Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
verified elite notetaker
This 29 page Class Notes was uploaded by Clementine Boehm on Tuesday October 13, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 3030 at Louisiana State University taught by M. Papesh in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 7 views. For similar materials see /class/222967/psyc-3030-louisiana-state-university in Psychlogy at Louisiana State University.
Reviews for COGNITION
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: 10/13/15
PSYC 3030 Exam 1 8272013 33300 PM Lecture 12 Human Information Processing How does human memory interact with the environment A Human information processing is seen as interacting memory systems page 2 1 Can think about it a A stimulus through your sight and then into sensory registry attends to the stimulus send it to short term memory and then recall it B Memory Model 1 Object 9 Sensory Memory raw datalarge capacity 9 ShortTerm Memory encoded datalimited capacity 96 Longterm Memory Complex datalarge capacity page 2 ihot dog rocker a Something that captures your attention C Although the standard model is okay A more accurate one is somewhat rearranged page 5 1 Long term and shortterm still interact but shortterm is not as interactive extra credit a Hot dog rocker9 ambiguous stimulus D Sensory memory 1 Each sense organ of the body may be said to have its memory These memories are in a measure the independent of each other 7 William Burnham 1888 2 Usually tested in vision or hearing M 1m 4 f b Olfactory smell c Gustatory taste Tactiletouch e f Nocioeptive pain g Thermal temperature h Vestibular balance Proprioceptive body position Why do we have SM A SM brie y holds information in Literal form giving perceptual processes time to work page 6 l Snap shot of environment in front of us Functions of SM A Collect information to be processed B Hold information brie y during processing C Fill in the blanks when stimulation is intermittent l Eg during saccadic eye movements SM provides a stable view of the environment a Flip books make it look like motion 7 family guy b Marque lights illusion that lights are moving 7 on and off quickly c Film projectors images very quickly d Clock chim es e What d you say i auditory didn t catch it the first time but sensory memory kicks in and replays it Iconic something stable in environment Memory A Segner 1740 is credited with initiating the study of iconic memory 1 Clinical iconic imagery may last longer in people affected by dyslexia Di Lollo 2 Applied relevance to subliminal information processing and brain washing 3 Theoretical importance to the nature of the mind consciousness and subconciousness Data A Sperling 1960 measured the capacity and duration of iconic memory with a Iachislascape 1 Interested in how much you could jam in memory and then test on what you remember a Subjects saw an array of letters for 50ms i Whole Report I Show letters and numbers and then variable duration of how long people would have to hold onto info 0 Report everything you remember ii Partial Report I Show letter and numbers and then variable duration and plays a tone low medium high to report which letters to report letters corresponding on rows 2 Results a Partial Report i 82 of information is available in your SM for up to 1 second anyway b Whole Report i By the time you start reporting letters SM has faded The Duration of Iconic Memory A Averbach amp Sperling 1961 Does iconic memory fade because ofdeiv or interference 1 The time between the display and tone 2 Whether the prepost display was lightdark B Results 1 PrePost Light a New visual information interferes with visual SM i ie it depletes it 2 PrePost Dark a Essentially no effect Visual SM is about 82 up until 1 second Interference inlconic Memory A Averbach amp Sperling 1961 How does visual information interfere with iconic memory 1 The mpg of visual cue circlebar a Report letter in circle or above line B Results 1 Circle marker a Short delay i A circle with letter in it b Long delay i A circle Without a letter Darwin 1972 Echoic memory A Letter names were played on three channels at once A visual cue indicated which ear to report 1 Getting three sets of three letters 2 Be given a visual que in order to test What they remembered hearing B Results 1 This is similar to vision but with longer duration Why might sensory memory have these temporal