Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
210 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Eye Structure (Front to back)
|
Cornea (protective cap), Aqueous Humour, Iris, Lens (focused by ciliary muscles), Vitreous humour, Retina
|
|
|
Retina - 3 main parts
|
5 layers, fovea, optic disk = blind spot
|
|
|
Rods
|
Outside Fovea, Achromatic, Low Light, 120 million
|
|
|
Beyond Rods/Cones
|
Ganglion, Bipolar, Horizontal, Amacrine
|
|
|
Cones
|
Dense in fovea, small field, S M L, pattern coding. L/M recently evolved -> distinguish ripe fruit. Pattern Coding.
|
|
|
Centre surround antagonism
|
Contrast Perception -> fundamental currency. Difference in luminances removed -> coding efficiency.
|
|
|
Contrast illusions
|
Craik O'Brien (cornsweet illusion) = bars/cubes, which get darker/lighter at edges, look like different colours
Hermann Grid - shows centre surround (if curved, doesn't work because elongated field) |
|
|
Principle of Univariance
|
Firing can only be done up or down, but multiple factors affect it. Pattern Coding solves this -> ratio of responses to different things.
|
|
|
Adaptive Independence
|
Cells adaptation mechanisms e.g. colour, light level can be tuned independently -> afterimage/effect (i.e. negative image on blank paper, waterfall effect)
|
|
|
Pattern Coding
|
Enables extraction of different features independently adapted. Disambiguation of different features properties. Good for orientation, depth, colour, motion etc.
|
|
|
Orientation Perception from RGC -> V1
|
RGCs tuned to edges etc by lining up, V1 has many receptive fields, different layers have different orientations. All different ones in one hypercolumn (10-15 degrees difference) (shown by Hubert/Wiesel 1977). Tilt after-effect in neighbouring cells show pattern coding with inhibitory interactions between signals.
|
|
|
Spatial Frequency sensitivity
|
Early vision decomposes image. Contrast sensitivity function - highest sensitivity at approx 5 cycles per degree. Shows size of centre-surround RGC? Campbell Robson (1968) adapted them to specific freqs -> shows contrast sensitivity of surrounding ones reduced -> shows channels
|
|
|
Depth cues (10 pictorial)
|
Binocular disparity - same plane corresponding points form an ellipse =horopter. Outside Panum's area -> ellipse.
Pictorial Cues = Perspective, Height, aerial perspective (haze), motion, shadow, occlusion, assumed size, texture gradient, heuristics e.g. face=convex |
|
|
Horopter vs Panum's Area
|
Horopter = curved line where points are same distance from observer.
Panum's Area = zone around horopter where images fuse into one area. outside -> double vision |
|
|
Campbell Robson (1968) spatial freq
|
adapted them to specific freqs -> shows contrast sensitivity of surrounding ones reduced -> shows channels
|
|
|
Detecting Motion and Heuristics (x2)
|
Rechardt's flies (1969) - if input photoreceptors stim with diff delay -> seen as motion (complicated multiplication, subtraction, comparison).
Heuristics: Intertia, Rigidity of object, |
|
|
Visual Motion Adaptation
|
Adapted -> waterfall effect
|
|
|
Interocular Transfer
|
Use adaptation experiment with different adapting mechanisms e.g. to colour, motion, contrast etc. -> Before or after LGN? Adapt one eye, test other. e.g. Motion -> IOT, so late adaptation.
