Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Selective Attention |
Leads our experience Influenced by One stimuli vs another |
|
|
Systems of attention |
Endogenous Exogenous |
|
|
Endogenous |
Goal driven - top down (internal from brain) Based on what we have chosen to attend to Active Selective attention |
|
|
Exogenous |
Stimulus driven - bottom up (external from enviroment)
An alarm or loud bang that grabs attention Passive but can bring about selective attention |
|
|
Cherry (1953) Cocktail party phenomenon |
Possible to focus on one speaker in a distracting environment where several people are speaking |
|
|
Broadbent (1958) |
Interested in problems of radar operators Multiple pilot voices on one radio channel How is there a focus on one voice Filter theory of attention |
|
|
Cherry and Broadbent overall findings |
Discrimination for attention (stimuli discrimination) based on sound stimuli physical properties, such as -Pitch of voice -Loudness -Direction |
|
|
Broadbent experiment |
Dichotomous stimuli presentation Participant tasked with focusing on one message and ignoring the other Often requeired to repeat shadow (focused on) message Post message retrospective (surprise) questions relating to non shadowed message |
|
|
Broadbent experiment findings |
Little recall of message played to the non shadowed ear Strong physical properties of message noted but not change in language No meaning extracted, change in subjects not noticed |
|
|
Broadbent filter theory model |
Early-position filter model of attention Analogy between attention limits and limits of central processing of computer Two staged model Initial extraction of physical properties (all incoming stimuli) all together - parallel processing Complex processing one at a time - serial processing |
|
|
Information flow diagram |
Auditory stimuli enters a short term sensory store. Selective filter allows one of the stimuli based on physical characteristics to move into limited capacity channel and onto further analysis |
|
|
Usefulness of Broadbent's model |
Explains cocktail part phenomenom Two stage model with pre-attentive parallel processing followed by focused serial processing is still influential today |
|
|
Problems with Broadbent's model |
Too simplistic Retrospective questioning used in shadowing critiqued as may be due to memory decay rather than non processing Can't be sure participant is exclusively attending to channel you've asked |
|
|
Non supportive research of Broadbent's model |
Underwood (1974) reports naive subjects only detect 8% of target digits in non shadowed message but Neville Moray a practiced shadower detects 67%. Lack of processing could be due to processing focused on the task. Wood and Cowan (1995) found 34.6% of subjects recall hearing their own name on unattended channel. Suggests semantic analysis on both channels that contradicts filter theory. |
|
|
Gray and Wedderburn (1960) |
Very problematic for Broadbent's Filter theory Dichotic presentation of words (press to show words arriving) stimuli recalled on basis of meaning not by ear of arrival. All words processed across physical channels |
|
|
Alternative methodology |
Overcome memory decay for non shadowed message issue by using indirect measures to test for processing. Physiological or behavioral responses used |
|
|
Physiological evidence for Filter Model |
Von Wright, Anderson and Stenman (1975) One channel shadowed whilst list of words played on both, when 'suitable' in Finnish heard on unattended channel, electric shock administered Second stage, same list played with no electric shocks. When Suitable in Finnish heard, galvanic skin response occurred indicating implicit awareness/learning |
|
|
Behavioral Evidence for filter model |
Word Fare/fair presented on attended channel and the word taxi presented in unattended channel. Participants asked to spell word. Rather than spelling FAIR, significantly more people spelt FARE. Processed in terms of meaning, non attended channel is analysed. |
|
|
Attenuated Filter Theory Treisman (1960) |
Hierarchical process of stimulus analysis, unattended information analysis attenuated Bottom - physical based cues =easy Top - Meaning based cues = hard Exceptions for meaningful words Explains Wood and Cowan (1995) |
|
|
Late selection theory Deutsch and Deutsch (1963) |
A late filter model - selection at output All incoming stimuli = fully analysed Selection takes place at point of responding (late) rather than at earlier perceptual level. Equal parallel processing of all incoming stimuli |
|
|
Selection at perception or response? |
Tap when target letter heard in either attended or unattended channel (Treisman and Greffen 1967) Attenuation prediction - fewer target letters responded to in non shadowed message Late selection prediction - no difference Attenuation supported |
|
|
Evident Related Potentials Coch, Sanders & Neville (2005) |
ERP's record brain activity in response to stimuli. ERP's larger for probes presented on attended channel supporting Attenuated filter model |
|
|
Working Memory |
Actively maintains goal focused attention Holds info useful to task completion (adding numbers) Limited capacity and differs Differences theorized to influence processing of auditory info |
|
|
Measure of working memory Conway et al 2001 |
Operation Span - words to remember with words being presented after a simple maths problem with the answer given. Participants decide if maths solution is right or wrong. Length of series varied and their span measure based on on length of series remembered correctly. |
|
|
Working memory and Filter theory |
Top and bottom 25% of WM in sample tested on how well the shadow a message, own name present in non shadowed channel. High WM better able to focus on shadowed channel compared to Low WM. High WM detect name in non shadowed channel less. |
