Cog Psych Exam 1

Learning vs performance

Performance - output we observe/measure during training

Learning - permanent change in understanding

Bjork study of interleaving

In studying artistic styles found resolving interference forces you to see similarities and differences > creates higher order representations

Generation effect

Generating something in your brain is much harder, strengthens activation of representation in memory

This is why testing strengthens retrieval

Long term learning vs. short term performance

Long term learning - visible in any context, learning that lasts

Short term performance - immediate, context based improvement

Simon & Bjork key press experiment

Found blocked practice (one by one) is not as good as interleaved practice (alternating) for long term memory

Blocked practice has fewer errors during practice, interleaved shows better retention

Highlighting/underlining strategy

Fowler & barker - no retention difference in highlighting or not highlighting

Peterson - found highlighting to show worse on inference based questions

Why bad? -

• causes us to focus on isolated facts, ignore bigger connections

• Hard to distinguish between central ideas and peripheral info

Rereading strategy

Rothkopf - found it doesnt improve comprehension or help on inference questions + can provide mistaken impression of mastery because of familiarity

Re-reading a second or third time doesn’t help

Generating explanations strategy

Pressley - when you generate explanation for why something is true you think of it deeply > better recall

Interleaving

Rohrer & Taylor - bouncing between topics instead of studying each one until you’ve mastered it is better for long term and comprehension

Distributed practice/spacing

Study ahead of time spared out sand consistently as opposed to cramming

Bahrick - during practice cramming works better, spacing much better for retention and future performance

Testing strategy

Butler - testing more effective than testifying for better recall, because you are actively practicing retrieval (output over extra input)

Eg. Flashcards, friend quizzing you, Cornell note taking

Meta cognitive benefits of tests

• able to identify whether information has or has not been understood and/or learned

• Can potentiatie the effectiveness of subsequent study opportunities even under conditions that ensure learners will be incorrect

Structuralism

1st major school of thought - understand structure of mind by separating into constituent components/structures, sees us as passive receivers

Key figures: Wundt, Titchner

Consciousness reduced to sensations, images, affections

Functionalism

What people do and why - sees people as actively engaged in sensation analyzing and action

3 fundamental precepts:

1. Study of mental processes

2. Study use of consciousness

3. Study of total relationship of organism x environment

Pragmatism

Outgrowth of functionalism, sees function of consciousness as enabling people to adapt and operate within their environment

Knowledge is validated by usefulness

Key players: James, Dewey

Behaviorism

Stimulus will produce response effect if organism is rewarded or punished for response > focus entirely on environment and behavior

Asserts psych should only deal with environment and behavior

Key players: Watson, Skinner

Gestalt psychology

Belief that its better to understand psychological phenomenon when viewing them as organized wholes instead of pieces

Response to behaviorism school of thought

Introspectionism

Looking inside ones own mind to understand how it works

Key players Wundt and Titchner, wrote down all different sensations and classified them based on what they related to

Problems with introspectionism

• difficult to verify

• Private, not public events

• Only sees the end process (thought) not the process to get there (thinking)

Problems with behaviorism

• limiting science to the observable is bad

• Can’t account for diversity in behavior - not everything we do has been previously reinforced through conditioning

Cognitivism

Infer what is going on inside the mind (as a black box) based on experiments relating to stimulus > response

Computational view of the mind, brain as information processor

Mental chronometry

Study of the time of mental processing, a method of studying response time to study understanding

Simple reaction time (detection task)

Detect stimulus and then respond

Choice reaction time task

Stimulus presented, detection, decision, and then response

Donder’s subtractive method

Subtract decision time to try and determine decision time versus detection stage and time those seperately

Problems with the subtractive method

• assumption of pure insertion - adding new stage doesnt effect other stages at all

• Assumption of additivity - duration of all stages together = yield time (what if not sequential stages? What if parallel?)

