Differences on Reaction Time and Accuracy During Enumeration

Differences on Reaction Time and Accuracy During EnumerationVisual land inequalitys on result measure and the true during enumerationABSTRACTThis essay tests the unlikeness in performance of response time and level of truth among optic sphere of influences during enumeration. The results show that the remaining(p) optic compass has an favour over the even out ocular field for reaction time and level of trueness. However, the results of the repeated measures t-test gear up that in that respect was a evidentiary difference mingled with opthalmic handle for reaction time, just now no large difference for the true. Results show some support for our guesswork that there atomic shape 18 visual field differences in performances during enumeration. However, this experiment has to be further tried for validity.INTRODUCTIONWhen people argon shown an array of items, reaction quantify abide been found to remain relatively constant till three or four items w ith few misapprehensions. However beyond that crook, reaction multiplication stupefy to increase rapidly with more errors. This difference is known to be from subitizing and counting. The intelligence activity subitizing was first introduced by Kaufman, Lord, Reese, and Volkmann (1949). Subitizing is the ability to know the sum of items without counting, with speed and accuracy. However, counting is a slower process, and used for larger array of items.capital of Mississippi cony (2004) learning examined 32 psychology undergraduates on enumeration. Their results showed support for differences between visual field on subitizing. There was no center of gender or from hand used for response of answers. They found that there was a operative effect of visual fields on response times. There was straightaway reaction times and spiriteder accuracy for the left visual field. They withal found there were no of import beneficial effects of visual field on response time beyond 3 it ems. Participants had lesser errors in the left visual field than the right. Better performance in the left visual field is linked to processing in the right hemisphere. Also, a signifi basist effect between visual field and number of items was found. The left visual field appears to develop a better advantage when enumerating 2 to 4 items. They also found a momentous effect of number of items, response time increase with number of items exhibited. The largest increase in mean response time was between 2 and 3 items, and was extremely significant. Accuracy also dropped as number of items increased.Nan, Knsche and Luo (2006) well-tried 14 right-pass, gainful subjects on enumeration with an extra condition of distractors present. Their event related emf (ERP) was also record while they performed the experiment. Their results showed that reaction times generally increased with number of targets and distracter items. move on tests showed that there was a significant difference i n reaction times between numbers of targets in each condition. Their results do non support the theory of subitizing and counting. In addition, there was no conclusion of differences between accuracy rates and number of targets. There was also no evidence of hemispheric dominance in performance in subitizing or counting.This experiment forget be examining difference in performance between visual fields, and reaction time on enumeration. This experiment is a limited replication of the Jackson Coney (2004) study, we forget only be examine entropy from 4 items and only from right handed participants. This experiment will aim to determine if their results of right hemispheric dominance can be replicated. This is useful as it would give a better insight close processes in the brain. My hypothesis is that there will be a difference in performance of reaction times and accuracy between visual fields on the task of enumeration.METHODSDesignThe independent variable is the visual fiel d of the participant. There argon two dependent variables, the response time, and accuracy of reponses. This is a within group design. A repeated t-test was used.ParticipantsAll 30 participants were voluntary, and are female psychology undergraduates. Participants were split into left and right handed group, but only the right handed group data were analysed. utensilParticipants are seated in a cubicle room with becoming light with an Amiga 1200 microcomputer and 1084S monitor. This computer controlled the trial procedure, displaying and timing of input signal and recorded results. The computer was linked to a monitor outside the cubicle, which displayed error and reaction time scores to the experimenter. Response is indicated by participants pressing 1 of 3 pushings, which correspond to the estimate of 3, 4 or 5 items shown. A mentum rest was provided to ensure the participants head was 45 cm away and in the middle of the screen. Also, eye movements are tracked use a closed-ci rcuit television system.ProcedureParticipants are seated in front of the screen and chin rest was adjusted to ensure they are at a relaxed and steady head position. Participants are first shown a blank screen (1000ms), and then a aboriginal cross appears for central fixation (1000ms). Stimuli are presented as black-market dots on a clear background (150ms) and the blank screen reappears until they give a response. The whole troll is repeated again. The number of stimulus ranges from 3-5. They were asked to indicate using fingers to press 1 of 3 buttons. The buttons correspond to 3, 4 or 5 number of items. half(a) of the participants were told to respond by pressing the button with their left hand and the other(a) half were told to respond using their right hand. This is to control handedness response effects, however the responses from left handed participants are non analysed. Participants were also told to lead index finger of their assigned hand above the 3 button and the other fingers on the other buttons. Before the real experiment started, participants are given 10 practice trial runs, but results are not taken into account and the experimental trial is followed immediately. For each trial, stimuli will have equal chance to be either shown on the left or right of the visual field. The locations of the stimuli are determined by randomly placing them in the slots of a theoretical 44 grid of the screen. Stimuli cannot be placed into coterminous spots in the grid. There are a total of 30 randomized trials. 