properties 8272013 33300 PM Why might sensory memory have these temporal properties I Adapted these cognitive systems over time o Auditory is a eeting sense Its only a moment in time Not physically present in environment Attention amp Pattern Recognition I Pattern Recognition o Entails an interaction of sensog information and longterm memory combined in shortterm memory STlVl What is this 0 Hot dog rocker You cannot recognize a sensory image as a hot dog rocker without prior memory mediating perception We will roughly equate STM with consciousness STM can be seen as the cognitive workbenc Attention o Is the interface between memory systems 0 Why do we have attention I We are constantly bombarded with information but most of it does not enter consciousness I Attention determines what information receives further analysis Central Assumption I STM is a limited cagacigy gystem We cannot process all information at once I We often refer to a bottleneck in information processing I Many studies have been dedicated to finding the locus of this bottleneck William James I Everyone knows what attention is It is the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought Focalization concentration of consciousness are of its essence Like M we can inlraspecl about attention I You know what its like to think hard versus letting your mind wander I You know what it means when something grabs your attention 0 A very loud noise I You can drive and listen to the radio o Sing and listening I Dividing attention by doing two things at once 0 Taking notes in class I You can probably tune out and ignore certain signals Doing this you can probably come up with a reasonable definition I A pool of mental effort that is selective shiftable and divisible o What you want to listen to o What you are doing listening to o Dividing a certain amount of attention to different things I Fair enough but this is a m and as scientists were going to study attention a bit more carefully Selective attention for auditory signals I Why auditory information 0 Eyes move 7 ears don t I You cant track or force someone to look at something I You have the choice to visually focus on something I Hearing you don t have a choice I Originally studied with dichotic listening 0 A persons ability to listen to something from one ear and not the other even though two different things are being said I Cherry 1953 conducted one of the first dichotic listening studies 0 Ss were asked to shadow information presented to one ear while ignoring information presented to the other ear 0 Malso asked what they remembered from the unattended ear I Ss could remember basic physical attributes B Male versus Female voice Loud versus Quiet I They didn t however notice some details I When foreng languages were included I When words were repeated 35 times Broadbent 1958 page 8 I Developed a theory based on cherry s findings and other data 0 1 SM holds information in a Ereattentive store I Before you even pay attention SM hangs on to info I At this level crude physical analysis takes place eg pitch allowing a selection device to determine which stimuli will receive further processing 0 2 After selection stimuli are shunted along a limitedcapacity channel I Selecting one thing you need to focus on and you follow it D Follow the mans voice I Once information gets to the recognition device abstract analysis meaning etc occurs Because SM is very brief if attention switched to the other ear most information is lost There are a few problems I The cocktail party effect moray 1959 0 Some information e g the subjects name sneaks through the unattended ear and is recognized I Someone s name I Gossip I Someone yelling I Treisman 1960 demonstrated that subjects spontaneously shadow across ears 0 The unattended message must receive some semantic analysis I It cannot be purely areattentive D Once the story was changed she followed the story not the ear 0 Attention Model page 10 amp ll a leaky facet model I All stimuli in SM receive some meaningful analysis Attention can attenuate competing channels but cannot shut them off completely The attenuator analyzes messages for 1 physical properties 2 language and 3 m D SM 9 Attenuator things sneak through9 Dictionary UNTT somethings come through more strongly9 STM Broadbentisome info is completely filtered out but some still gets through Treisman s 7 all info gets through but dome info is