A note on the Couch and Keniston measure of agreement response set.

Analysis of 4 rapidity indices, an achievement test score, and 2 personality measures indicated that rapidity was a stylistic and reliable response set not significantly related to score level. Personality measures were not related to rapidity, but were slightly related to score level.

Download Full-text

Enhanced challenge‐response set and secure usage scenarios for ordering‐based ring oscillator‐physical unclonable functions

IET Circuits Devices & Systems ◽

10.1049/iet-cds.2014.0089 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 87-95 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Giray Kömürcü ◽

Ali Emre Pusane ◽

Günhan Dündar

Keyword(s):

Ring Oscillator ◽

Physical Unclonable Functions ◽

Response Set

Download Full-text

Performance of Severely Hearing-Impaired Children on a Closed-Response, Auditory Speech Discrimination Test

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/jshr.1703.531 ◽

1974 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 531-540 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kenneth O. Jones ◽

Gerald A. Studebaker

Keyword(s):

Hearing Impaired ◽

Speech Discrimination ◽

Discrimination Test ◽

Auditory Speech ◽

Speech Discrimination Test ◽

Hearing Function ◽

Response Set ◽

Comparison Of The Results ◽

Impaired Children ◽

Hearing Impaired Children

The performance of 23 hearing-impaired children on a closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and on an open-response, auditory speech discrimination test was compared to their performance on auditory tests of sensitivity, teacher-evaluated categories, and other related subject data. A comparison of the results of closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test indicates that the closed-response set test paradigm appears more productive for use with severely hearing-impaired subjects whose level of performance is low (but not 0%) on the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test. The closed-response test scores for this group are highly positively correlated to data dependent upon hearing function, whereas the open-response scores are not. Analyses of the closed-response set test results indicate that a closed-response set test paradigm can successfully demonstrate auditory speech discrimination error patterns on a subject group basis.

Download Full-text

Semantic Conflict and Response Conflict in the Stroop Task

The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science ◽

10.47010/19.4.3 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 24-38

Author(s):

Alexey Starodubtsev ◽

◽

Mikhail Allakhverdov

Keyword(s):

Stroop Effect ◽

Word Meaning ◽

Incorrect Response ◽

Response Conflict ◽

Response Level ◽

Semantic Level ◽

Semantic Conflict ◽

Response Set ◽

Different Color ◽

Printed Word

The most common ways researchers explain the Stroop effect are either through semantic or through response conflict. According to the literature, there are several methods capable of disentangling these conflicts: to use words outside of the response set, to use associatively related colors and words, or to use a “2:1” paradigm (requiring the same response for two types of stimuli). However, we believe that these methods cannot entirely differentiate semantic and response conflicts. We propose the following alternative method: when naming the color of a printed word (e.g., red, yellow, etc.) in the Stroop test, participants were asked to use different color names for some colors. For example, the red-colored stimuli had to be named by the word “yellow”. This approach allowed us to create semantically congruent stimuli, but with the conflict at the response level (the word red appears in red, but the participants have to say “yellow” because of the rule). Some stimuli remain congruent at the response level, but with the conflict at the semantic level (the word yellow appears in red, and the participants have to say “yellow” because of the rule). The results showed that semantically congruent stimuli do not produce the Stroop effect even if the meaning of the word corresponds to an incorrect response. In turn, congruence at the response level reduces the interference effect, but interference remains significant. Thus, the response conflict affects the magnitude of the Stroop effect only when there is a semantic conflict. Our data do not correspond to models that assume direct activation of responses corresponding to word meaning

Download Full-text