Lexical Decisions -- The Basic Analysis

Mean RT as a Function of Trial Type This analysis is based on correct trials only, with practice trials omitted.

Mean Correct RT by TrialType

0

500

1000

1500

NW-NW NW-W W-NW W-RW W-UW

TypeOfString

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Mean Stimulus.RT

Lexical Decisions--Analysis of Accuracy

Proportion Correct Responses as a Function of TrialType Practice trials omitted.

Mean Accuracy by TrialType

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

NW-NW NW-W W-NW W-RW W-UW

TypeOfString

Mea

n P

rop

ort

ion

C

orr

ect

Typicality in Categorization--The Basic Analysis

Mean Ratings as a Function of Typicality

Mean Rating as a Function of Typicality

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

LOW MED HIGH

Typicality

Mea

n R

atin

g

Typicality in Categorization--Inter-Subject Variability

This graph illustrates inter-subject variability. Each line shows the data for one subject. Note the range of individual differences in

ratings.

Ratings By Condition, Individual Subjects

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

LOW MED HIGH

Typicality

Me

an

Ra

tin

g

Typicality in Categorization--The Basic Analysis

Mean RT as a Function of Typicality This analysis is based on correct trials only, with practice trials omitted.

Mean Correct RT as a Function of Typicality, Sentence Verification Task

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 LOW MED HIGH

Typicality

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Sentence-Picture Comparison--The Basic Analysis

Mean RT as a Function of Sentence Type and Congruency

Mean Correct RT as a Function of SentenceType and Congruency

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Congruent Incongruent

Congruency

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Negative Mean Stimulus.RT

Negative StdDev Stimulus.RT

Sentence-Picture Comparison--Analysis of Accuracy

Proportion Correct Responses as a Function of Sentence Type and Congruency

Proportion Correct as a Function of Sentence Type and Congruency

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Negative Positive

Congruency

Pro

po

rtio

n C

orr

ect

Congruent

Incongruent

Sentence-Picture Comparison--Three-Way Data

Mean RT as a Function of Sentence Type, Congruency and Marking

Mean Correct RT as a Function of SentenceType, Congruency and Marking

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Congruent Incongruent

Congruency

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Negative Above

Negative Below

Positive Above

Positive Below

Organization in Memory -The Basic Analysis

Mean Recall as a Function of List Type and Recall Period

Recall by List Type and Recall Period

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

organized unorganized

List Type

Pe

rce

nt

Re

ca

ll

Mean recallP First

Mean recallP Second

Organization in Memory -Analysis of Intrusions

Mean Intrusions as a Function of List Type and Recall Period

Mean Recall by Recall Period and List Type

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

organized unorganized

Recall Period

Pe

rce

nt

Re

ca

ll

First

Second

Organization in Memory-Inter-Subject Variability

These graphs illustrate inter-subject variability. Each line shows the data for one subject. Note the range of individual differences

in percent recalled.

Mean Recall by Recall Period, Organized Lists only

0

20

40

60

80

100

First Second

Recall Period

Pe

rce

nt

Re

ca

ll

Mean Recall by Recall Period, Unorganized Lists only

0

20

40

60

80

100

First Second

Recall Period

Pe

rce

nt

Re

ca

ll

Recall Recognition and Encoding Specificity--The Basic Analysis

Mean Proportion Correct and Intrusions as a Function of Task Type

Mean Proportion Correct and Intrusions as a Function of Task Type

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.00

Recognition Recall

Task Type

Pro

po

rtio

n

Mean Correct

Mean Intrusions

Recall Recognition and Encoding Specificity--Inter-Subject Variability

This graph illustrates inter-subject variability. Each line shows the data for one subject. Note the range of individual differences in

proportion correct.

Mean Proportion Correct

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Recognition Recall

Task Type

Pro

po

rtio

n C

orr

ect

Attentional Interference and the Stroop Effect-- The Basic Analysis - SINGLE TRIAL VERSION

Mean RT as a Function of Congruence

Mean Correct RT as a Function of Congruence, Single Color version

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Congruent Neutral Incongruent

Congruence

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Mean Stimulus.RT

Attentional Interference and the Stroop Effect-- The Basic Analysis -DIGIT VERSIONMean RT as a Function of Congruence

Mean Correct RT as a Function of Congruence, Digit version

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Congruent Neutral Incongruent

Congruence

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Mean Stimulus.RT

Attentional Interference and the Stroop Effect-- The Basic Analysis - MULTIPLE ITEM VERSION

Mean RT as a Function of Congruence

Mean Correct RT as a Function of Congruence, Multiple Items version

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Congruent Neutral Incongruent

Congruence

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(ms)

Mean Stimulus.RT

Attentional Interference and the Stroop Effect--Analysis of Accuracy

Proportion Correct Responses as a Function of Congruence, Single Trial version only

Proportion Correct as a Function of Congruence, Single Trial version only

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Congruent Neutral Incongruent

Pro

po

rtio

n C

orr

ect

Selective Attention and Response Competition--The Basic Analysis

Mean RT as a Function of Flanker Type and Spacing

Mean Correct RT as a Function of Flanker Type and Spacing

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

None Compatible Neutral Incompatible

Flanker Type

Rea

ctio

n T

ime

(mse

c)

1

3

8

Selective Attention and Response Competition--Analysis of Accuracy

Proportion Correct Responses as a Function of FlankerType and Spacing

Proportion Correct as a Function of Flanker Type and Spacing

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

None Compatible Neutral Incompatible

Flanker Type

Pro

po

rtio

n C

orr

ect

1

3

8