• Assumption that we already know the stages (eg. Detection, memory look up, decision) but not necessarily true

Ruling our alt explanations

Confirming evidence very hard so we have to eliminate/discredit other alternative explanations instead

Hoppers & Piercy Amnesia studies

Tried to improve each possible impairment in amnesiacs to see what the problem is

Encoding - gas going into car

Storage - gas staying in tank

Retrieval - gas being used when driving

Appears to rule out the explanation that it is a storage problem

Perception

Means by which info coming in via sensory organs is transformed into experience, 3 stages of perception: distal stimulus > proximal stimulus > perceptual

Distal stimulus

The stimulus we are trying to perceive at a distance

Proximal stimulus

Pattern of stimulus on your sensory organs

Perception

Mental representation of stimulus inside of your mind > product of perception

Lack of correspondence

When perception doesnt match stimulus provided eg. Optical illusions (percept does not equal distal stimulus)

Paradoxical correspondence

Proximal stimulus doesnt correspond to distal stimulus BUT percent does (eg. Moving eyes with a moving object, wall with shade on it)

PERCEPTUAL CONSTANCY - can be shape, size, color

Direct perception

Theory of perception says - your perception is well tuned to your environment, you can directly perceive w/out learning things

Perception system prepared/wired to pick up on environmental cues

Constructivism

Theory of perception - says perception uses external data AND prior knowledge and expectations

Knowledge/expectations influence perception

Bottom-up processing

Process driven by external stimulus, not internal knowledge

Direct perception says all perception is like this

Top-down processing

Processing is driven by knowledge + expectations, NOT external output

Constructivism argues bottom up AND top down processing impacts perception

How do we accurately see depth

By exploiting environmental cues, can be binocular or monocular

Includes: linear perspective (lines converging/diverging), shape, relative size, interposition (obstruction), shadow, retinal disparity (difference of images in retina), accommodation (for focus), convergence (how close eyes are)

Binocular depth cues

Depth cues that require two eyes

• retinal disparity - different images on each retinal, measure disparity to understand distance

• Convergence - how close eyes are to eachother

Monocular depth cues

environmental depth cues that only need 1 eye

• linear perspective - converging or diverging of lines

• Shape

• Relative size

• Interposition/obstruction

• Shadow - assumes light comes from above

• Accommodation - lens accommodates for focus based on distance

Dr P deficits + abilities

Deficits:

• can’t recognize faces

• Sees faces where there are nine

• Can’t study face as a whole

• Confusing objects

• No recognition of familiar objects

• Visual deficit in left side (internally and externally)

Abilities

• can recognize voices

• Can study individual parts of faces

• Can identify abstract shapes

• Visualization of schemata untouched

DEFICIT IN VENTRAL STREAM, DORSAL STREAM LARGELY INTACT

Agnosia

Inability to recognize people, objects, or shapes even though vision is not impaired and works normally

Can be visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory

Caused by brain damage or conditions

Cells of the retina

Ganglion - type of neuron (3 parts dendrites, soma, axon)

Bipolar layer

Rods and cones - photoreceptors, have photochemical reaction when exposed to light (rods = brightness, cones = colors)

Resting vs action potential

Potential - difference in charge between axon and outside

Resting potential = neuron at rest

Action potential = jump to positive charge during firing, triggered if potential passes threshold (all or none process)

Propagation

Once past the threshold the “spike” moves down the axon where it releases NTs across synapses (could be excitatory or inhibitory)

Refractory period

Short period after firing before a neuron can fire again

Summation

If combined effects of all synapses take action potential above threshold neuron will fire action potential

Receptive field

Mapped by measuring potential changes responding to different stimulus, entire visual field covered in variety of center surround cells

On center off surround - center excitatory, outside inhibitory

Off center on surround - center inhibitory, outside excitatory

Magnocellular v parvocellular layers

Layers of the LGN, ganglion cells send here

Magno

• transient response (just the change)

• Large receptive field

• For movement/location

Parvo

• sustained response (whole time stimulus present)

• Small receptive field

• Thought to be for color/pattern/size

Send to thalamus then visual cortex

Simple/complex/hypercomplex cells

Cells in the visual cortex responding to different things

Simple cells - responds to bars of light at a specific orientation, specific retinal position

