PSYC2050 Quiz 2

Attentional Capture - Endogenous

voluntary, goal directed, top down control e.g. cocktail party effect, asked to look for your friend in a red hat at 7:15pm

Attentional Capture - Exogenous

automatic, stimulus driven, bottom up control e.g. attention captured when you hear a loud bang to the left of you and so you turn to look

Inattentional Blindness

when people focus their attention, they often miss other elements of a scene in plain sight

Change Blindness

changes in a scene are missed because they occur alongside a brief visual disruption (image flicker, eye blink, obscured by passing objects)

What causes a stimulus to capture attention?

Sudden onset,
intense
unexpected in the context
stimuli that share features with targets

Selective Attention

the more similar distractors are, the harder it is to discern between the two e.g. stroop task

Divided Attention

shows attentional limitations

increase tasks = harder to divide attention

tasks further apart in time = easier to complete

tasks close in time = harder to complete

e.g. cooking dinner while watching TV

uses dual tasking to study this effect (manipulate priority of task and temporal over lap)

Sustaining Attention

need to maintain attention in many tasks e.g. listening to a lecture, following a movie plot

Shifting Attention

must be flexible to shift attention when required e.g. looking after several children at a park

Balints Syndrome

simultanagnosia: bilateral occipital/parietal lobe damage prevents P's from perceiving more than 1 stimulus @ a time (grouping stimuli helps this)

Balints Syndrome Study

show red dots = red dots
show green dots = green dots
show red & green = will only report one colour
drawing a line between the dots the P will report both as it makes it one object (attention spreads across the object and is devoted to the whole object not just location space)

Strategic View

Neumann/Allport

limitations are byproducts of the need to coordinate action and ensure the correct stimulus info is controlling intended responses

Neumann: avoid behavioural chaos → focus on 1 thing to avoid interaction between multiple objects

What is not a key function of attention?

Forgetting

Covert

attend to location without physically moving attention (e.g. don't move body/eyes to stimuli, cocktail party effect - attend to name)

Overt

attend to location by physically directing attention (e.g. move body/eyes to stimuli)

Dichotic Listening - Unattended Message

Cherry 1950's

participants hear a different message in each ear concurrently through headphones

asked to attend to one message (right ear) and shadow it (repeat it aloud)

can report physical features (gender, pitch, tone of voice)

cannot report meaning of message

Meaning of unattended message

cannot pick up on language or meaning, P's can report their own names (Moray, 1959)

Broadbents Filter Theory

perceptual features (voice) used to filter out irrelevant message

can pick up on voice but nothing else, early selection
structural model: filter stops info flow through the system

Mackay 1973

River Bank, Money Bank

attended msg had a homograph (word spelt the same)

unattended msg had river or money

P's had to choose sentences closest in meaning to those in attended msg

P's were more likely to choose river meaning if river had occurred in unattended

P's must have processed the meaning of river even thought the couldn't say they had heard it

Late Selection

Deutsch & Deutsch

unattended material is processed all the way to meaning access before being discarded

Treisman & Geffen

early vs late theories

P's tap button when target word is heard in shadowed or unattended msg

target detection = 87% (attended ear) vs. 8% (unattended ear) suggests early selection

Perceptual Load

nature of central task determines early or late selection

increase perceptual load = more attentional control

low load = bigger difference → late selection

high load = process distractors less → early selection

key manipulation: distractor matches, neutral (P) or is incompatible → fastest response when it matches

Working Memory Load

Opposite to perceptual load

increases WM load = less attentional control

low load = less distractor processing

high load = more distractor processing

Broadbents filter theory is ...

structural and predicts early selection

Processing capacity

Kahneman 1973

limitations on processing rather than structure

attention = process of allocating resources to inputs

no. of concurrent tasks that can be performed depends on difficulty = resource demands

if one can't perform 2 tasks at once = one task must be delayed

Visual Search - Feature Search

aka pop out

parallel

target shows pop out (item by item search not required)

e.g. find red circle in sea of green circle

search = faster and not effected by set size

Visual Search - Conjunction Search

vary number of background items (set size)

target present 50% of trial

serial

must focus eyes and attend to objects

e.g. finding a specific pencil in a whole pencil case, where's wally

search = slower and effected by set size

Feature Integration Theory

automatic processing of stimulus into elementary features

individual feature maps give the location of specific features and project onto a single location map

attention required to bind features into an object

Preattentive

features
parallel (efficient = more distractors = doesn't matter)
pop-out
flat slope (not a large change in RT)
Used when target can be distinguished with 1 simple feature

