UCSD - PSYC 3 Final

Aphasia

A condition in which language functions are severely impaired.

Expressive Aphasia

The inability to produce language (despite being able to understand language)

A person with expressive aphasia will exhibit effortful speech

Speech generally includes important content words, but leaves out function words that have only grammatical significance and not real-world meaning, such as prepositions and articles.

Semantic aspect of language is okay, but have trouble with syntax

TIP TO REMEMBER: The name was to do with what the person with this condition has a hard time doing

- Therefore, a patient with expressive aphasia has difficulty expressing him/herself with words

Receptive Aphasia

Inability to understand spoken or written words

Demonstrate fluent speech, which is characterized by typical speech rate, intact syntactic abilities, and effortless speech output

Produce a large amount of speech without much meaning

Syntax is okay, but semantic is compromised (hard time making sense themselves, and understanding meaning on the speech of others)

TIP TO REMEMBER: The name was to do with what the person with this condition has a hard time doing

Receptive aphasia patient has a hard time receiving messages properly

Word Frequency Effect

We respond more rapidly to high frequency words (ex: book, banana) than to low frequency words (ex: plunging, dwarf)

Lexicon

All the words you know

Rayner & Duffy (1986)

EXPERIMENT:

Participants were given list of sentences with high frequency words and sentences with low frequency words

RESULTS:

Significantly longer eye-fixation on low frequency words, than in high frequency words

- Takes longer to access the meaning of low frequency words

- Slower reading

CONCLUSION:

Personal past experiences with words, influences our ability to access their meaning

Demonstrates word frequency effect!!!

Instructional Approaches to building Vocabulary

Immersion: Place children in environment rich with words

Drawback --> You might learns words wrong, or might just not know what it means

Direct Instruction: Vocabulary test

Drawback --> So slow

Brabham et. Al (2002)

Reading aloud to kids

Group 1: Teacher reads story → Students learn 1 to 2 new words

Group 2: Teacher conducts discussions before and after story → Students learn 3 to 4 new words

Group 3: Interactive (discussion throughout the story) → Students learn 5 new words

Immersion works → Works even better with interaction and context

Parsing

Grouping of words into phrases

Garden Path Sequence

Way to study how people parse sentences

Sentence that misleads you

Seems to mean one thing in the beginning, but ends up meaning another → Temporary ambiguity

Ex: After the musician played the piano left stage

Seems like is going to be a sentence about the musician but is actually about the piano

Garden Path Model of Parsing

Sentences are parsed on rules of syntax first

Semantic factors can cause re-analysis at a later stage

Ex: The dog attentively reads Dr. Seuss's book

- Although the syntax is undoubtedly correct, this phrase has semantic conflicts --> Dogs don't read

Late closure

In parsing, when a person encounters a new word, the parser assumes that this word is part of the current phrase.

We try to keep the length of the phrase as long as possible by trying to make every new word that we read make sense within the meaning of the phrase we already constructed so far

EX:

After the musician played the piano left the stage

- we initially read it as "After the musician played the piano" because until then, it makes syntax sense

- Then we realize that it starts making no syntax sense after the word "piano" if we keep on adding the new words to the pre-existing phrase, so we divide the phrase into two

Constraint-based model of parsing

People use multiple facets of prior knowledge to make predictions about how a sentence should be parsed

Includes syntax, meaning, prior knowledge about sentence construction etc

EX: The spy saw the man with the binocular → Ambiguous sentence

The bird saw the man with the binocular → Not ambiguous anymore

- Meaning of words affects the ambiguity of sentences

- Takes longer to read sentence structures that are uncommon

Slip procedure (Motley & Baars, 1976)

Speech error elicitation technique

EX:

(Read silently): dead bug, dog bone, dust bell, doll bed

(Read aloud): barn door

Error --> Barn door, darn bore

Regularities in "Slip of The Tongue"

GRAMMATICALITY EFFECT:

Errors often occur within the same grammatical class

- We substitute the right noun, for a wrong noun, or a right verb for a right verb --> Never a noun for a verb

Ex of Error: I am stuttering psychology

I am studying psychology

CONSONANT-VOWEL RULE:

Errors often occur within a same phonological class

- We erroneously substitute vowels for vowels, or consonants for consonants --> Never a vowel for a consonant

EX of Error: Rule of rum

Rule of thumb

LEXICAL BIAS EFFECT:

Errors that include real words are more likely to occur than errors with non-words

EX: Nice dot instead of nice dog --> More likely to occur than --> Nice jot instead of nice dog

Speech Errors

Can help us infer what the building blocks in different stages of language production are

Language Production Model (Levelt, 1989)

Message: Conceptual information

Lexicon: Your mental dictionary

- Contains grammatical (gender, number etc) and word form information (phonological info)

Functional Processing: Role assignment

Positional Processing: Which slot is it going into in the sentence

Articulation: Actual output (speech)

Tip of The Tongue Phenomenon

The temporary inability to remember the name of something you know, accompanied by partial recall and a feeling that retrieval is imminent