stronger AttenuationBottleneck page 11 I In Treisman s theory preattentive analysis must be almost as complete as attentive analysis I Broadbent s and Treisman s theories are both early selection theories 0 Attention selects a subset of information in SM to pass on to STM Crossing the Threshold I something that has a personal connection 0 Some items have a very low threshold 0 Others have a higherthreshold I Which one has a higher hurdle E Fire or water I Water B Your name or significant other I Significant other D Significant other or table I table A problem for My Selection I MacKay 1973 o The unattended message in uenced participants later decisions about the meaning of the ambiguous word M I They were consistent with the unattended words E River water creek9river bank D Coins dollars 9financial institute Deutsch amp Deutsch 1963 I Proposed a late selection model to remedy Mselection models 0 TN39FO9SM9 Detection9 STM I All info is Getting through I STM is Where you make the cutoff of info you will attend to and not I All stimuli pass the detection device Selection for further processing occurs in STM Commonalities I All three theories portray attention as a system that selects one signal from its competitors I The theories are supported by phenomena like the cocktail arty effect 8272013 33300 PM Attention amp Perception Cont 14 Early selection models of attention I page 1 o B SM 9selection devisefilter then onto detector and into STM o T can ramp up your attention at the expense of the attenuator picking up on other things Late selection model of attention I page 2 0 Recall that evidence for late selection came from Mackay 1973 I Messages from the unattended ear bias participants later decisions about the meaning of ambiguous words in the attended ear 0 And The Stroop Effect page 3 data I Go from reading the word out loud o Saying color out loud of ambiguous objects 0 Saying the color of the word not the word itself I Reading words is a natural process 0 When you have to divide your attention by ignoring the words and just pay attention to what the colors are I Experiment 0 Part 1 Please read the following words aloud as quickly as possible Kanhnem an s capacity theory I Developed in response to failures of selective attention bluegreenred I Everyday activities the divide attention seem incompatible with filter theories 0 Driving while on the phone I As you get older it is harder 0 Can do two things if one is simple and the other difficult I The level of demand that signalstasks require seems more important I Attention is a limited pool of energy that we try to divide or concentrate optimally 0 Have a small amount of resources and choose to devote attention to certain tasks and which tasks will get less I We can do two or more things at once as long as we don t exceed capacity 0 Have a max capacity of 10 I You do not have enough attention to complete two of the same difficulty tasks at once Two factors that determine whether tasks will exceed capacity I Task difficulty 0 Car radio I When driving and looking for a specific place and get lost you tum the radio down I Too much going on at once I Task similarity 0 Trying to read while someone is talking to you I Reading and talking are two very similar processes I Cannot accomplish two very similar things Posner amp Boies 1971 Dual taskpage 6 I Ss did 2 simultaneous tasks 0 Letter matching AA vs ATJ I Right index finger same I Right middle finger different 0 Tone detection I Left index finger I heard a tone Timing is everything I Switching attention between tasks even easy ones 7 has cognitive costs I Imagine the havoc unleashed on your cognitive system when you talk on the phone and drivel So attention is limited and we all suck What can we do about it I Practice I You are all probably pretty skilled at some of the following dividedattention tasks 0 Listening in class while taking notes 0 Walking in the mall while looking at things and talking 0 Watching tv and doing a puzzle 0 Eating and driving Short answer question about a task that has been a challenge in the past but now a pro archery Practice reduces the capacity unsqued by a task A distinction of I Automatic vs Controlled Processing 0 Automatic over learned processes require no attention and can be carried out in parallel with other processes 0 Controlled processes reguire attention and must be carried out in serial fashion Some empirical