10 trials will show 3 items, 10 trials will show 4 items and 10 trials will show 5 items. If an error is made, participants will hear the feedback from an auditory tone. Their reaction and accuracy of responses are recorded. Participants are told to estimate the number of stimuli on screen with priority on accuracy of response over speed. Only data from 4 item displays were analysed.RESULTS mingy reaction time for left visual field is 844.57ms (S D= 5.91ms), and 854.95ms (SD=6.27ms) for the right visual field. The average correct luck for the left visual field is 84% (SD= 18%), and 86 %( SD=11%) for the right visual field.A repeated measures t-test was conducted to compare visual field and reaction times. There was a significant difference found, t (4) =6.29, pA repeated measures t-test was conducted to compare accuracy between visual fields. There was no significant difference found, and frankincense we have to reject our hypothesis. We cannot accept the research hypothesis. T (4) =0.172, p represent 1 shows the mean of reaction times in ms between left and right visual fields.Graph 2 shows the mean of errors in percentage between visual fields.DISCUSSIONThe results from the repeated t-test for reaction times show that there are significant differences in the mean of reaction times between visual fields. The results from the repeated t-test for accuracy levels show that there a no significant differences in the mean averag e percentage of correct responses between visual fields.These results are supported by Jackson Coney (2004) study to a certain extent, they found that there was significant differences between visual field on reaction times and accuracy. Our study found that there were faster reaction times, higher accuracy for the left visual field. However the t-test found significant differences for reaction times, but not accuracy of responses.The results are in contradiction of what Nan, Knsche and Luo (2006) found in their study. They found that there was a significant difference in reaction times between numbers of targets in each condition. They also found no evidence of hemispheric dominance in performance during subitizing or counting. However, we did not analyze data between numbers of objects. We can only fill up that our findings show slight support for our hypothesis, as the overall findings do not fully support our hypothesis that there will be a difference between visual field on t he task of enumeration.However, there is possibility that having significantly faster reaction time is receivable to strategies diligent by participants unknowingly. Trick and Pylyshyn (1994) aimed that people use methods to help them estimate number of items, such as using figure of speechs. This indicates that the differences in results could not be due to hemispheric dominance, but because of these strategies. In Nan, Knsche and Luo (2006) study, reaction times for with 6 items display had shorter reaction times compared to the 5 items. Study by Piazza, Mechelli, Butterworth and Price (2002) tested 9 male participants. Participants were shown a total of 32 different stimuli consisting of black dots on a white background. front-runner scans were also obtained during the experiment. Piazza et al. (2002) PET scans showed that areas linked to object recognition were activated in both introductory and without canonical arrangements. It suggests that pattern recognition was used in all conditions. These studies suggest that there was evidence of participants using pattern recognition to count items. As a result, these data could skew our data as the differences in reaction time could be due to other factors such as pattern recognition that aid in enumeration.Enumeration requires the assimilation of information legitimate from visual stimulus has to be integrated first before it can be understood. According to this theory, the process would speed up if the visual stimulus is presented in one visual field. However, Delvenne, Castronovo,Demeyere and Humphreys (2011) propose an alternative hypothesis. They propose that high level tasks perform better when there is bilateral visual field presentation. Their study found that visual enumeration has fewer errors when the items are shown in two visual fields rather than in a single visual field. This bilateral field advantage is seen when more than four items are shown. The authors suggest that this effect is only seen when the task becomes too taxing for our attention.Further tests should also include results with gender being controlled for, and compare results between unilateral processing and bilateral processing of enumeration. Also, this experiment has threats to external validity as there is sampling bias. It cannot be generalised to the population, because only women participant data was taken into account. Also, if we are testing for visual field differences the results would be reorient if we only take results from the right handed participants. Previous studies such as Bourne and Todd (2004) have shown that handedness does affect hemi field bias in processing. As such, we can propose there could also be a processing bias for enumeration.In conclusion, the results have found that there was significant difference between visual fields for reaction times but not for accuracy of responses. The results suggest that there is some support for our hypothesis that there are differences i n performance between visual fields during enumeration. However, further study should be done to check for validity of study.REFERENCESBourne, V.J. Todd, B.K. (2004). When left means right an explanation of the left cradling bias in equipment casualty of right hemisphere specializations, Developmental Science, 7, 19-24.Delvenne, J.-F., Castronovo, J.,Demeyere, N. Humphreys, G.W. (2011). Bilateral Field Advantage in Visual Enumeration. PLoS One, 6, e17743. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from http//www.plosone.org/article/infodoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017743.Jackson, N. Coney, J. (2004). Laterality Asymmetries of Body, header and Cognition. Brain and Cognition, 9, 53-66.Kaufman, E.L., Lord, M.W., Reese, T.W. Volkmann, J. (1949). The Discrimination of Visual Number. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 498525.Nan, Y., Knosche, T. R., Luo, Y.J. (2006). Counting in everyday life Discrimination and enumeration.Neuropsychologia, 44, 11031113.Piazza, M., Mechelli, A., Butterworth, B. Pric e, C.J. (2002). Are Subitizing and Counting Implemented as Separate or Functionally Overlapping Processes? NeuroImage, 15, 435446.Trick, L.M. Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1994). Why are dispirited and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychol Rev, 101, 80-102