While the seven conditions for comparison used in the study are explained in greater length in Comparative Conditions (Chapter 2.3); an outline is provided here for context of the following statements informing study and condition design and how they relate to / inform the choice of these conditions.
Outline of Condition 1:
Condition 1 of the study can be considered the simplest of the seven conditions. This condition presented participants with one of four stimulus – a (Green) X, O, (Red) X, O; randomly presented. As shown in figure 2.3, 4 potential answers were displayed onscreen in fixed positions (in order: X, X O, O). Participants were instructed to provide the correct answer to the corresponding stimulus.
Outline of Condition’s 2 and 3:
The basis of conditions 2 and 3 are developed from the well-established Stroop testing (Stroop, 1935) that has been noted to provide testing of the effects of Automaticity (Saling and Phillips, 2007). The two condition’s test’s presented participants with the (literal) word of a colour (e.g. Blue) presented in either an
incongruent colour (e.g. Blue), or congruent colour (e.g. Blue). Each test stimulus for
this condition was randomly selected from a pool of 16 – 4 words (Red, Blue, Yellow, Green); each in 4 differing colour’s (Red, Blue, Yellow, Green). During these conditions participants were instructed to provide either the word (Condition: Stroop
Word - e.g. Blue would answer “Blue”) or the colour (Condition: Stroop Colour e.g.
Blue would answer “Red”). As shown in figure 2.4, 4 potential answers were displayed onscreen in fixed positions (in order: Red, Green,Blue,Yellow9).
Outline of Condition’s 4 and 5:
The conditions 4 and 5 again follow the underpinning concept of the Stroop test (Stroop, 1935); however this is provided with the removal of the linguistic portion of the test (Wühr, 2007; Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). While the Stroop test provides stimulus based on words and colours, conditions 4 and 5 rely upon symbolic direction (i.e. an arrow pointing in a direction) and spatial orientation (i.e. the arrows
position is relative to a centric indicated position), as shown in figure 2.5. The arrows point in four directions (Left, Right, Up and Down) and are displayed around a centre marker (a red square) that indicates their position (Left, Right, Above, Below; the
centric point). Each test stimulus for this condition was randomly selected from a
pool of the potential 16 – 4 directions (Left, Right, Up and Down); each in 4 differing
positions relative to a centric red square (Left, Right, Above, Below). During these
conditions participants were instructed to provide either the position of the arrow
relative to the centric point (Condition: Stroop Arrow Position) or the direction the
arrow is pointing (Condition: Stroop Arrow Direction). Potential answers were displayed onscreen in fixed positions displaying arrows pointing Left, Right, Up, and
Down.
Outline of Condition 6:
Condition 6 draws upon a “familiar” informational display (Blackler, Popovic, and Mahar, 2010; Raskin, 1994), i.e. an “analogue” clock face with standard numeral designation of hour positions (with the 12th hour on top) (see figure 2.8). Each test in this condition would randomly generate a time: an hour and minute (in five minute increments), displayed on the clock face with only one of the possible answers matching the time in a twelve hour numeric format (e.g. 10:45). Participants were presented with four options of answer along the bottom of the display that corresponded to the physical input buttons. As the condition had a pool of 144 differing times (12 hours with 12x5 minute increments), the four potential answers displayed along the bottom of the screen would randomize (the correct answer being one of those); consequently the answer display positions were not permanent. This condition is referred to as Fixed Clock Face.
Outline of Condition 7:
Condition 7 was the most complex of all conditions and specifically sought to hinder potentials for automaticity learning (Mindless interaction). In a similar design to condition 6, condition 7 displayed an “analogue” clock face; however, designation of hour positions was randomly rotated per test i.e. the 12th hour (and following hours in normal ordering) would rotate their position on the clock face (though the digits themselves remained upright) (see figure 2.9). As with condition 6 each test in this condition would randomly generate a time: an hour and minute (in five minute increments), displayed on the clock face with only one of the possible answers matching the time in a twelve hour numeric format (e.g. 10:45). Participants were presented with four options of answer along the bottom of the display that corresponded to the physical input buttons. As the condition had a pool of 1728 differing times (12 variants of 12 hours with 12x5 minute increments), the four potential answers displayed along the bottom of the screen would randomize (the
correct answer being one of those). As with condition 6 the answer display positions were not permanent. This condition is referred to as Rotating Clock Face.
Outline of Pop-Ups:
Five Pop-Ups, displaying the text “Retry?” (see figure 2.2), were additionally introduced for each of the conditions (randomized between tests 180 – 200). These were specifically intended to introduce a disruption to the ongoing condition and were unrelated to preceding answer correctness. Participants were informed prior to each condition that a pop-up may occur and this would allow them to change their answer if they wished to one they felt was correct (though the stimulus and potential answers were hidden) or they would be required to re-enter the answer they felt was correct.
Table 2.1 below provides a comparator of the conditions. Condition Number of tests No. of pop- ups (between test 180-200) Time between Answer and next test Number of potential answers on display Answer display position permanent Number of potential stimuli (i.e. stimulus pool size) 1 200 5 500ms 4 Yes 4 2 and 3 200 5 500ms 4 Yes 16 4 and 5 200 5 500ms 4 Yes 16 6 200 5 500ms 4 No 144 7 200 5 500ms 4 No 1728
Table 2.1: Comparison of Condition design.