User:Garrondo/Sandbox/X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive control[edit]

Today, psychologists often debate whether the Stroop effect results from priming mechanisms or cognitive control.[1] Anything that reduces interference when an incongruent stimulus occurs immediately after an incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation.[2]By conducting various experiments, researchers have concluded that when the distractor and the target contained different features, or ink colors, there was no conflict adaptation in the Stroop task. The target refers to the ink color, and the distractor refers to the actual word. [3][4] Another group of researchers studied conflict adaptation without using top-down processing of the current trial, but rather examined a series of trials separated from other expectancies, such as priming.[5] Researchers who explored the conflict-monitoring theory, an alternate view of cognitive control in the Stroop task, found that after a series of congruent trials, participants would automatically assume congruency for next trial. However, a series of incongruent trials decreases the effects of congruency. [6]. After more experiments testing the Stroop effect, psychologists came to the conclusion that there is no Stroop effect when only one letter of a neutral word is colored. They also determined that there is a Stroop effect when all the letters of the word are colored. [7]

Working Memory Capacity with Stroop Interference

After various studies performed on congruency and the Stroop effect, researchers determined that the greatest interference came after congruent trials, rather than after incongruent or neutral trials. [8] [9]Furthermore, the interference following incongruent and neutral trials was the same. [10] Cognitive control can function on multiple levels, and can be understood through bottom-up processing and item-by-item control, in addition to list-level or top-down processing. Cognitive control can result from identifying features, item-by-item, in the Stroop task. [11]

Brain Activity During the Stroop Task

When people make decisions, their brain is actually gathering information from one stimulus versus another over a period of time, resulting in a final choice. The relative weight of the information at the particular stage in the decision-making process determines this choice. [12] Once again, researchers determined that participants are more accurate when the semantic meaning of the word is congruent with the physical color of the word. [13] Researchers studied brain activity during the Stroop task in order to examine the Dual Mechanisms of Control Account Theory, which infers that a reactive control strategy occurs in congruent conditions, and a proactive control strategy happens in incongruent conditions. [14]However, the experimental results did not support the proactive mechanism aspect of the Dual Mechanisms of Control Account Theory.[15]Finally, the data from the fMRI scans during an incongruent task in a "mostly congruent" context showed high activation in the front-parietal area of the brain. [16] Cognitive control helps individuals organize their thoughts inside the brain. A major finding regarding facilitation performance showed faster responses and an increased activation inside the brain before a task begins. Brain imaging studies help psychologists understand conflicts in sets of tasks, switching tasks, and other obstacles within a task. [17]

  1. ^ Puccioni, O., & Vallesi, A. (2012). Sequential congruency effects: Disentangling priming and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 76, 591-600. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0360-5
  2. ^ Funes, M., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 36, 147-161. doi:10.1037/a0017598
  3. ^ Puccioni, O., & Vallesi, A. (2012). Sequential congruency effects: Disentangling priming and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 76, 591-600. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0360-5
  4. ^ Funes, M., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 36, 147-161. doi:10.1037/a0017598
  5. ^ Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 39, 271-284. doi:10.1037/a0027734
  6. ^ Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 39, 271-284. doi:10.1037/a0027734
  7. ^ :Besner, D., & Stolz, J. A. (2001). The Stroop Effect and Single Letter Coloring: What Replicates and What Doesn't?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review: A Journal Of The Psychonomic Society, Inc, 8, 858. doi:10.3758/BF03196229
  8. ^ Compton, R. J., Huber, E., Levinson, A. R., & Zheutlin, A. (2012). Is “conflict adaptation” driven by conflict? Behavioral and EEG evidence for the under appreciated role of congruent trials. Psychophysiology, 49, 583-589. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01354.x
  9. ^ Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358
  10. ^ Compton, R. J., Huber, E., Levinson, A. R., & Zheutlin, A. (2012). Is “conflict adaptation” driven by conflict? Behavioral and EEG evidence for the under appreciated role of congruent trials. Psychophysiology, 49, 583-589. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01354.x
  11. ^ Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358
  12. ^ Appelbaum, L. G., Meyerhoff, K. L., & Woldorff, M. G. (2009). Priming and backward influences in the human brain: Processing interactions during the Stroop interference effect. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2508-2521. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp036
  13. ^ Appelbaum, L. G., Meyerhoff, K. L., & Woldorff, M. G. (2009). Priming and backward influences in the human brain: Processing interactions during the Stroop interference effect. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2508-2521. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp036
  14. ^ Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., & ... Collette, F. (2012). Modulation of brain activity during a Stroop inhibitory task by the kind of cognitive control required. Plos ONE, 7, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041513
  15. ^ Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., & ... Collette, F. (2012). Modulation of brain activity during a Stroop inhibitory task by the kind of cognitive control required. Plos ONE, 7, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041513
  16. ^ Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., & ... Collette, F. (2012). Modulation of brain activity during a Stroop inhibitory task by the kind of cognitive control required. Plos ONE, 7, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041513
  17. ^ Sakai, Katsuyuki. (2008). Task Set and Prefrontal Cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 219-245. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125642

Multiple problems[edit]

I have multiple problems with your addition to the article, to the point that I had to revert it and move it to the talk page to discuss it and improve it before re-adding it.

