INTRO TO COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
INTRO TO COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY PSY 305
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
BIOL 3316 02
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 81 page Class Notes was uploaded by Marco Wolf on Monday September 7, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 305 at University of Texas at Austin taught by Lauretta Reeves in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 19 views. For similar materials see /class/181779/psy-305-university-of-texas-at-austin in Psychlogy at University of Texas at Austin.
Reviews for INTRO TO COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
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: 09/07/15
Visual Cognition amp Pattern Recognition 39 I Modularity in the Visual Pattern Recognition System Nonlivin39 lemgorAnmate orlnanimagte 3941 A Konorski s 1967 Visual Recoqnition Taxonomy Nine subsystems based on size type of object position Small manipulable objects Larger partially manipulable objects Nonmanipulable objects Human faces I Emotional facial expressions I Animated objects I Signs I Handwriting I Positions of limbs B Farah 1992 I 1 DomainSpecific Recoqnition Systems Eu Faces Prosopagnosia El Objects Agnosia D Words I Alexia a 39 gt39 Dr Peunebakev s 71 Basic wvH Iug Assignmeui fl 1 f 1 i over HA5 hex 9am Aays wrii e aband your Aeepesi emoiions AHA WaugMs abom We emoHonad upkemwd Wow has been in uencivg yaw We Hag most In yaw unriHug veally Id 3a NM explave HA2 eveui and how 1 km Meded you You Mighi He HAis experieuce 0 yaw childkcaA youv vela aushiy wiHA yaw rawsub people you have love or lave now Or even youw coweev wvile con nuous y Par 20 Mum es 2 Dissociations in Neuropsvcholoqv IMPAIRED INTACT Cases Faces Objects Words 27 Faces Objects Words 15 Faces Ob W none 22 Words Faces Objects N C ded Objects Words Faces 16 Objects Faces Words 1 Faces Words Objects 1 3 Holistic vsDecomoositional Processinq I Tanakaamp Farah 1992 Subjects taught to identify a set of faces objects eg houses When tested with a PART from objects eg door of a house subjects better at recognizing than part of a face eg nose Faces less decomposable than objects 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Faces Houses El Isolated Part III Whole Object 39 I i i 4 Farah s Conclusions I Face recognition is holistic I Word recognition is decompositional E 3 3 w 39539 i g I Object recognition system shares strategies of both The Visual System I A The Eye Iris amp Pupil Lens Retina Rods Cones Posterior Salem D Bipolar Cells D Ganglion Cells D Optic Nerve D Optic Chiasm D Lateral Geniculate Nucleus LGN ans e9 recapwrs 1G oblsen mse B Primary Visual Cortex I OnOff Center Cells Off m 131 i Inhibitory receptive eld V1 receptive fields response of a simple cell H H mil II mm lll 391 E i I Feature Detectors Simple Cells sensitive to Orientation Part of the VF Size gig ii V1 receptive fields complex several Simple cap a Complex cell V1 receptive fields response of a complex cell H Ml lmJ I m l lHll l ll m l I Complex cells sensitive to El Line Orientation Bi Movement in a given direction Processing Visual Information Retina and LGN Prime y Visual Cortex 391 i I Hypercomplex Cells have inhibitory regions at each end thus Maximally respond to lines of a given orientation if they are not too long C The Visual Brain Cortical AreasFunctions I V1 Primary Visual Cortex I V2 Relays visual signals to other areas I V3 Form amp Motion 3a I V4 Form amp Color I Activated by objects but not scrambled objects GrillSpector Kushnir Hendler Edelman ltzchak amp Malach 1998 I V5 Motion 39 Wsual Cortloes Parietal Lobe Dccipital Lobe V3a Motion Lighl V3 Farm Extash39ivate Cortex V2 Relays signals V 7 V1 Catalogs Input Stulate Cortex L b kn 39 397 3 7 VP Relays slgnals 5quot339 V quot V4 Color and Form Emmate Cod Sagittal Section 39 V4 colour V5 Motion V4 ACTIVE MIDSAGITTAL VIEW V5 ACTIVE LATERAL VIEW V I AND V2 ACTIVE M IDSAGI39I39II39AL VIEW 39 What does the Visual System have to accomplish I Distinguishing FigureGround w i I Parsing complex scenes into individual parts or objects 39tiIIIIIIIIIIIIE7 Jquot Recognition amp Interpretation r I Neckercube 39 N both stimulusdriven bottomup and memorydriven topdown processes are used a H I Kaniza figures 39 L D What amp Where Systems Mishkin amp Appenzeller 1987 Bifurcation of visual 1 Spatial Vision pathway where dorsal occipitoparietal pathway what ventral occipitotemporal pathway Object recognition pathway What amp Reaching systems Goodale amp Milner 1992 I Patient DF suffered carbon monoxide poisoning which damaged her lateral occipital complex She was unable to perceive form size or orientation of objects However she did reach for them appropriately and enter them into a mail slot correctly Goodale Milner Jakobson amp Carey 1991 Mail slot task gm Bilateral Damage to Lateral Occipital Complex t if 3947 r fjullglfgf f1quot I i u Recognizing 