support I Spelke Hirst amp Neisser 1976 0 SS listened to messages and typed them I Easy enough 0 At the same time they w a book aloud I WTF Selke et al s 1976 findings I After 6 weeks people could perform both task almost perfectly Shiffrin amp Schneider 1977 I Ss completed two simultaneous tasks 0 Holding information about target stimuli in memory 0 Paying attention to series of distracter stimuli waiting for one of the targets to appear The tasks included two conditions I Consistent Mapping ClA o Targets and distracters came from different categories letters versus numbers I Varied Mapping Vll o Targets and distracters came from the same categories letters and numbers 0 Targets in some trials were distracters in others Results Consistent Mapping I At trial 1 7 55 correct I By trial 900 7 90 correct 0 Even when the time frame was only 80 ms I Across trials only time frame affected performance 0 Ss learned to search all of the frames in parallel without a cost of increasing complexity I What do there results implicate 0 Automatic Processing Results Varied Mapping I Everything affected performance I Ss detected targets poorly especially when the memory set or frame size were large I Ss only achieved 90 accuracy with a 400ms time frame and lots of practice 0 Ss had to search all of the frames in wwith large processing costs with increasing complexity I What do these results implicate o ControlledProcessing Shiffrin amp Schneider 1 977 I Automaticity can develop in VM but it takes people 3000 trials CM performance ls automaticity always learned Does it ever occur naturally I Work by Treisman and colleagues suggests that some automatic processes are builtin to the human brain I PopOut effects in visual search Feature Search I Unique targets are detected quickly I RTs not affected by of distractor items I Yes and no responses equally fast I Indicates parallel search 0 Unique features seem to pop out of the display Conjunction Search I Conjunctions of features are detected slowly I RTs increase with of distracter items I No responses are slower than yes responses 21 ratio I Indicates serial search Feature vs Conjunctions I Unique targets are detected quickly 0 RTs are not affected by display size 0 YN equally fast I Conjunctions of features are detected slowly 0 RTS increase with display size 0 N slower than Y Why do popout effects I Treisman s feature integgation theory 0 Basic features of objects eg color shape angle motion are detected automatically 0 Features must then be combined into objects I Your brain combines and interoperates form the environment I Object 9 Preattentive Stage analyze features 9 Focused Attention combine features 9 Perception Feature Integration Theory FIT I Basic Experimental Method 0 Can you spot the circle with a line through it 0 Then can you spot the circle without the line I Results 0 Target Present Trials I With line FAST I Without line slow 0 Target Absent Trials I With line F astish I Without line Slowest I Basic perceptual features 0 Color 0 Orientation 0 Shape Evidence for FIT I lllusionary Conjunctions o If the brain detects and assembles features does it ever mess up I Some peoples stream of perception is off When a display is shown very quickly B When looking for dollar sign they see the lines and 90 angle they make triangles and don t see 39 o Illusory Triangles I Angle and orientation of the lines 8272013 33300 PM Lecture 15 FIT Naturally leads to a discussion of perception and pattern recognition 0 Pattern Recognition o Organizing sensory information into coherent wholes 0 That step to a feature integration thery o Perception o How do we interpret sensations o Na39l39ve realism assumes that perception is direct from the environment with no cognitive intervention or guesswork I Or put another way 0 Perception is a bottomup process I We create mental states by combining sensory building blocks 0 Classic featuredetector theories of perception actually cam first I Objects are initially seen as sets ofbasic features eg color shape etc I Perception works by combining these features into coherent objects 0 In theory all objects can be broken down into their basic features Selfridge 1959 developed a featuredetector theory called Pandemonium o How we get from seeing the basic features to knowing what it is 0 Feature detectors as screaming demons o Pandemonium led to modern Neural Networks 0 Computer models of