New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Psych210 Week 3 Notes

by: Anjali Grutzius

Psych210 Week 3 Notes PSY 210

Anjali Grutzius
Western Washington University
GPA 3.2

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These are the notes for Week three covering Chapter 3 and 4. People fail to notice larger changes in their visual world & Can we really multitask?
Cristina Sampiago
Class Notes
Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Science, neuroscience
25 ?




Popular in Cognition

Popular in Psychology

This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Anjali Grutzius on Saturday October 8, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 210 at Western Washington University taught by Cristina Sampiago in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 51 views. For similar materials see Cognition in Psychology at Western Washington University.

Similar to PSY 210 at Western Washington University


Reviews for Psych210 Week 3 Notes


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: 10/08/16
Psychology of Cognition 210 Week 3 10/4/2016 Exam 1 is on October 11 th 64 multiple-choice questions on Chapters 1, 3, 4 Quizzes due by Monday @ 11:59pm Selective Attention When atttentional selection takes place? How does selection work? When during information processing do we select information? Focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else –Cocktail Party Theory Ability to attend to a single stimulus despite “noise” Cherry’s (1953) Dichotic Listening Paradigm: • Two different messages played into different ears. • Participant repeats one message aloud (shadowing) • Accurate summary features of info but not meaning of unattended channel. Broadbent’s Filter Theory Some info processed only briefly for physical characteristics and then filtered out. But meaningful info seems to pass through filter. People notice their own names. People make shadowing mistakes, based on meaning. Treisman’s Attention Model Modified filter model: a ‘leaky filter’ model Replaces the filter by attenuator that turns down unattended channel. You are processing info from both sides and saying things from both. When is selection? Early: Selection occurs during perception. Only physical characteristics are processed before selection occurs. Late: Selection during response stage. All stimuli analyzed for physical characteristics and meaning before stimuli occurs. But some stimuli wont respond to. Late Selection Models -All info gets into STM (short term memory) -Unattended info is rapidly forgotten -Selection does not occur until after recognition MacKay’s (1973) Late Selection approach: Words in unattended channel are processed for meaning. Ambiguity resolved by unattended info. Task: Recognize meaning of sentences in the attended channel Results: Meaning of word in unattended channel affected participant’s choice. Evidence for both early and late selection How do we decide? -May depend on the task -May depend on the type of stimuli Factors that control attention -Cognitive resources and cognitive load Attention=bottleneck Assume: -That limitation occurs at a particular stage in processing Attention=Pool of resources Assume: -Limited capacity (amount of resources) -Performance will suffer if demands of task are greater than available resources. Questions that were asked: -When does bottleneck occur? -On what basis is information excluded at that point? Lavie’s (1995) Task load explanation -High load: difficult, requires most of one’s cognitive resources -Low load: easy, some cognitive resources can be used for other tasks Predictions HL: All cognitive resources are devoted to task thus, only selected info will be processed. LL: Not all cognitive resources are devoted to task, thus additional info will be processed Flanker compatibility task Results: LL- slower if competing distractor was present, thus distractor was being processed in the LL task. HL- competing distractor didn’t showdown reporting, thus distractor was not being processed in the HL task. Divided Attention Paying attention to more than one thing, ability to attend to a number of things simultaneously. Switching between both tasks, not multitasking depends on practice and task difficulty. The effect of practice: Schneider/Shiffrin- consistent mapping • Get set of target characters (letter or numbers) • Get set of test stimuli (20 frames fast) -dots -targets -distracters “Was any of the targets in the rest set?” Automatic processing: -without intention -using few cognitive resources Consistent Mapping: (easy) -targets always numbers(or letters) -distracters always letters (or numbers) -targets were never distracters throughout experiment Result: target set size and number of distracters did not affect speed or accuracy Varied Mapping (difficult) -targets and distracters from the same category (letters or numbers) -targets could be distracters and vice versa along tasks Result: harder w/ more target (slower and less accurate) and harder with more distracters. Controlled Processing: -with intention -using most/if not all cognitive resources -ex: varied mapping condition Divided attention is possible and can become automatic -tasks are easy and well practiced. -can become difficult 10/06/2016 Dual Task Paradigm • Compare dual task performance with performances on each task alone. • Difference in RT is the “cost” of divided attention Attention = pool of resources If resources are general (one single pool): consequences are that performance will suffer if you run out of resources. If resources are specific (several pools): there is one for visual attention and audio attention. The effect of task type: Brook’s (1968) response-dependent attention • Verbal task with verbal response is harder • Verbal task to visual response is easier • Harder to say “yes” or “no” than to point to y and n • Verbal response matches verbal task, thus compete for same resources. • Visual task-verbal response vs. Visual task-visual response (specific pool) • Easier to say yes and no than point to y and n • Spatial response matches spatial task, thus compete for same resources. Attention as a pool of resources: Questions • One pool or multiple pools? • Do all processes require atttentional resources? Can’t multitask if the tasks require atttentional resources Strayer & Johnson (2001): Using cell phones while driving • Subjects simulated driving • Red and green lights flashed • Accuracy and reaction time measured • Task done while: listening to radio, handheld phone and hands free phone. • There was no difference between hands free phone and hands held phone. • Listening to the radio is okay. • Talking on the phone is not okay • General or specific resources? -General, evidence for both. Visual Attention Seeing things in the environment Change blindness • Selective visual attention • Blind to big changes • Difficulty in detecting changes in the scene • Unaware of many details in environment Rensink et al (1997) • Need to alternate back and forth between two pictures a number of times to detect differences. • Failure of attention Change blindness • It’s not bad. • We have general aware of the scene • When we need a specific, we focus attention. • Remember: we use top down processing Inattention blindness: inability to see something when not attending to it. Neisser’s (1979 task) • Monitor one event while ignoring a similar event • Displays typically superimposed • Failure to see unexpected events, thus attention directed to objects and events, not locations Spotlight analogy: When directed at different locations, attention increases efficiency of processing at these locations. Posner’s (1980) pre-cueing procedure: • Present a visual cue for directing attention • Task: push a button whens sees stimulus • Faster when stimulus appears in the expected location. Spotlight: Location-based attention Object based visual attention, moving target. • Objects also useful to attend to • Allows tracking movement Behrmann, Zemel, and Mozer’s (1998) bumps: • If attention is only like a spotlight, then easier to attend to closer things. • If attention can be object based, then possible to attend to further things if part of the same object, • Task: do ends have same or different numbers of bumps? Egly et al’s (1994) object attention experiment • Sees two rectangles side by side • Presented with cue indicating likely location • Task: push a button when target in location appears.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.