Complex - responds to edges/bars of like moving in specific direction, specific area. Preferred stimulus excites, not preferred can inhibit

Hypercomples - respond to very specific shapes, corners, and gaps

Dorsal vs ventral stream

After occipital visual cortex goes to the lobes

Parietal lobe = dorsal stream - where pathways (object localization)

Temporal lobe = ventral stream - what pathway (pattern recognition and identification)

PET scan

Blood injected with tracer which emits radioactive positions visible with gamma rays, watch blood flow to see where neurons are firing related to task

Koehler et al

Used PET scans to do experiment to see where + what task locations in brain > identifying dorsal and ventral stream

Population coding

Need patterns of activation across a population of cells to recognize objects > can overlap with related objects

Template theory & problems

Comparing each pixel to the template of previous representations (eg. Matching blocks into a shape board), ventral stream

Problems:

• different orientations transform view of the stimulus

• Obstructed objects pose prob to find match

Feature theory + problems

Look at the precept by observing sets of features and matching features in memory representation, physiology, stabilized retinal images, visual search (finding something among similar stimulus) back this up

Problems:

• doesnt say how features are spatially related, how do you tell p, b, d apart

Pandemonium model

Computer model based on feature theory;

Takes precept, breaks down into feature demons, match to cognitive demons (each focused on one particular letter made up of features) » decision demon that takes in all info and sees what “shouts” the loudest because of more evidence

RBC theory

Recognition by component theory - brain has 36 grins that we break down objects into and their spatial relationships to eachother

Detects elementary features/edges, finds non-accidental properties, determines component geons, match them to memory

Evidence of RBC theory

• partial or degraded objects make it hard to determine object, especially if non-accidental properties are deleted

• Object complexity - people faster at recognizing complex objects than simple ones because more geons are matching up

• Unusual orientation makes much harder to recognize object because may obscure non-accidental properties

Problems with RBC theory

• facial recognition - very similar structural description so under this theory we should suck at recognizing faces

• Lacking in solid brain evidence

• Context effects - concern for all theories, knowledge, expectations, and context play no role (purely bottom up)

Signal detection

Frequently encountered tasks where you’re trying to detect particular signal (eg. Papi searching for a tumor); expecting the signal impacts processing

Bias - effects the threshold of detection in the direction of your bias

Signal vs noise

Signal - something in environment you are trying to detect particular

Noise - things in an environment other than the signal

Sensitivity

How easy it is to discriminate the signal from the noise (how different is signal from noise to thee INDIVIDUAL) > sensitivity is not changed by bias, criteria is

Signal detection matrix

Stimulus present / response yes - HIT

Stimulus present / response no - MISS

Stimulus absent / response yes - FALSE ALARM

Stimulus absent / response no - CORRECT REJECTION

Context effects

When a perception of object is affected by the context it’s seen in eg.

Subjective contours - neurons responding to contours/edges that aren’t actually there because of the context

Word superiority effect (Reicher)

Easier to identify letters in context of words instead of in isolation

• superior at letter recognition when they are in words

• Higher level (words) affects perception of lower level (letters)

Interactive Activation Model

3 layers of neurons each with a receptive field, as you go up in layers the neurons are more complex > eventually up to word sets

Brain makes connections bottom up (letter to word) and top down (word to line) simultaneously > features excite or inhibit their matches or mismatches

More activation overall of letter which aligns best with most neurons, most activation causes better recognition » aligns with theory of word superiority model

Patient AH

Impairment in localizing objects from vision, but vision normal otherwise, specifically right left and up down localization, can still identify objects (dorsal unharmed, ventral harmed)

Congenital, sometimes based on objects (eg. Transient versus sustained system)

Stroop Task

Shows interference task effect on attention > when you’re well adjusted to a task (eg. Readings) you cant help but do it

Dichotic listening and shadow

2 messages, one in each ear, try to repeat back ONE

What factors effect basis for selective attention

• location - choose to listen to sound from specific loco)

• Physical characteristics (listen to higher or lower voice eg)

