A Reverse Stroop Task With Mouse Tracking

© 2016 Yamamoto, Incera and McLennan. In a reverse Stroop task, observers respond to the meaning of a color word irrespective of the color in which the word is printed-for example, the word red may be printed in the congruent color (red), an incongruent color (e.g., blue), or a neutral color (e.g., white). Although reading of color words in this task is often thought to be neither facilitated by congruent print colors nor interfered with incongruent print colors, this interference has been detected by using a response method that does not give any bias in favor of processing of word meanings or processing of print colors. On the other hand, evidence for the presence of facilitation in this task has been scarce, even though this facilitation is theoretically possible. By modifying the task such that participants respond to a stimulus color word by pointing to a corresponding response word on a computer screen with a mouse, the present study investigated the possibility that not only interference but also facilitation would take place in a reverse Stroop task. Importantly, in this study, participants\u27 responses were dynamically tracked by recording the entire trajectories of the mouse. Arguably, this method provided richer information about participants\u27 performance than traditional measures such as reaction time and accuracy, allowing for more detailed (and thus potentially more sensitive) investigation of facilitation and interference in the reverse Stroop task. These trajectories showed that the mouse\u27s approach toward correct response words was significantly delayed by incongruent print colors but not affected by congruent print colors, demonstrating that only interference, not facilitation, was present in the current task. Implications of these findings are discussed within a theoretical framework in which the strength of association between a task and its response method plays a critical role in determining how word meanings and print colors interact in reverse Stroop tasks

Homing by Path Integration When a Locomotion Trajectory Crosses Itself

Path integration is a process with which navigators derive their current position and orientation by integrating self-motion signals along a locomotion trajectory. It has been suggested that path integration becomes disproportionately erroneous when the trajectory crosses itself. However, there is a possibility that this previous finding was confounded by effects of the length of a traveled path and the amount of turns experienced along the path, two factors that are known to affect path integration performance. The present study was designed to investigate whether the crossover of a locomotion trajectory truly increases errors of path integration. In an experiment, blindfolded human navigators were guided along four paths that varied in their lengths and turns, and attempted to walk directly back to the beginning of the paths. Only one of the four paths contained a crossover. Results showed that errors yielded from the path containing the crossover were not always larger than those observed in other paths, and the errors were attributed solely to the effects of longer path lengths or greater degrees of turns. These results demonstrated that path crossover does not always cause significant disruption in path integration processes. Implications of the present findings for models of path integration are discussed

Enhancing the quality and reproducibility of research: Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Studies - The PECANS statement for human studies

Are scientific papers providing all essential details necessary to ensure the replicability of study protocols? Are authors effectively conveying study design, data analysis, and the process of drawing inferences from their results? These represent only a fraction of the pressing questions that cognitive psychology and neuropsychology face in addressing the “crisis of confidence.” This crisis has highlighted numerous shortcomings in the journey from research to publication. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PECANS (Preferred Evaluation of Cognitive And Neuropsychological Studies), a comprehensive checklist tool designed to guide the planning, execution, evaluation, and reporting of experimental research. PECANS emerged from a rigorous consensus-building process through the Delphi method. We convened a panel of international experts specialized in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology research practices. Through two rounds of iterative voting and a proof-of-concept phase, PECANS evolved into its final form. The PECANS checklist is intended to serve various stakeholders in the fields of cognitive sciences and neuropsychology, including: (i) researchers seeking to ensure and enhance reproducibility and rigor in their research; (ii) journal editors and reviewers assessing the quality of reports; (iii) ethics committees and funding agencies; (iv) students approaching methodology and scientific writing. PECANS is a versatile tool intended not only to improve the quality and transparency of individual research projects but also to foster a broader culture of rigorous scientific inquiry across the academic and research community