6 with
a standard deviation of 1.68 while the average of errors is 0.32 with a standard deviation of
0.65. It was observed that the participants were able to perform this condition with little to no
effort because of practice and automatic process to read the word.

In condition 2, the participants were presented with colour boxes. They were required to
name the colour of each coloured box. In this condition, participant 1 made zero errors and
took 9.18 seconds whereas participant 2 made zero errors completing the task in 12.17
seconds. Considering the data collected by the group, the average of the time taken in
seconds came out to be 11.74 with a standard deviation of 2.17 while the average of errors is
0.41 with a standard deviation of 0.79. It was observed that the participants found this
condition slightly harder than condition 1 because reading is an automated process whereas
identifying the colour of the boxes isn’t, due to which it took more time.

In condition 3, the participants were presented with congruent coloured words. They were
required to simply read the coloured words. In this condition, participant 1 made zero errors
and took 9.76 seconds whereas participant 2 made zero errors completing the task in 6.67
seconds. Considering the data collected by the group, the average of the time taken in
seconds came out to be 9.21 with a standard deviation of 1.96 while the average of errors is
0.42 with a standard deviation of 0.78. It was observed that, like condition 1, participants
found this condition easy because of reading words due to practice and automatisation of
attention.

In condition 4A, the participants were presented with incongruent coloured words. They were
required to focus on the word and ignore the colour of the font. In condition 4A, participant 1
made zero errors and took 11.7 seconds whereas participant 2 made zero errors completing
the task in 6.88 seconds. Considering the data collected by the group, the average of the time
taken in seconds came out to be 10.27 with a standard deviation of 2.68 while the average of
errors is 0.73 with a standard deviation of 1.53. It was observed that, although the participants
were able to answer easily, they significantly made more errors. This was because of the
incongruent coloured words which caused a hindrance to the automatic process of reading the
text, by the incongruent colour of the text.
In condition 4B, the participants were again presented with incongruent coloured. They were
required to focus on the font colour instead of the word. In condition 4B, participant 1 made
zero errors and took 11.9 seconds whereas participant 2 made zero errors completing the task
in 17.13 seconds. Considering the data collected by the group, the average of the time taken
in seconds came out to be 18.12 with a standard deviation of 3.66 while the average of errors
is 2.23 with a standard deviation of 2.39. It was observed that the participants made the most
errors and took the most time in this condition because any literate person would be
automatised to read the word whereas this condition required them to say the colour of the
font which led to a conflict. This conflict arose due to inhibition of automatisation of
attention, to only focus on the colour of the text and not the word and hence interfering in the
reaction time.

Such a difference between condition 4A and condition 4B can be explained due to the
automatisation of attention. The automatisation of attention in the Stroop effect involves the
automatic processing of reading, a well-learned and ingrained skill, which interferes with the
intentional identification of font colours. Due to extensive practice in reading, the brain
rapidly and automatically recognizes words, creating interference when the task requires
naming the font colour instead. This automatic reading process becomes involuntary and
difficult to suppress, impacting the intentional focus on the font colour. The Stroop effect
showcases how automatic cognitive processes, like reading, can interfere with deliberate
attentional tasks, highlighting the challenge of overriding automatic responses for intentional
cognitive control.

The Stroop effect suggests that the process of activation of semantic representation of the
colour can be interrupted by the processing of the to-be-ignored word since the task of word
reading is seemingly automatically activated, as is the semantic representation of the word
and its word form. Many theories support the cause of this difference between condition 4A
and 4B. The most popular one is automatic theory, which maintains that reading is the high-
automatic process ability, while colour-naming is not. For instance, if one is faced with
literature materials, it’s difficult to avoid processing semantic meaning, not only paying
attention to the colour of word, but noticing its meaning. As a result, Stroop effect is the
interference of processing semantic meaning to colour-naming (Yang & Luo, 2004).

In an fMRI study that controlled for variables that are often confounded, Parris et al. report
regions of similar and dissociable neural activity to response and semantic conflict in the
Stroop task, whilst Banich summarizes and updates the Cascade-of-Control neural model that
argues that there is no single locus to the Stroop e ffect, and more importantly that the locus
might move depending on how well each brain system deals with interference. In their article,
Algom and Chajut argue that the popular “conflict monitoring and control” view of the
Stroop effect (Botvinick et al., 2001) fails to account for major Stroop results. Instead, they
defend a “data-driven selective attention” view that they argue best accounts for most of
Stroop results and one that does not involve higher-order cognitive level processes of control.

MacLeod (1991) also stressed that the role of practice is critical for understanding the Stroop
interference effect and how the Stroop effect can be used to study selective attention.
Theoretical accounts of Stroop performance often link interference from incongruent colour
words to a presumed greater automaticity of (or familiarity with) word reading as compared
to colour naming. Prolonged practice of colour naming should reverse this discrepancy
between colour naming and word reading, and the Stroop interference effect should decline in
magnitude, and this has generally been confirmed. Another study by Cohen et al. (1990)
provided a connectionist model also proved why it took longer to say the font colour while
ignoring the word.

In conclusion, automating tasks such as the Stroop task has revolutionized research and
assessments by enhancing accuracy, efficiency, and standardization. Through computerized
systems, it's possible to collect precise data, reduce human error, and gain deeper insights into
cognitive processes. This automation has significantly improved the reliability and
applicability of the Stroop task in both psychological studies and clinical evaluations,
offering a more streamlined and accessible method for studying attention, interference, and
executive functioning.
 REFERENCES

Galotti, K. M. (2008). Paying Attention. Cognitive Psychology.

Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Attention and consciousness. Cognitive Psychology.

Baron, R. A., Misra, G. (2016). States of consciousness. Psychology.

Mead, L. A., Mayer, A. R., Bobholz, J. A., Woodley, S. J., Cunningham, J. M., Hammeke, T.
A., & Rao, S. M. (2002). Neural basis of the Stroop interference task: response competition
or selective attention?. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8(6), 735-
742.

MacLeod, C. M. (2015). The Stroop effect. Encyclopaedia of colour science and technology,
1-6.

Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of
automaticity. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 4(2), 221-225.

Chen, S. (2008). Researches and application of the emotional Stroop effect in clinical
psychology. Modern Applied Science, 2(1), 64-68.

Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Wadsley, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2022). The loci of
Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing
contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional
selection. Psychological Research, 86(4), 1029-1053.