brain tissue that learn to recognize patterns Evidence for featuredetectors o Hubel amp Wiesel 1957 Featuredetectors in cats 0 Electrodes recorded from single neurons in the occipital cortex 0 Results I Feature detectors I Different neurons in visual cortex respond only to specific features I Shape I Angles I Movement I Contrasts I Etc I They also found combination detectors I Not only do these experiments also work on monkeys I But they reveal even more complex detectors 0 Features detectors need early input in order to develop Blakemore amp Cooper 1970 o Sensory restriction kittens raised without exposure to horizontal lines were later blind to them Lettvin et al 1959 What the frog s eye tells the frog s brain 0 Have different species evolved different feature detectors 0 Frogs have 0 Edge detectors 0 Contrast detectors 0 Movement detectors 0 shadow detectors 0 Convex edge detectors Feature Blindness o Riggs et al 1953 o What if eye movements weren t possible 0 Using a headmounted projector Ss saw images coming from their own eye I Riggs and friends expected people to slowly go blind to the picture I It turned out to be much cooler than that 0 Results Features slowly come and goithen it s gone There are problems with purely bottomup theories of perception o The sheer volume of information processing may be impossible 0 Consider reading I Most words have 5 letters and most letters have 5 basic features I Typical reading is about 250 words per minute which would be 100 features per second 0 Scanning a crowded room could require millions of features per second 0 It combines bottomup and topdown information o Bottomup sensationsfeature detection 0 Topdown knowledge expectations 0 We use background knowledge to optimize our perceptual processing These are Contest Effects in perception o C0ntext Effects provides evidence for topdown perception o Context can be used to help interpret distorted or ambiguous bottomup information o This has both positive and negative effects I EX Many other examples of perceptual biases exist Bottomup and Topdown info can combine in weird ways 0 With these images upside down reducing topdown knowledge they look okay 0 With the images properly oriented increasing TD the second Madonna looks more grotesque than the rst 8272013 33300 PM Lecture 16 More Perception Anecdotal evidence for topdown and bottom up effects 0 Bottom up 0 Taking information from the environment I Features detectors in kitties frogs food and prey monkeys YOU I Riggs et al 1953 I Mirrored contact lense 0 People would slowly go blind 0 Top Down 0 Using information you already know I Context effects I Speech segmentation o Interactions o Thatcher faces 7 taking the eyes and the mouth of a regular face and ip them upside down Empirical evidence for topdown and bottomup effects 0 Tulving et al 1964 studied word recognition as a function of exposure duration bottom up and context topdown o Read single words on a computer screen as well as the context that the words were in 0 SS tried to identify words that were ashed for different durations 0 Words were preceded by different amounts of context Tulving et al s Results 0 Both bottomup and topdown processing have large effects Word superiority effectfi in the blank 0 Reicher 1969 asked Ss to identify letters from displays of varied duration 0 Why vary duration 0 There were 3 displays duration 0 Short 40ms bee ap wings 5 times 0 Medium 60ms 0 Long 80ms bee ap 10 times 0 And 3 displays types both topdown and bottomup 0 Single letter no context 0 Words word context 7 BEST PERFORMANCE topdown I Having context aids perception I Letters embedded in words are better then letters embedded in nonwords o Nonwords I Tested to see which letter was shown in the original display Subliminal Perception o If perception entails sensation and interpretation a logical question follows 0 Does perception require awareness I We don t have to try to organize features into objects so perception is clearly automatic I Are perceptual objects always sent to the conscious mind 0 Contralaterally I Right does left I Left does right Weiskrantz tested a patient named DB 0 DB had surgery to relieve very bad headaches which left him blind in part of his left visual field 0 DB s blind area But what are the numbers 0 The accuracy ofhis guesses o Coined the name blindsight to describe DB s condition 0 A totally blind woman who can walk an obstacle