Ex: Negocio de moer pimenta - famoso pilão

Structural Priming

Exposure to one structure increases the likelihood of production of that same structure again (even when there are simple alternatives) even when semantic content changes

EX: The boy gives a present to the girl

The teaches shows the map to the student

- Sentence frames can be planned independently of words

Self-Monitoring

- Speech errors are very rare

- Although our production system might be very accurate, there must be some monitoring mechanism that helps us detect and prevent errors before they occur

EVIDENCE:

TABOO CONDITION: We are much less likely to make a mistake that makes up a taboo word

- Indicates that we have at least some self-monitoring before articulation

Statistical Learning

- We start learning about speech sounds (prosody) even before birth

- Infants (7-month-olds) are able to extract abstract rules from limited input

DeCasper & Spence (1986)

- Evidence for Statistical Learning

Experiment:

Pregnant women read aloud a short story everyday for the

final 6 weeks of pregnancy.

Result:

- Babies preferred the story that they were exposed to in the womb (measured by the sucking on pacifier), even when the story is told by someone other than their mother.

Habituation Paradigms

- Babies attend to novel (new, unfamiliar) things

- Eventually, they get bored by repetition

- If they suddenly regain interest, they identified

something new has occurred

EX: ABA stimuli

ga ti ga

li na li

ga ti ga

li na li

(Baby is interested for a while, until it gets familiar and boring)

ba du ba

( Baby still uninterested because stimuli still follows a same, know, structure that already became boring)

wo fe fe

(Baby is interested again once now the stimuli is not ABA but ABB patterned)

Critical Period Hypothesis

Hypothesis --> Ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age (There is a critical period for the acquisition of language)

- There is an ideal period for language acquisition (first few years of life) and if language is not acquired during this period, it is basically impossible/extremely hard to be acquired at all

Evidence: Feral children (Ex: Children)

Resguardas:

Vocabulary, articulation and pragmatics --> Can be improved through practice regardless of age

Grammar --> Is what separates human language from animal communication --> Seems to be impossible to acquire after the critical period

Problem Solving

Cognitive processing aimed at achieving a goal when the solution is not immediately obvious

Types of Problem Solving (Gestalt Psychologists)

Reproductive Problem Solving: Using past strategies → Ex: Algebra problems (you follow a rule and it gets you to the solution)

Productive Problem Solving: No access to prior strategy → This is where insight occurs → Ex: Lily pad problem

Insight

When you move from not knowing the solution to a problem to, all of a sudden, knowing how to solve it

- Occurs by a processed called RESTRUCTURING

Restructuring

Process of changing how you understand, or mentally represent a problem

- Aids in the process of finding a solution

Behaviorists Approach on Insight Problem Solving

Insight problems are solved through trial and error's accidental success

Transfer and Problem solving

TRANSFER --> Ability to use prior knowledge to solve a new problem

2 types of transfer:

POSITIVE: When prior knowledge aids the process of finding a solution to the new problem

NEGATIVE: When prior knowledge makes the process of getting to a solution even harder

Functional Fixedness

The tendency to perceive the functions of objects as fixed → Mindbug that constricts our thinking

We tend to think of objects as only in terms of their normal, typical or "fixed" functions

Ex: We don't think about using a matchbox as a candleholder because matchboxes typically hold matches, not candles

Metcalfe et al (1986)

EXPERIMENT:

2 groups of participants:

- Group 1 is given insight problems

- Group 2 is given non-insight problems

Asked -> "How close are you to solving?" to both

RESULTS:

Non insight group (2) : Strong correlation between prediction and progress

Insight Group (1) : Weak correlation, non-gradual progress

CONCLUSION:

Solution to insight problems seems to occur suddenly

Luchins (1942)

Used the water jug problem to study the effect of mental sets on problem solving

EXPERIMENT:

21 cup jug

121 cup jug

3 cup jug

How do you get 100 cups?

2 groups:

Group 1) Were given 6 problems with some solving procedure and then were given the water jug problem

Group2) Straight to the water jug problem

CONCLUSION:

Pre-conceptions about solution procedure influence problem solving

Problem Solving by Analogy

Solving new problems by applying the same solution procedures from problems that you already know how to solve

Duncker (1945)

EXPERIMENT:

Candle problem --> Participant had to find a way for the wax of the candle not to drop on the floor --> Were given matches, candle and a box filled with tacks

Solution: Pin the box to the wall, place the candle inside the box

2 ways to present a problem:

Pre-utilization → Show the tacks in the box

No pre-utilization → Show tacks outside of the empty box → Twice as likely to get to the solution

Why is it a hard solution to think of? --> We see the tack box strictly by the eyes of the function it has at that moment (to store the tacks) --> Functional Fixedness --> However, when the tacks are presented to the participants outside of their box, it is way easier to visualize that they can exercise a different function

EVIDENCE FOR FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS

Procedures in Analogical Problem Solving

3 procedures

Base Problem

Method Principle

Target Problem

Gick and Holyoak (1980)

EXPERIMENT:

- Tumor problem

Too strong of a ray --> Destroys tumor but also destroys healthy tissue around it

Too weak of a ray --> Doesn't destroy healthy tissue, but doesn't destroy the tumor either

How do we save the patient?