2D Stimuli J I IL I 9le square 0 0 V3 Ad 326961 96 Co amp 5 LGL Ed s HMO 5 quotme I P 23 a Q 39 amp 98 A 3 73 3 WE 2 mm gm a cis WM 0425 959 X198 Y grxz 1mmmu quot395quot 9 H 1 SE 3 A Template Matching Theory gtwaAaAeA Find maior Fiotateto Scale MaIChtO axis vertical size template 1 Holistic match to stored representation 2 Relatively inflexible system 1 1 3 322206 4 008 l 3 Mismatches based on size orientation etc 4 Too much variety violates Cognitive Economy 5 Prototype templates the average of a class of stimuli more flexible representations eg Palm Pilot L Li B Feature Analysis Theory I 1 Stimuli broken into 441quot in component lines SE F G H 51 J K L M gio P a n s I 2 Similiar patterns a V w x Y distingwshed from 3 i YES NO each other on baSIS of STARTAGMquot distinctive features NEXT WORD W THAT S MDT RIGHT eg va R WT r Fi I 3 Letters presented at rapid rates often confused with similar letters Kinney et al 1966 I 4 Neisser s Search for Z RT longer for letter matrix with similar features FIGURE 23 A music in m alum for capimi 1mm Fmm Principles of pummel anmgnnd Developmmt by E Glbxon p as 1969 by PmmulHall 1115 EngicwoodCb s Newlmeyl Rmmaby pemu39ssl39on CCPREFMNW F p by 7 I E Gumm39 R Shapiro mdA Yawn in The Analysis amedinK Skill A Fromm oi Basic and Applied Remuch reponp101m no 5l2l3 Comzll Univqu and USOE W68 Rzpn nud by Fm afDr Etaw Gibson J I 5 PreKindergartners trained to distinguish similar letters YV G C 00 MN CX best if Distinctive features in red b P Dot highlights spatial relations of features b P Lockhead amp Crist mm Lithium mm I rom Vlax cmr I mlnmvcquot 1quot LL 1L 1 9 8 O uck nd wt 1x Irisr 19m mm 7 limita mm nlugy 71 433493 Capyn lil IQBO in the Ameliaquot Psychnlngiml Assncmnun Reprinted by crmis ssss at l 6 Adults asked to make samedifferent judgments take longer with similar letters 1quot PR 571 msec 1quot GW 458 msec l 7 Neuropsychological Evidence from Hubel amp Wiesel Feature Detectors simple cells 39 C Computer Models of Word Recognition Connectionist Modes 1 Pandemonium Selfridge 1959 1 Image demon is scanned by 1 Feature demons who Q scream loudly or 9 softly If theIr particular 3 feature is found 4 39 A H m n n n u l 4 ft fl Cquot w l39 I r 39 r 0 41 IV l Letter demons then scream loudly or softly depending on the degree of match as input is fed from feature to letter demons l Weight of features can be changed over time depending on experience 2 Feature Nets McClelland amp Rumelhart Visual Word Recoqnition Model I a nodes at levels of features letters words later bigrams I b Nodes have f 9 different thresholds of 7 93s p49 5 activation based on 5 ea frequency 39 I c Spreading Activation Excitatory connections from one level to adjacent levels I d Inhibitory connections of nodes at same level I e Letter positions noted I f Feedback loops from higher levels to lower eg word to letter and letter to features TOP DOWN Processing I g Bigram detectors add explanatory power Grainger amp Whitney 2004 Whitney 2001 Fl Statistical knowledge of letter combinations HI FA etc Cl Frequent letter combinations have low thresholds require less activation Li Helps avoid errors amp facilitates word recognition under lessthanoptimum circumstances 39 i l h Spreadinq Activation models can explain Frequency effects in word recognition Eg 65 of high frequency words but only 33 of low frequency words recognized at 35 msec presentation with mask Jacoby amp Dallas 1981 iWord Superiority Effect Reicher 1969 iContext Feedback Loops Effects I Nurse 565 msec I Galip 615 I Tree 550 I Dax 601 I Galaxy 625 I Nurse 530 msec REPETITION PRIMING I Doctor 548 vs 580 for no priming I SEMANTIC PRIMING 39ldentification of partially occluded letters Repetition amp Semantic Priming effects Eg List read aloud then words tachistoscopically presented High F 84 of primed words vs 68 unprimed Low F 73 primed vs 37 Jacoby amp Dallas 1981 Experiment 3 39TipoftheTongue phenomenon If a person retrieves or is provided with a similar word will activation spread to facilitate retrieval of the target word he I l D Top Down Processing 1 Word Superiority Effect I 1 Word detectors Letter detectors l39a m Feature detectors Lette r Stimulus Followed by a mask Finding Letters identified more accurately in Words than alone 39 Error correction QVO T E quotquotquot g M contextual rules quotQquot is always rllowed by quotUquot I 2 Context effects in written word H Tmmn c El Eg Proofreader s 1 5 categories numbers error E q 1etbem El cog itive 7 Syntactio rules of the English language C 7 TAEquot and quotCHIu H are not legal so the correct ones are quotTHE and quotCATquot I 3 Phoneme Restoration Effect auditory 2quot Warren amp Warren 1970 I It was found that the eel was on the m Table Axle m Orange m shoe i 7 7 J I 4 Chanqe Blindness Involves pattern recognition attention working memory A Marr s Modular approach to visual gercegtion Image 7 ilnDensily Primal Sketch Shape 1 Marion From 1 Texture Color Shadtng 1 Binocular Stereo 39l 20 Sketch 