course catch tennis ball avoid traffic 0 Monkeys with NO visual cortex who still manage to dodge ying objects 2 Separate Systems 0 Perception o Consciousness o Effected by the objects 0 SP has had a long and controversial history 0 For instance the famous Eat popcorn 7 Drink Coke experiment by Vicary was a hoax I Take a movie cut it and put an image than have the movie continue Within limits subliminal perception must happen It s logical necessity 0 Remember the cocktail party effect 0 Subliminal advertising however o Greenwald et al 1991 1 of2 essay questions 0 Describe what they did trying to learn and hat they found then asked to expand I Used yers to nd participants to test subliminal messages to effect a persons behavior I Long term behavioral effects I Twp manufactures of selfhelp tapes I Selfesteem I Improving memory mnemonics o Took the labels off and wanted to give tapes the best chance of succeeding 0 Found people who wanted or needed these effects I Participants were motivated and wanted this to work 0 Let tapes go home without labels 0 Subliminal Tape contentsthere is no effect of subliminal content 0 Memory and memory label Selfesteem and selfesteem label Memory and selfesteem label 0 O O Selfesteem and memory label 0 Had to complete different tests in order to measure where they were in memory and selfesteem A parade of freaks 0 Or interesting disorders following brain damage 0 Visual Neglect I Usually caused by damage to the right parietal lobe I Involved in bringing together sensations and perceptions Patients will neglect the contra lateral hemi space I Divide the visual field and would neglect the left side of the space They will occasionally neglect deny the contra lateral side of their body Some Examples 0 Line Bisection TASK 0 Normal I Get the center of the line 0 Patient I Would put the center being to the right of center 0 EXperimenter s model 0 Patient will neglect half of the painting 0 Selfportraits by an artist with leftside neglect Do neglect patients ever process anything in their blind eld 0 Semantic Priming 0 Something that is brought to mind due to the primed meaning Other interesting disorders 0 Prosopagnosia An inability to recognize faces All other objects are okay 0 Usually caused by damage to the fuisiform gyrus 0 Despite recognition failure GSR changes when familiar faces are presented Opposite Syndrome o CAPGRAS syndrome Face recognition is intact but patients have no GSR differences to familiar versus unfamiliar faces 0 They will often claim that friends and family are imposters o Anosognosia 0 Rare neurological disorder most often accompanying right hemisphere damage 0 The patient denies hisher disorder I Paralysis blindness deafness etc Mquot 2 essay questions 0 4 short answer questions 0 the discovery of feature detectors in kitties suggests that bottomup factors drive perception Test 3 Notes Lecture 31 Imagery amp Concepts Mental Imagery 0 Examples 0 Who wrote the Gettysburg Address I Lincoln most people knew the answer 0 In your car where is the fuel gauge on the dashboard I Imagine and point 0 How many windows are visible in the front of your house I Imagine the house and count the windows 0 You don39t possess this info as long term knowledge 7 windows in front of my parents house 0 You use varying amounts of imagery to gure out the answer 0 You probably used N0 imagery then a LITTLE and then a LOT 0 Most people report that they experience imagery o McCartney said Tomorrow came to him in his imagination o Einstein imagined the theory of relativity before he discovered it 0 Guy who invented benzene structure he had a dream of an ouroboros snake eating its own tail and that lead him to the structure 0 McKellar 1972 surveyed 500 adults and found that o 97 reported VISUAL imagery 93 reported AUDITORY imagery 74 reported MOTOR imagery 70 reported TACTILE imagery 66 reported OLFACTORY imagery 64 reported GUSTATORY imagery OOOOO Behaviorists came up with this they said imagery wasn39t worthy of studying because I can ask you to come u n with an imae of our mother39s house but I won39t reall did it r 39v in 7 L m 0 Killed the study of mental imagery for a while until 60s Pa1v10 1963 o Came up with a measurable way to infer what39s going on in your brain 0 Give people pairs of words and ask them to remember them later on give one word of the pair and ask what went with it 0 Justice Hollow 0 Pencil Boat 