3 groups:

Group 1) Read the tumor problem only --> 10% could solve

Group 2) Read fortress problem and its solution first and then move on to solve tumor problem --> 30% solving rate

Group 3 ) Were told to use fortress problem as a hint for the solving of the tumor problem --> 75% solving rate

Structural Similarity

Causal relations among some of the main components are shared by both problems

That's what we should be focusing on to successfully solve a problem

Surface Similarity

The surface details of a problem (specific elements) --> If they are similar or not between 2 different problems

Anchoring

Heuristic: When estimating a quantity or probability, people start

from an initial value (or anchor) and adjust in the desired direction

Bias: The adjustment is usually insufficient such that the final estimate

is too close to the initial value

Representativeness Heuristic

A mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case (prior knowledge)

Bias: Conjunction fallacy --> Neglect of sample size; neglect of base rates; misconceptions of chance

Example: Linda is a bank teller vs. Linda is a bank teller and an active member of the feminist movement

Conjunction Fallacy

Mindbug that make people think that the probabilities of A and B happening together can be bigger than A or B --> WRONG

The fallacy is that with more and more pieces of information, people think there is a higher probability that all are true

The combined probability of two events is always less than the independent probability of each event → It's always more probable that any one state of affairs is true than is a set of events simultaneously

EX: Maria is a very feminine girl. Since she was little her favorite color was always pink. Her favorite type of clothes are dresses and skirts. Which state of affairs is more probable?

Maria's favorite pattern is pled

Maria's favorite pattern is floral and stripes

We might be more inclined to choose (2) once, from the information that we received before the question, we think we know many things about Maria that might make it more probable for her to like floral patterns, for example. However, if we had to choose, the most probable answer, it would be (1) since the independent probability of Maria's favorite pattern being pled is greater than the combined probability of her favorite patterns being both floral and stripes

Availability Heuristic

Mindbug in which the items that are more readily available in memory are judged as having occurred more frequently

- Affects our estimates because memory strength and frequency of occurrence are directly related

- Frequently occurring items are remembered more easily than infrequently occurring items, so you naturally conclude that items for which you have better memory also have been more frequent → That's not always the case → Better memory is not due to bigger frequency but to greater familiarity

Confirmation Bias

When seeking out for information from the world, we have a tendency to seek for information that confirm our beliefs

It is common to seek things that are already agreeing with your opinions and bias

We develop hypothesis only to confirm, not disconfirm our beliefs

Wason Selection Task (1960)

EXPERIMENT:

Cards:

A K 2 7

Rule: If there is an A on one side, then there is a 2 on the other side

Participants were asked which cards they need to flip to check this rule

Most participant: Choose A and 2 (WRONG technique) --> Due to confirmation bias's tendency to seek for info that confirms our belief (which in this case is the rule)

Only a small percentage: Chooses A and 7 (or the same type of idea)

Falsification Principle

To test a rule, it is necessary to look for situations that would falsify the rule

Decision Making Process

Process of choosing between alternatives

Expected utility theory

The idea that people are basically rational, so if they have all of the relevant information, they will make a decision that maximizes gains and minimizes losses

Framing Effects

The way you frame a problem affects decision making

Tvesky and Kahneman (1981)

EXPERIMENT:

Participants had to choose between:

A. 200 people die

B. 1/3 change that 600 people will be saved

Result:

72% chooses A, risk averse option

-------------------------------------------------

Part 2:

C. 400 dies

D. 1/3 no one dies, 2/3 chance that everybody dies

Results:

78% chooses D, risk taking strategy

WHAT CHANGED?

All 4 options are mathematically equivalent

Difference between first 2 options and the last 2 options: Language use (framing effect)

Option A and B --> Framed in terms of gains

Options C and D --> Framed in terms of losses

When problems are framed in terms of gains --> We are averse to risk

When problems are framed in terms of losses --> We are most prone to take risks (because it means that there is some chance of minimizing the loss)

Expected utility theory doesn't explain those results --> Once all are the same, we should just choose at random, but that's not the case

Choice presentation effect

The way you present choices affects decisions

Status Quo Bias

People have a tendency to do nothing when faced with a decision

When a choice involves either having to do something or not having to do anything, you will likely choose the option in which you don't have to do anything

Ex: Organ donors --> Default is that you're not an organ donor, if you want to become one, you just need to tick a box, very simple, but yet people don't do it

Opt in is default (U.S) --> Low rates of organ donation

Opt out is default (France and Belgium) --> High rates of organ donation

Opt In .vs. Opt Out Procedures

Case of organ donations (representative of other cases too):

Opt in is default (U.S):

- Means that if you want to become an organ donor, you need to opt in

- Low rates of organ donation

Opt out is default (France and Belgium) :

- Means that being an organ donor is a default and if you don't want to be an organ donor, you need to opt out

- High rates of organ donation