LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Grange, JA (2015)
Publisher: Springer
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF
The Eriksen flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen, Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149, 1974) is a classic test in cognitive psychology of visual selective attention. Two recent computational models have formalised the dynamics of the apparent increasing attentional selectivity during stimulus processing, but with very different theoretical underpinnings: The shrinking spotlight (SSP) model (White et al., Cognitive Psychology, 210-238, 2011) assumes attentional selectivity improves in a gradual, continuous manner; the dual stage two phase (DSTP) model (Hübner et al., Psychological Review, 759-784, 2010) assumes attentional selectivity changes from a low- to a high-mode of selectivity at a discrete time-point. This paper presents an R package-flankr-that instantiates both computational models. flankr allows the user to simulate data from both models, and to fit each model to human data. flankr provides statistics of the goodness-of-fit to human data, allowing users to engage in competitive model comparison of the DSTP and the SSP models on their own data. It is hoped that the utility of flankr lies in allowing more researchers to engage in the important issue of the dynamics of attentional selectivity.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Eddelbuettel, D., & François, R. (2011). Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration. Journal of Statistical Software, 40 (8), 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i08/
    • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 , 143-149. doi: 10.3758/BF03203267
    • Eriksen, C. W., & St.James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40 , 225-240. doi: 10.3758/BF03211502
    • Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 , 329-335. doi: 10.1177/0963721410386677
    • Fum, D., Missier, F. D., & Stocco, A. (2007). The cognitive modeling of human behavior: Why a model is (sometimes) better than 10,000 words. Cognitive Systems Research, 8 , 135-142. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.07.001
    • Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2014). Models of cognitive control in task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (p. 160-199). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., Sirevaag, E. J., & Eriksen, C. W. (1998). Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
    • Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 , 217-240. doi: 10.1037/0096- 3445.136.2.217
    • Hübner, R., Steinhauser, M., & Lehle, C. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 759-784. doi: 10.1037/a0019471
    • Hübner, R., & Töbel, L. (2012). Does attentional selectivity in the flanker task improve discretely or gradually? Frontiers in Psychology, 3 , 434. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00434
    • Jonides, J. (1983). Futher toward a model of the mind's eye movement. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21 , 247-250. doi: 10.3758/BF03334699
    • Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2010). Computational modeling in cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
    • Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111 , 333-367. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333
    • White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 210-238. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.
  • BioEntity Site Name
    GitHub

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article