0 Equality Truth 0 Hat Scissors I Some of these represent concrete objects pencil boat hat scissors 0 You can conjure up a mental image of these 0 How do you come up with a mental image of equality or truth or hollow 0 You can39t abstract nouns I Indirect evidence of mental imagery when presented with a series of words More empirical evidence o The study of mental rotation began when Roger Shepard woke up one morning 0 He had a ash of insight I Imagined a green blob oating above him rotating I Have him the idea of mental rotation o Are these rotated versions of the same basic shape I Measured how lon it takes ou to say same Shepard 8L Metzler 1971 O 8 subjects completed 1600 trials holy crap 0 The DEGREES of rotation and the PLANES of rotation were varied o The task Are these 2 gures the same or different 0 Results 8 539 Piclureplane pairs 539 Depth pairs 2 8 lu 439 l 4 mm E2 tc a 3 2w 9 SE 2 2 ml mg llllllJ 1 lllA lll g 020 60 100 140 13 020 60 100 140 150 a b O ANGLE OF ROTATION IN DEGREES Follow up studies 0 Cooper 8L Shepard 1973 W 1 u y r 7 gt 0 Give people letters like R and rotate them 0 Also gave them reversed letters and rotated them I Are they the same or are they mirror image reversed 0 Results union Tlm Mllumm w RU lw 240 100 J 0mm of Test Slimnlul Elma Normal K 9 X 5 Q R Ex I quotP39lterm ll v 4 I 4 w o a leuer 39 a v 39lol or as a rumor muge of as normal form as a lunulon ul he deglees ol roA almn OI quot10 Inner in he plane 01 presenlanon Below the graph ale Ex ample al leuers 1 ml rotallon value Mm Coopel and Shepard 1973 0 Similar experiments have been done with M Cooper 1975 o Shapes that people had been taught in the experiment but had no previous long term info about the shapes 0 Learned standard versions of shapes 0 Came back to lab and saw them again or mirror reversedrotated 0 Results 1 Farm A 4 Few a 1100 I a 900 HTZ 3d1 755 HT206d gt521 17 1300 E anm a Fan D g 1100 E 900 I magmas Hummusquot E 1300 Fovm E Form F f E 0 39 g 110 I a I I 900 c HT184d793 an 197m no i 1300 FormG Farm H 1100 z 900 HT2 9d715 HT221d825 700 U 0 130 0 60 120 180 Angular Dlpl ure From Tmlnad Orlanlallan Degrees From Mental Rolnllon cl Random MrDimerLsional Stagequot by L A Coupe 1975 Cagnin39va Pchvulugv 7 pp 20 43 ch mcd by permission D liiw jsve Ill 0 Brain scans while doing rotation tasks I Brain areas for h 39 1 manual rotat htu o Shepard is also an artist 0 Ambiguous drawings I Elephant with weird legs I Woman face saxophonists I Two monsters are exactly the same size Mental rotation has b een widel studied and many details have been learned n ou imaine it its harder to rotate quotiquot l H r 0 Wanted to see if animals had brain lateralization like we do 0 Central xation 9 letter for 150ms 9 decision 0 Push joystick to the right letter 0 Human subjects had to do everything exactly like the baboons 0 Including getting juice when correct I Results 0 Human data 0 As the angular degree of rotation gets higher people get slower o Baboon data 0 Left hemisphere V in Moyer 1973 I Asked 0 Right hemisphere RT IS higher all messed up Left side is specialized for spatial Their right hemisphere is silent Corpus callosum doesn39t work ef ciently so their hemispheres are really s ecialized OOOO HUMAN DATA BABOON DATA 393 1300 u no A a 1800 o E gum g a O moo D 39 u I l a woo 0 o a o 0 g 0 oo g no m we g 5170 um 0 0 5 l 5 3 0 an 20 1B0 240 300 o OWNm 5quot Orianuuun degree mom 1 39A o I Elana o E 51 O 1 man u so a 1200 O 0 kg ooo 0 am a a 0 o s an g 300 o o E 500 an 0 so 120 190 240 m Orientation Hugues 50 Ian mu no so Orientation degrees F I Huwm39 quotwanquot mm A KM 39 quotmm 39 39 quotquot0quot mm a 1 annoom mm mm In I tummyquot o muxauon fur uunull duyhyrd um um mun mum m w m the nu vuuu human m quot5 mm quotm mm m m m m I mu Huh M people to quickly judge which of 2 animals was larger Cow or squirrel Duck or pig Ferret or rabbit Horse or deer Rhino or snake Results E E g w v 10 Emma msseaanca m ANIMAL 5qu Mmr ma mum um uqu m Immu 1 mm M Ma mm I mam mm In a mmquot o m nlvmIu ummm m m on ma Immls Nance m m xlxi I aim an murmur null O o Moyer suggested that judgments are made by ACCESSING images of the animals and DIRECTLY comparing them 0 Kosslyn 1975 I Does it take longer to answer questions about smaller images 0 After all larger objects are easier to see But HOW do ou control the size of mental imaes IV I n my I o For example imagine an elephant standing