Attentive

conjunction
serial (inefficient = check each location individually)
no pop-out (more distractors = harder search)
steep slope (large change in RT)
requires conscious control of attention
requires awareness (intention to search)
similar features shared among other distractors

Limitations of FIT

features don't always pop out

conjunctions can lead to flat search slopes

Duncan & Humphreys → 2 factors neglected by FIT had large effects on RT's (similarity of T's and D's, heterogeneity of distractors (search is easier when d's are similar to each other)

RSVP

Rapid Serial Visual Presentation

one location, time pressured

words/digits/letters displayed in a single location one after the other @ a rapid rate (100ms per item)

conceptual processing

AB in RSVP

extends to approx T1 + 6

not typically observed for T1 + 1 item (T1 and T2 processed as one event when T2 occurs immediately after T1)

AB found when T1 and T2 are defined in the same way (2 digits) or differently ( red letter vs digit)

reflects demands of selecting an identifying T1

AB occurs when P's have to detect but not report identity of T1

Factors that influence AB

1. whether item precede or follow T1 and T2

2. T2 is extremely brief

3. T1 easier to identify = reduces AB

4. T1 difficulty = bigger AB

Task Set

preparation to perform one task rather than another

involves selecting, linking enabling modules for task components (e.g. perception, response selection)

Henry Ford's Highland Park Michigan Plant

switch cost example

moving assembly line

interchangeable parts

workers placed @ specific locations in line

Task Switching Paradigm

Arthur T. Jersild (1927)

block of trials with a repeated task, block of trial where two tasks alternate → latter takes longer

typical: AABB, AAABBB etc.

observable switch cost of up to several hundred ms when the task changes even if changes are regular

Rogers & Monsell AABB Paradigm

stimuli → digit-letter pair (G7, B2)

A Digit task → right button for odd, left for even

B Letter task → right for vowel, left for consonant

stimulus appears in one of 4 boxes, perform letter task for top boxes, digit for lower

similar performance for both tasks

large switch cost but improvement on day 2

Practice Effects

costs = reduced, but not eliminated with practice of separate tasks and switching tasks

Task Difficulty Effects

switching to easy task = greater cost as difficult task requires effort so it is harder to disengage from

e.g. colour naming to word name (Stroop task)

switching to hard task = less cost

Task Cuing Paradigm

Meiran (1996)

short cue-to-stimulus interval = large cost even if long delay from last trial

suggests active prep, not just decay effects

involves both disengaging from prior task and engaging in new task

Can adequate prep remove switch cost?

no, there is always a residual cost

Residual Costs

exogenous effect

stimulus driven

can't make decisions for next task until stimulus has been presented and identified (e.g. messi)

Describe a finding that talks about endogenous component of task switching

prep time - Meiran found prep is required

e.g. "I will quiz you on working memory" → can think about WM and prep but cannot respond until you see the questions

What is evidence of exogenous processing and task switching?

prep time never removes entire switch cost, always residual costs due to partly being stimulus driven

e.g. button pressing task - Rogers & Monsell AABB Paradigm

Response Congruity

Rogers & Monsell

small effect on RT

incongruent responses (vowel + even buttons) are slower than congruent (vowel + odd buttons)

cuing reduces switch cost but doesn't eliminate

Disengagement Theory

proactive interference from task set inertia

not valid = existing evidence for active prep

Endogenous + Exogenous Factors

dominant theory

Rogers & Monsell

endogenous component requires time → switch cost reduced as prep time increases

residual costs can't be removed with prep due to exogenous component that must be triggered by arrival of suitable stimulus

Endogenous Only Theory

de Jong (2000)

The residual cost arises because Ps do not prepare adequately on every trial.

Endogenous

= prep

Exogenous

= response

Kahnemans Capacity Theory

over-learned tasks become autmatic and consumer fewer resources

Substantial practice

1. improves performance
2. reduces task effort
3. facilitates re-structuring and co-ordination of concurrent tasks

Shiffrin and Schneider (1977)

Task: given memory set (letters) and had to report if seen (1 or 0 targets)

Key variables: size of memory set (2 vs. 4 → short term memory), relationship between memory set and display items

Categorical: targets from separate sets e.g. J,K were ALWAYS targets

Mixed: J,K could be targets OR distractors in different trials

Categorical results: detection accuracy, search became automatic (no difference between 2 and 4 items therefore no WM effect), P's learn targets and respond as soon as they see one

Mixed Results: two lines never come together, always a cost of having a larger memory set = no automaticity

