Talk:Stroop effect

message: An anonymous user posted this link http://forums.krazyletter.com/index.php?act=Arcade&do=play&gameid=106 to the article. While it works, I have doubts on whether or not it really is representative of the Stroop Effect (because it is an arcade game style, where you try to go as far as possible before messing up or running out of time), there's annoying music, and the words spin around, interfering with the automatic recognition of the words. It works, but it's not really Stroop, if you know what I mean. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether or not to link here 

message: I am a Portuguese speaker and I do not "fall in the trap" when the illusion is written in English. Of course I do it when it is written in Portuguese. I think that should be mentioned in the article. Afonso Silva 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Stroop effect has its greatest effect when the words are presented in the same language as the reader's native language is obvious as the words will have greater semantic impact.  If I were to present the words in a language that neither of us know, we would expect zero impact of the word.  This applies to all experiements where reading (or avoid trying to read in this case) is part of the test, not just the Stroop Effect, and is a basic assumption of the test, along with, say, ability to read.
I did some research on the effect, and it seems most later researchers pin the effect to (as our article states), the automization of reading: you read things automatically without conscious effort. If English is your second language, you probably have to consciously tell yourself what each word means. And then, the interference from the automization is gone.
Unfortunantely, I can't cite that. I lost access to the psychological database. If anyone is on a college campus, see if you have access to Psychinfo or Medline. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a citation for it? I should be able to pull it out of psychINFO Liamdaly620 13:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  effect on non native speakers 

message: I need to find the exact citations, but in recent years Stroop and Stroop-like effects have come under a lot of criticism. in  Melara & Algom's "Deconstructing Stroop: A tectonic Explanation" they use Tectonic Theory to show that 
"Stroop is neither robust nor inevitable. Words are not read faster than colours are named." 
They show a confound in most Stroop methods, where most of the variance can be explained away due to correlation between word and colour and relative dimensional discriminability. When creating a truly random correlation, Stroop Effect evaporates.
--Telecart 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course.  As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article.  Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work.  If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further.  If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
* 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
* 1 - A few minutes of work needed
* 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
* 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
* 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits

message: Some of your content (from my point of view mainly the conflict adaptation section) has some potential, but it needs better sourcing and with use this better sources found to complete it and give a more balanced view. The other two sections at this point are really far from being adequate.
Until it is done, the work might be better carried out here.
--Garrondo (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version was 00:40, 22 March 2013‎ Sudavis and can be found in the "history" tab.Smallman12q (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I just declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stroop effect. Maybe an experienced editor wants to merge the section into this article. mabdul (public) 11:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stroop effect]] 