Sources[edit]

My main problem is with the sourcing of the article. Few of the references used are secondary sources. Most of them are primary articles which is SUBOPTIMAL for wikipedia. I have repeatedly stated this in the talk page of the article and in several talk pages of your class.

First a definition of primary source in science: they are mainly first-hand experiments and investigations. Authors analize data. Hint: if there is statistics or methods section it is most commonly a primary article

Second a definition of secondary source in science: they are reviews of many first-hand experiments (also meta-analysis). Authors instead of analizing data "analyze" previous works, ellaborate from the previous results and generalize conclussions. Hint: if there is no results section it is probably a review.

Third a definition of peer-review: peer review is the proccess of quality assurance in scientific journals by which a work (either primary or secondary) is judged and critized so the author has to make ammendments before publication. It is independent of tha article being primary or secondary.

How many of your sources are primary articles? Most of them. Why are they inadequate? Take a look at WP:MEDRS, but in short: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a class project, and is mainly based in secondary sources. Moreover as volunteers we do not neccesarily have the knowledge or credentials to give our opinion on a subject. The best way to remain neutral and give a balanced overview of a field is by using secondary sources.

Your brain activation section is the perfect example of this: if you type fmri+stroop in pubmed you will get 450 results, and 50 more with PET+stroop. You have arbitrarely chosen 4. Could you give any reason to say that the 4 you choose are better or more important than the other 496? That is why we use reviews...

You should find several reviews, read them several times, and stick to them for referencing (I pointed you towards several sources in the talk page). Moreover this will help you to stay more focused, since the brain section and working memory sections I am not sure that are really correct, balanced or summarize scientific consensus.


Technical hints for sourcing[edit]

You have made a (small) mess with your system of adding sources. Each of your sources appears as a separate source each time you name it. Also if you take a look at some of the sources already in the article you will notice that they use templates, while you did not. I indicated you on the talk page how to create automatically references. Please do it.

I expand upon the example I gave you in the article talk page:

You added this <ref>Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358</ref> which gives the following reference [1]

You should have added the following to continue with the style already used in the article: <ref>{{cite journal|last=Bugg|first=J. M.|title=Dissociating Levels of Cognitive Control: The Case of Stroop Interference|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|date=1 October 2012|volume=21|issue=5|pages=302–309|doi=10.1177/0963721412453586}}</ref> which gives the following reference[2]

Indeed, as I explained in the talk page, you can get all this automatically by simply pasting the doi into the template filler.

Regarding on how to use twice each reference you simply re-added each time the same reference, which leads to the duplication as here.[3]

What you should do is to give a name to the reference which substitutes the first ref in the template as here: <ref name=Helloforexample>{{cite journal|last=Hello|first=You M.|title=How to fix sources|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|date=1 October 2012|volume=21|issue=5|pages=302–309|doi=XXX}}</ref> (I chose Helloforexample so it is clear that the name does not matter). This will give the following ref [4]. The next time you want to use the same ref you only have to add the following: <ref name=Helloforexample/> (important: notice the / symbol at the end); and voila: you have two links to the same source.[4]

  1. ^ Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358
  2. ^ Bugg, J. M. (1 October 2012). "Dissociating Levels of Cognitive Control: The Case of Stroop Interference". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 21 (5): 302–309. doi:10.1177/0963721412453586. 
  3. ^ Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: The case of Stroop interference. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 21, 302-309. doi:10.1177/096372141245358
  4. ^ a b Hello, You M. (1 October 2012). "How to fix sources". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 21 (5): 302–309. 

Content[edit]

I do not have the time to elaborate today, but the working memory and brain section are not up to the level of the article. Sources seem cherry-picked as seems content and conclussions.

My recommendation is that you get a more complete picture in one of the sections (probably the one on cognitive adapation), read more about it, add better sources to it and do not loose your force trying to reach too much. There is tons of research for example in brain mechanisms and in two months it is probably way beyond your capabilities to get a good grasp of it...--Garrondo (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)