Automaticity Characteristics

1. without awareness

2. without conscious deliberation

3. without expenditure of resources

4. fast

5. rigid/habitual

e.g. stroop task = autmaticity

Theories of Automaticity

Logan (1988)

automaticity = memory retrieval

based on knowledge acquisition → not all or none

separate memory traces for each encounter w a stimulus e.g. kicking a soccer ball, playing an instrument

practice = info storage about stimulus and how to respond → more exposure = better response

more exposure = faster retrieval

in absence of practice, thought and application of rules is required = costs

Automaticity Cautions

many auto processes don't meet all criteria

well practice tasks that can be performed unconsciously can be effected by task load

What is an example of a task that doesn't meet the criteria for an automatic task?

Scene Processing: flash a scene and then mask it → people can recall scene accurately and extract meaning BUT provide them with high WM load, scene processing decreases

Awareness

can have a lack of awareness in intentional tasks

awareness about routine task but not aware of intention → wrong turn

level of control is important → automatic performance can be reduced with additional demands

e.g. best football player, but if ball is kicked fast enough you may have trouble with it as demands have impacted performance

Working Memory

active maintenance of information in short-term storage

attention and memory meet

domain of conscious thought

involved in: making decisions and initiating actions in response to environmental input, directing attentions (e.g. remembering and manipulating numbers)

Theories of WM

Alan Baddeley

limited capacity (millers number 7)

material disappears/ is replaced after a few seconds if not rehearsed

WM and LTM interplay

someone tells you they left a present for you on the kitchen table

use LTM to think about house layout

use WM/STM to know there is something new there

Central Executive

co-ordinates sub systems that store info (Phonological loop, VS Sketchpad, Episodic Buffer)

Key Features: no storage capacity, responsible for switching attention, control of encoding and retrieval strategies

random number/letter generation → higher working load = less random number generation

Phonological Loop

maintains verbal and sequential info in sound based code

verbal store → inner ear

subvocal articulatory rehearsal process → inner voice

info decays after 2s unless maintained

Phonological Loop Key Effects

1. Phonological similarity effects
2. Irrelevant (unattended) speech effect
3. Word length effect
4. Concurrent articulation effect

Memory

the preservation of experience including sensations, emotions, thoughts and beliefs

actionable preservation

need to be able to store AND retrieve in a manner so that we can act on it

Semantic Memories

not contextual
abstract
non-autobiographical

e.g. "What is a Giraffe?"

Episodic Memories

context-sensitive
personal
autobiographical

e.g."Did you see a Giraffe @ the zoo last week?"
e.g. "Did Giraffe appear in the list of words i gave you earlier?"

Memory - Movie Example

Semantic: identify objects, interpret speech, recognise situations

Episodic: remember plot, prior actions of characters

Workable Memory System

access past experiences

filing system to access relevant info

forget memories that no longer apply e.g. where did i park the car today vs. last week

Human Memory Characteristics

1. organised by experience and significance

2. slower memory access

3. part of an experience is stored according to personal relevance

4. info is re-interpreted or distorted over time and retrieval

5. generalisation and composite memories (interference)

6. source info may be lost

STM/WM vs. LTM

STM/WM: reflected ideas about cognitive workspace, used for current actions → lasts several seconds or more

LTM: info in a more permanent store, must be retrieved for use

Serial Position Curve

Who: Murdock 1962

Task: free recall test of 10-30 words, memory accuracy dependent on the position a word occurred in the list

best = items beginning or end

worst = items in middle

increase WM load→ recency effect = eliminated, primacy effect = remains.

Primacy Effect

tendency to remember info at the beginning → transfer to LTM

Recency Effect

tendency to remember info at the end → still fresh in STM/WM

Short Term Memory

low capacity (max. capacity = 4 items (Cowan, 2000)

forgetting due to decay and interference from later and prior items

Highly sensitive to order of item presentation

Using an example describe primacy and recency effects in the serial position curve and the memory stores that each reflect

P's presented with a list of 30 words

Primacy = good performance @ start

Recency = good performance @ end of list

Difference in memory stores this reflects is as you load up WM you no longer get a recency effect, but the primacy effect remains

Modal Model

Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)

Sensory stores: initial sensory analysis (modality specific: vision, touch and sound), high capacity, quick decay if not moved to ST store

ST Store: memory for current actions, control processes for rehearsal, coding, decision and retrieval strategies

LT Store: vast capacity, LT retention, supports ST store (identify words, objects)

Modal Model Pros. & Cons

Pros: memory behaviour behaviour is due to properties of different stores/systems, influenced most influential account of STM

Cons: should sensory systems be part of memory processes?, rehearsal isn't what gets material into LTM, more complex relationship between STM and LTM → not a simple sequential transfer of info

Recall Tasks

Free: repeat words in any order

Serial: produce words in order they were presented

Cued: cue provided for each word on list (e.g. for dingo → dog or di---?)