• Can’t do it based on meaning

Early filtering theory

Attenuation theory

Late filtering theory

Overt vs covert attention

Overt shifts of attention - eye movements

Covert shifts of attention - hidden shift of focus

Poster task

Shows covert vs overt attention shifts - special queueing, arrow points to side of rectangle focus on fixation cross when flashes on the side hit asap

Able to shift attention to stimulus without moving eyes hence covert shifts

Feature integration theory

When perceive stimuli do so by breaking into different features > creates visual field map for particular features

Integrate all feature maps at place you are paying attention to

Easier to dins something based on one feature, regardless of amount but harder to find something that is a conjunction of features

Visiospatial neglect

Typically right hemisphere parietal damage that leads to this, inability to process things on one side AND memory images of something missing side as well

Events in world neglected and mental image - consciousness problem not sensory

Symptoms: reading only one side/write only one side, attention deficit not perception deficit

Disengage deficit theory

Theory of visuospatial neglect

Difficulty disengaging attention from other side

Unbalanced competition theory

Theory of visuospatial neglect Difficulty disengaging

Hemispheres inhibit/compete but when one is damaged the other always wins focus on the preferred side

Depictive vs propositional codes

Propositional - propositions/claims about the world, language like, very powerful, include synactic parts

Depictive - a picture like representation, doesnt have expressive power of propositional/cant be abstract, no syntactic parts; all related directly to representation

Interference effects

If visualizing something and taking in visual input at the same time, if they interfere then they must share a mental system, something must be being shared with auditory input/visual input

This wouldnt make sense if imagery codes were propositional

Image scanning

We can scan visual imagery like we can scan actual visual input - suggests Depictive (some argue demand characteristics but purposefully reran and found same results)

Image zooming

Possible to zoom in to visual images, supports Depictive coding

Mental rotation

Possible to rotate visual imagery, 2D and 3D > much easier to explain via Depictive coding

Compromise theory

1. Basic code is propositional (for long term storage)

2. Propositional code used to create Depictive image

3. Depictive image can be scanned, zoomed, etc

Using bottom up processes (down into lobe) and top down (back up)

Using top down pathways to generate images, manipulate them, and build depiction in visual context

Brain damage on motor projection area (where we contrast images) > deficit

Good visual memory exceptions

Visual memory a lot larger than word memory

Visual memory is poor for: unimportant/unattended details, stimuli lacking meaning, when foils are similar

Richer code Hypothesis and problems

Visual code has more information/detail so memory is better

BUT comparing photo, simplified line drawing, more simplified line drawing, and words 7 days later found » all better than words but NO difference between visual conditions - hypothesis must be incorrect

Dual code hypothesis

Concrete words - can have verbal and visual code (eg. Apple, car, desk)

Are remembered better than abstract words - can only have verbal code (eg. Peace, virtue)

Because the double coding strengthens the memory and the details

• explains bad for unattended details (not making both codes) and when foils are similar (not using verbal to distinguish)

Cognitive maps (Tolman)

1930 experiment with rats where they had to form a visual representation of their surroundings in their mind to move about it efficiently and get their reward - had to learn spatial layout not just turn sequence so they can take shortcuts

Can be used for distance estimation and direction judgement BUT sometimes flawed because we use heuristics

Symmetry heuristic

Shapes are represented as more symmetrical than they are

Right angle bias

We tend to see angles in our representations as 90 degree angles, even when not true

Rotation heuristic

Tilted figures are remembered as more vertical or horizontal than they are, we tend to rotate them in our minds

Relative-position heuristic

People use conceptual knowledge to represent relative positions e.g. Canada is above the USA

Subjective clusters

Conceptual knowledge effects representations of difference, estimated distances between similar landmarks (eg. Restaurants) are smaller than between dissimilar landmarks

Lateralization of function

Left brain - language, verbal, symbolic (propositional)

Right brain: Visuospatial, analog (Depictive)

Declarative vs procedural knowledge

Declarative - something you can say you know

Procedural - something you show you know based on your actions/skills