message: I have taken a closer look at your last proposal and I see quite important problems which make it quite complicated to integrate it on the article. At this point I do not think my comments above praising your work are valid.
1-The article is on the stroop effect, in which there are certainly mechanisms of cognitive control involved. However, most of your content is generalities related to cognitive control which are not direcly related (nor from your text neither in your sources) to the stroop effect. For example in the first paragraph all sentences but one are not direcly related to the stroop effect and are probably too general for this article (bolded all content only tangentially related to the article):
Cognitive control plays a vital role in thinking, planning, and everyday life decisions in order to meet individual goals. Cognitive control allows individuals to selectively attend to a certain task, by ignoring distractions. For example, students use cognitive control when they choose to ignore distracting conversations around them in order to fulfill their chosen task of studying.   In the Stroop task, anything that reduces interference when an incongruent trial occurs immediately after another incongruent trial rather than a congruent trial, refers to conflict adaptation, also known as cognitive control . Individuals use thought processes to make controlled or automatic decisions in their everyday life. Cognitive control is vital to individuals when automatic processing does not apply.  It is necessary in situations when a task requires selective attention, such as thinking and reasoning, while choosing to ignore other distractions.  Cognitive control enables individuals to carry out tasks to the best of their ability.  Psychologists have discussed top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and priming as some of the mechanisms underlying cognitive control.      
2-Regarding the second paragraph (congruent vs incongruent): as I stated in the previous review most of it adds nothing to the article since the info is already there (bolded info already in the article):
During the Stroop task a word is given an ink color. There are two types of trials in this task: congruent trials and incongruent trials. A congruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color match. Yet, an incongruent trial is when the meaning of the word and ink color do not match.  This task challenges individuals to differentiate between congruent and incongruent trials, also known as the congruency effect.  In an incongruent trial, individuals use cognitive control to ignore the semantic meaning of the word and simply state its color.    Cognitive control allows individuals to make these conscious decisions during the Stroop task.   The conflict during a specific trial of the Stroop task does not rely solely on the conflict of the preceding trial, but on the average of the multiple trials before.   Therefore, the context of the overall series of trials is significant to the results of the Stroop task.
3-Regarding paragraphs 3,4 and 5 I am really sorry but I do believe that I know what priming, bottom-up and top down mechanisms are, but yet I am not capable of grasping what is your intended message. Most probably these problems in explaining the concepts and their relationship to the stroop effect come from the sources used, which are all primary and therefore only give a partial view of the mechanisms involved in the stroop effect.
4-Maybe the most important: You mix important concepts that may be related but are not the same, which moreover are at the center of your subject. In this sense: cognitive control IS NOT the same as cognitive adaptation. From my understanding cognitive control is an explanation to the stroop effect, whereas cognitive adaptation is an specific finding in regards of this mechanism and effect. It is an effect inside the stroop effect, or an exception to the stroop effect, since it only says that the congruency effect is reduced when two sequential incrongruent trials are presented. This exception can be explained through cognitive control mechanisms but this does not mean that the two are the same. I believe that you misrepresented the source (Funes) since from a fast look to the abstract at no point does it say that they are the same (Moreover the abstract would in general lines agree with what I just stated).
5-In summary: you have an essay on conflict adaptation on the stroop effect in which 90% of the info is on cognitive control mechanisms unrelated to the stroop effect (which altough you estate the opposite is not the same as conflict adapation). All this problems make it quite hard to include the text as it is in the article.
Some content is potentially interesting but at the moment is not by far at the level needed for inclusion in the article.
--Garrondo (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict Adaptation/ Cognitive Control Revision review

message: Mythbusters used the stroop effect test to see if males are cognitively effected by having a pretty woman in the room. The Myth was busted!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.97.23 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Pop Culture 

message: Substituted at 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In a previous edit, someone removed the section on the proposed effect of the Hepatitis B vaccine on the Stroop effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stroop_effect&oldid=857868206). It was subsequently removed by Goodone121 with reference to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have just removed the section in question again for the following reasons:
Most importantly, the study cited does not warrant the strong conclusion made in this article. The results are based on a sample of only 14 participants, the resulting effect sizes are improbably large (possibly due to publication bias), the study has not been pre-registered and study data is not openly available. The article has been cited five times and none of the citing articles refer to similar findings or replication studies. Therefore, I consider the study to be very weak evidence on scientific grounds and don't think it should be included in the article.
Secondly, -- as far as I understand Wikipedia's guidelines -- references should be secondary literature (e.g. systematic reviews) which can be considered more trustworthy than single studies (in general).
--131.220.249.76 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Hepatitis B Vaccine on the Stroop effect 

message: Hello. We are editing this page as a part of our class assignment. 
Goals include:
*Change the header from Experiment to Original Experiment better describe the content of the paragraph 
*Reorganize and clean up language 
*Add more about the applications of the stroop test in psychology and link to other pages
Pharmacystudentkm (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure other group members assign themselves to the page before making their individual edits. Thanks. Health policy (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peer Review Part 1: The group's edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review framework. The edited lead for this article gives a good and easy to understand overview of the rest of the article, making it clear what the most important takeaway points are. The group's edits also have clear structure, with information organized into the appropriate headings and with one heading title renamed to better clarify the content presented. The addition of a specific example of the emotional Stroop test being used in modern psychology, while providing important information, throws off the balance of the section. Perhaps it would be better to add specific examples for the Warped words, Spatial, Numerical, and Reverse variations of the test as well. Ultimately, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. Lyjanicee (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Peer Review Part 2: The edits remain neutral and are strictly informative without making claims that are negative or positive. Lyjanicee (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2, 2019, Group 2b goals 

message: This article is about the Stoop Test with only a brief mention of the Stroop Effect. If there is no objection, I propose moving "Stroop effect" to "Stroop test" and having "Stroop effect" redirect to "Stroop test". If there is no objection, I will make the change.
Jgkwiatek (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move