1 I 1 212 D Sketch Description of how surfaces relate to each other structural as well as their size shape distance location amp orientation Viewerdependent amp still based on input from retinal image Information from lowerlevel modules combined l 2 3D ObiectCentered Description Viewerindependent representation I 3 Object Primitives Cylinders cylinder horse human ostrich J 4 Decomposition of complex figures concavities used to divide object into primitives g Forearm or I 5 Determination of Axis important to determine orientation of object and to translate from a 2 12D sketch to a 3D representation Sampie of cross sections J B Biederman s Theorv I 1 Based on Marr amp Nishihara but 1 2 3 expanded from EH 0 Obiekte generalized cones to C43 fe other 3D shapes 1 Geometric ion Geons 5 U 2 Geons Geometric Ions as Primitives I Geons component Geons parts of objects I Vertex where two g geons are combined a 5 vertices plural he 43 Structural configuration of geons important for recognition 3 geons sufficient to recognize most objects eaw fig mg m 39 I 4 Choosing which geon to use to represent an object or part of an object based on 5 properties Allows viewerindependent recognition Partially Occluded Obiect 1 Partially Occluded Obiect with Geons 5 Evidence l Standard Presentation Rapid 100 mseo presentation of an object or partial object followed by a mask l a Complex items with multiple geons do not require longer recognition times than simple items cup flashlight Biederman 1987 39 i l b No advantage for identifying color photographs over line drawings Biederman amp Ju 1986 Unless single geon items require color or texture information eg plum vs peach I c Componentsdeleted ine objects better recognized than midsegmentdeleted objects at fast presentation times 65 or 100 msec or 200 a However if time permits fillingin of midsegments to activate more geons this trend was reversed Biederman Ju amp Blickle 1985 l d Contours removed at midsegments leaving vertices intact led to better object recognition 70 than when vertices deleted 50 1OO msec presentation Biederman 1985 6 Multiple Views Theory Tarr 1995 I We store representations of objects from several viewerdependent perspectives Only if our view of an object does not match one of these will we have to mentally rotate the object and thus these nonmatched views should take longer to recognize 7 Global Shape I Outline of object is important not necessarily breakdown into parts I Navon I Cave amp Kosslyn 1993 39 1 2 Fusiform Gyrus processes facelike stimuli Fusiform Face Area FFA inferior medial temporal lobe Girelli amp al slice location Fusiform Gyrus 39 I a Two Views I 1 DomainSpecific View i evolutionaiy basis for Modular area devoted to face recognition Kanwisher Tsao monkeys l 2 Expert SystemArea Visual Recoqnition i Area of brain responsible for finetuned discrimination of visual stimuli Gauthier amp colleagues 3 Birdwatchers D Car experts 3 Dog experts i b Research I Is fusiform area just be an expert system Damage to it interfered with a bird watcher s abilities to discriminate warblers Bornstein 1963 Bornstein Sroka amp Munitz 1969 and another patient s ability to tell apart cars Damasio Damasio amp Van Hoesen 1982 l Several studies have found that the FFA is indeed face specific and that a nearby area known as the lateral occipital complex LOC mediates perceptual expertise effects Yue Tjan amp Biederman 2006 391 3 2 Configuration tends to be most important in face recognition we do recognize upsidedown faces if configuration is correct but it takes longer and we make more errors Yin 1969 VI Visual Aqnosia I A Without gnosia knowledge ij Agnosia inability to recognize objects ij Prosogagnosia inability to recognize faces ij Alexia inability to recognize words LH CAN IMPAIRED I Individual letters I Whole faces I Voices auditory I Whole words I Simple objectsparts I Whole complex object shoes hats Color I Visual memory I Definitions I Copy visual objects I Reasoning I Parts of his face Lissauer s 1890 Taxonomy I Apperceptive Aqnosia intact sensory capabilities impaired visual perception in which they do not see shapes or objects clearly often due to carbon monoxide poisoning l Associative Aqnosia assumed to have no perceptual deficits only a disconnection to visual knowledge or loss of that visual knowledge i A Apperceptive Agnosia 1 Form Agnosia Iquot 1t 0 w Acuity Color Motion Shape recognition Matching stimuli Integrating stimuli Copying forms WQW w I May not distinguish poker chip from scrabble chip despite differences in color shape 39 0 r l 34 Local vs Global Processing 8888888888 8 S S 8 8888888888 w M a may mg up w r39 Ha 2 Inteqrative Aqnosia Left or Bilateral occipitaltemporal damage I 1 Difficulty recognizing objects but purely in visual domain I 2 Can define or recognize objects if presented in verbal auditory haptic domains I 3 Elementary visual perception which is accurate enough to copy an object
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'