next to a rabbit 0 Does the rabbit have a beak I Next he would CHANGE the context 0 Imagine a rabbit standing next to a y 0 Does the rabbit have an eyebrow I Results 0 Ps were 2 10 ms FASTER when images were larger 0 The y context allowed the rabbit to be moved closerquot providing a more detailed imae to scan in 016935 2300 39 21 C mama 39s39mas 190 1 lrue I EACIION TIME 1700 quot o Kosslyn 1973 I Look at this boat o Mentally scan the boat until you nd the FLAG 0 Say yes once you nd it 0 Start at the front of the boat and mental traverse it until you nd the CABIN 0 Say yes once you nd it 0 Imagine the whole boat and traverse it until you find the LIFE PRESERVER 0 Say yes once you nd it I Results 0 Verbal focus told ou where to start r i W V r gt Fm I39l HM i u 5quot Verbal Focus 2 I700 3 I600 I F 2 500 megs OCH 392 g 1400 I LI 1 1300 IZOD Focus Middle Em DISTANCE OF VERIFIED PROPERTIES FROM FOCUS o Kosslyn followed this up in 1978 I Ma of an island just go with it okay Map of an island Gust 0 with Mku 3 1 2 R39 1 o Staat EGand ntall travel t te 00L 7 0 Say here once you get there 0 Start at the POOL and mentally travel to the BAR r39 w w 1i whj Ina rink Say here once you get there the BAR and mentally travel to the HUT Say here once you get there 0 0 Start at 0 Results BUT there39s another problem Lecture 32 More Mental Imagery o Intons O O O O M n Peterson 1983 argued that the results could re ect The experimenter is expecting you to slow down for lon She ran a sneaky experiment Ps mentally rotated hand shapes after EITHER Looking at their own hand perceptual prime Imagining their own hand imagined prime Then they were shown a hand and had to decide if it was the left or right hand That doesn39t seem ve ger distances L U 1 l Creepy ol39 IP videotaped her RAs they all read t Lo39 and Behold results l v c 1 First graph experimenter expected them to be faster with the imagined prime 0 Classic mental rotation effect Second graph experimenter expected them to be faster with the perceptual prime Elpenme ll quotpedal 6015quot la be Expijumnl II 16 MIMI In M mm mm magma pnrnll Man mm perceplum on HP mm nlaqmal mm man perceplual one IgtPl m m 2200 E x a No Nuts w 2000 46 pmsrvun muss 5 x x IMAGINAL muss gt I 39 g Iaoo m 9 o 39 8 D 2 600 n mm pum q I Imnqmul pmquot m a w wan z m anhl 240 o I2039 240 o la DEGREES 0F ROTATION Figure 3 Mean detection limes for le or rialLth mum for mulion of want cxpm mlers pccmions and the lype uf mime imwnll perocpluxl none 0 We usually see this pattern in mapscanning experiments right I As the physical distance on the map increases Ps RTs slow down 0 They got brandspanking new RAs and told them to expect something else bizarre I Really close items Ps mental map would be blurry so Ps would take longer I Medium close items Ps mental map would be clear so Ps would be really fast I Really far items would also give people a slow RT because they are further away 0 Would expect a U shape 0 Results I Dotted line represents what experimenters expected I Solid line r resents how Ps actually performed a a 3 a a a a u z I Distance rum o PalVlo 1978 o For each pair below IMAGINE 2 nondigital clocks they were not actually shown the clocks 0 Compare the clocks and decide which has the SMALLER angle between the hour and minute hand I 320 and 725 HARD 410 and 923 EASY 245 and105 EASY I 315 and 530 HARD 0 Results I Reall clear individual differences E Low Imagery my imagery l Difference buwccn the we angl s B ro oks O l i lu What39s the rst thing you do whenyou39re trying to remember a song 0 Turn the volume down of whatever you are currently hearing 1968 w e 1 Subjects looked at a r then it was removed Next Ps tried to move around their memory of the letter classifying each corner according to its extremity on the letter Ps made their responses in 3 ways separate conditions 0 Vocal response yes and no 0 Tapping left and right hands yes and no 0 Pointin to es and no on complex sheet M w 7min rm r H w l ifi u39r39 milva j quotH tlon be slower Maybe just perception looking at mental imagery BUT it may be because its Visual Why else might thls cond1 t vv39inl u um i ix 0 REGULAR DATA CONTL DA 30 E upnnsn Tlme 5m Response Time sec m pmnung Tapping Vnzal Painting Tanning Vocal O o Interference from mental im SENTENCE IUDGMENTS Response Time sec 3 mgrms Yimc sec Pointing Tapping Vocal
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'