Recognition Tasks

more flexible and sensitive than recall tasks

can test shapes, pictures, symbols and faces

more likely to detect memories that a weaker/incomplete

interpreting accuracy = complicated → can't say if memory is good or if they just identified old words/items every time (response bias = false alarm)

Signal Detection Theory

Hit = correct word, correct list

Miss: correct words, wrong list

FA: fake word, wrong list

CR: fake word, correct list

e.g. Plateau = correct word, Train = fake word

Correct Hits = Hit rate - FA

Priming

Implicit test

LDT: name a presented word (kitchen), complete the stem ki-- with first word that comes to mind, free association: what is the first word that comes to mind when i say 'cook'?

when a recently encountered word (e.g. kitchen) is better identified = priming occurred as representation of word is more accessible in memory

Implicit Memory in Amnesia

Schacter, Tulving & Wang (1981)

P's answered MC questions, used questions were returned to pile

repeated questions were better answered but P's couldn't say they had seen them before

Results: P's unable to use contextual and source info and explicit memory lost

Forgetting Curve

steadily drops off

forgetting = systematic and lawful

Decay

loss of info from memory

increases in time = poorer memory

Jenkins & Dallenback: one group slept after memorising info (decay) and one group stayed awake (decay + interference)

Results: more forgetting in awake condition, interference = largest source of forgetting

Issue: confounded sleep isn't neutral to memory, interference and other effects @ retrieval are more important

Interference

Proactive: old info blocks new info

Retroactive: new info blocks old info

Baddeley & Hitch (1977): questioned players from 2 teams @ pub, looked at memory for details (e.g. team names) of various games of when they were played and how many games were played before/after them

Results: no decay, found interference (decay: info loss not correlated with time elapsed after game → r = .04 for game-memory with time
interference: info loss was correlated with number of games → r = .55 more games in between = poorer memory)

Recovery of False Memory

Elizabeth Loftus → misinformation effects

showed reduced memory accuracy when incorrect info given (e.g. did blue car turn left → was a green car showed)

Braun et al. 2002

asked P's to rate ads on character, false ad with Bugs Bunny @ Disney → 16% claimed to meet BB @ Disney

Levels of Processing

Orthographic (spelling) → phonological (pronunciation) → semantic (meaning)

Phonological Similarity Effect

confusion of letters or words that sound similar (e.g. B. G, V vs. Y, H, W)

control: 82% correct
similar: 9.6% correct

Irrelevant Speech Effect

speech impairs serial verbal recall of visually presented material

Word Length Effect

more difficult to remember a list of long words than a list of short words.

memory span declines w spoken duration of list items → longer to rehearse

short: 56% correct
long: 20% correct

reflected speed of subvocal rehearsal and rate of refresh of memory trace

Concurrent Articulation

individuals repeat out loud or in their head e.g. la, la, la = removes ability to rehearse info and impairs phonological processing of visual info

abolishes word length effect

phonological similarity removed by articulation with visual but NOT auditory presentation

Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad

stores visual and spatial information

visual cache: visual patterns

inner-scribe: spatially based rehearsal e.g. movement of sequences, doesn't require visual input

planning and execution of spatial tasks e.g. in sport or driving

manipulating visual images

maintaining orientations in space and directing movement

tracking changes in visual perceptual world

Name two effects that illustrate the phonological loop

Phonological similarity: similar sounding words or letters can be confusing and = worse recall
Irrelevant Speech: speech impairs serial verbal recall of visually presented material (music, non-words, Arabic and backward speech can interfere)

How do we know the phonological length effects is not due to the output of speech?

Patients with brain injuries that prevent speech output still show a phonological length effect

Switch Costs

occurs when switching between tasks (disengaging in one and engaging in another = establishing appropriate task set)

can be reduced but not eliminated (via practice or cuing)

small cost = stimuli and response are different (e.g. alternating words/number task)

big cost = stimuli and response are similar (Jersild 1927)

executive control operation

contributes to dual task performance (e.g. AB)

Intention to learn

doesn't matter or effect learning

Evidence for LOP

small size difference = better memory for words in an unexpected test