PSYC 339 WEEK 4
PSYC 339 WEEK 4 PSYC 339
Popular in Origins of the Mind
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PSYC
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Isaac Lemus on Thursday September 22, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 339 at University of Southern California taught by Justin Wood in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views. For similar materials see Origins of the Mind in PSYC at University of Southern California.
Reviews for PSYC 339 WEEK 4
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/22/16
Lecture Notes 9/13: Navigation 3 ● Review of the past two lectures: The main question is how do we navigate the world? ○ What we found is that we all have some common mechanisms and we share these traits with animals. ■ Path integration (desert ants): the sun is used as a compass, steps are counted and remembered, natural geometry is used to B Line back. ■ Snapshot/ view dependent system (Rats in swimming maze, Bees): We match what we’re currently navigating with memories in our head. ● An example of snapshot memory, boy with autism is able to draw rome with little to no error with only one view ■ Reorientation system: When the two other systems can’t be used, this comes into play. Only cares about the geometry layout of an environment. Properties of the system: ● Domain specific ● Task specific ● Encapsulated ■ Take away; there must be some core knowledge of space ● How do humans go beyond this? ○ Snapshots systems can be limiting because theoretically you can only recognize where you are if you’ve been in that exact place before. But humans, can adjust and mold their snapshots to the current situation. ■ Kids can’t do this until they are 6 ○ Human adults develop the ability to use key spatial features ○ At 6 we start using spatial language. So there is strong correlation of when we are able to describe where we are and when we develop more powerful capabilities of navigation. But be careful because correlation doesn’t mean causation. One could cause the other or vice versa or maybe something else could develop as a third variable that creates both language and representation ○ Two attempts to figure this out ■ Use human adults with both language and representation and take away their language abilities. Had to recite a textbook or following a beat with their hands while trying to remember where something was put. ● With drumming most can still go to the red wall ● With reciating, we mess up. We can’t put together “left of the red wall” in our head because we are using our language process to recite the textbook. Just our core systems must be used. ■ Teach little children left and right and see if they can navigate more effectively ● Learners: they navigate more like an adult. ● Non learners: search equally ■ There is something about language that formulates the way we think. Language acts like a bridge that can connect information from various core knowledges and form thought. Connect geometric representation with object representation. Language unencapsulated these core values. Animals can't think “Water is west of the rock”. It's all about spatial language. ● Lets first look at pictures. All humans have pictures, but no other animals do. ○ Do humans understand pictures at birth ■ Hochberg & Brooks experimented on their own kids. 19 months without pictures. Kids could recognize pictures at first sight. ■ But do kids realize it’s just a picture not the actual thing? ● They think it’s the object itself, especially if it’s more realistic looking ● By 19 months those traits seem to be completely gone. Meanwhile their pointing ability gradually goes up. So they can recognize pictures but they don't understand them until 1.5 ■ Do kids know that a picture represents something else ● Find snoopy experiment in a little room to a big room. ● At 2 they can't do this, but at 2.5 most can now do it. Start to understand symbolic capacity. ● Same thing of the 3D model experiment, except it develops a little later(around 3 years of age). ● Maybe what's hard is dual representation. On one hand it's an object but on the hand it symbolizes something else. ● What happens when we trick them to get rid of the symbolic relationship, by shrinking and growing machine. Results? Children have no problem finding the object with the help of the shrinking machine, because they don’t need to form a symbolic relationship ● When do kids understand that toys are representation of real things. They don’t act appropriately because of scale errors. They are perceiving the size correctly, and they understand it’s too small, but they still try to use the objects in the same way. Conceptual not perceptual. ● Overview: We start with mechanisms that are shared with other animals (3 core systems) yet with development we build incredible representation. ○ Understand other perspectives (3 hill) ○ We can orientate using non geometrical cues ○ Pictures, models and maps ○ Language could be the answer Lecture Notes 9/15: Objects 1 ● From a review of the previous two topics of space perception and navigation, there appears to be a pattern of innate mechanisms. What about object representation? ○ Object representation isn’t as easy as it sounds. Its taken decades for us to develop machines that understand what an object as simple as a duck is. How do we associate shapes, colors, lines, texture, and so on to discern objects? ○ There needs to be some sort of principles in place for this to happen, and that is what we are going to try and find. ● So from machines to people, how do we process objects? ○ How does the brain recognize what an object might be? We have to figure out what goes with what, what is the complete shape of an object, we have to continue to represent objects even after they disappear, we have to separate different objects. ● Somehow our visual system has solved all of these problems. ● That leads us to the main question: what aspects of adult human knowledge allows us to recognize objects? ○ Another central question is whether or not this trait is nativism or empiricism? ● How do we test this? First, what are the object representation systems? What are the signatures. Then we'll test for these signature in babies and animals ○ Random fun side note: attention has a severe limit ■ We are never taking in or processing the entire scene ● Jabbawockeez example ○ We have two object representation ■ Object tracking systems ● Doesn’t care if objects change, it track motions. Doesn’t care about what, but where AKA spatiotemporal information. ● Signature of this system ○ We can track 3 to 4 at once ■ Can we track across visible barrier and invisible barriers. Objects can survive inclusion ■ Can’t track when an object doesn’t disappear along an edge ○ Its easier to track an entire rather than just a part of it. ○ Brain operates over objects not fluid objects. ■ Object recognition systems ● Complete opposite of tracking. Color and shape. ● Signatures of this system ○ Color and and shapes ■ Grayscaled then silhouette experiment ○ We are more inclined to do perceived shape together rather than physical shape ■ Smoothies, cubies and spikes experiment ○ We are sensitive to non accidental cues ■ Camera, flashlight, drill example ■ If we see two lines overlapping it must be a corner ■ Magnet like slopes video ■ T rex video ● We pick up categories and kinds of things. We will continue next week!
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'