|
|
|
Size Constancy (2 examples)
|
No direct information, but use distance w/ image -> infer size, but Corridor Illusion (people in corridor front one looks smaller than back one), Titchener Illusion (circle surrounded by big ones looks smaller than big by small)
|
|
|
Lightness Constancy (3 examples)
|
Try to subtract illumination from picture - so left with reflectance only. Assume same reflectance in one area, so can use centre surround at edges, but also 3D interpretation:
Adelson's Checkershadow (1995) - cylinder on board White's Illusion (1979) - black and white grating and rectangles (not lat inhib), so each rectangle is part of its grating set. Gilchrist illusion (1980) - Manipulate apparent depth - changes lightness |
|
|
Shape/Colour Constancy
|
Door - despite shapes all changing as it opens -> looks same
Girl's eye's look different colour in different coloured illumination. Lotto's Cube. |
|
|
Filling In blind spot (2 examples of general filling in)
|
Definitely fill in, do represent it -> shown by
Neurons active for filling in. Ramachandran (1992) Blank spot filled in (if focus elsewhere), still filling in later -> twinkle aftereffect (if that was the effect). Also fill in edges in illusory contours. |
|
|
Visual Cortex order
|
RGC -> LGN -> V1 -> V2 ->V4->IT and V2-> V3->V5 (MT)/MST
V1= blobs for colour, interblobs for spatial freq/edges V2=Visual Surface e.g. Kunisza's illusory contours V4=Colour V5/MT=Direction MST=Motion -> Akinetopsia |
|
|
Conscious Vision
|
Not aware of most calculations just end product hence the many illusions
|
|
|
Change Blindness
|
Colour or flicker -> shows that with many different change 'transients' (colour) or none (i.e. with flicker), difficult to notice change - attentional blindness
|
|
|
Definition of attention?
Overt vs Covert |
Difficult to define, but know what it is subjectively
Covert = without eye movements. |
|
|
First Attention experiments
|
Dichotic listening (Cherry 1953) -> broadbent's filter of selective attention.
Found that name -> switch attention |
|
|
Treisman's listening experiments (1966)
|
Switch ear in dichotic listening -> suggested filter of attention
|
|
|
1975 attention experiment?
|
Von Wright -> associated shock with word -> presented in unattended ear -> GSR. Shows emotional/associational processing separate to conscious
|
|
|
neuro cells response in attention
|
Attention changes response of cells in V1
|
|
|
Different Types of Neglect and where the damage is
|
Right Temporo Parietal Junction
Unilateral Neglect - can't attend to one side at all Unilateral Extinction - can't focus on two items at once Balint Neglect - fix gaze / can't shift attention rapidly |
|
|
Posner (1980) attention
|
valid/neutral/invalid cue arrow endogenous -> showed spotlight
Exogenous -> no information |
|
|
Eriksen Eriksen (1974) attention
|
Showed one degree retinal angle - minimal size
Uses 3 letters in a row - reaction time slower if flankers, not in same category as the target i.e. incongruous. BUT flanker effect minimised if moved further i.e. spotlight excludes flankers |
|
|
FIT
|
Feature Integration Theory = attention provides glue that combines different features - mapped on to master concept of the object, including its location
Supported by visual search tasks i.e. difference between feature search (pre-FIT), and conjunction search (post-FIT) |
|
|
Visual Search tasks
|
Two levels of search: Feature search (pre-FIT) = very quick, because pops out. Feature modules can be searched in parallel.
Conjunction search -> has to search through locations serially after FIT, rather than looking in a single feature module. |
|
|
Egly (1984) attention
|
Object based selection - selects same object, rather than different object, same distance.
|
|
|
Driver Halligan (1991) attention
|
Neglect left side of object, not space
|
|
|
Mattingley et al. (1997)
|
Extinction effects lessened if object clearly one object, rather than two bits
|
|
|
Early vs Late attentional selection evidence
|
Primate single unit recordings suggest early selection based on features + conjunctions don't pop out
Late selection (object based) - some conjunctions actually do pop out e.g. colour/depth PLUS we can select numbers from letters |
|
|
Sine waves' parameters (Sound
|
Amplitude, Frequency, Phase
|
|
|
What causes harmonics with a string?
|
Split into two halves, then quarters etc. all vibrate at pitches multiples of fundamental frequency
|
|
|
What causes sound Timbre
|
Harmonics -> unique amplitude spectrum (different amplitudes of frequencies)
+ differences in Damping |
|
|
How air affects coherence of sound
|
Affects high freq more than low i.e. thunder nearby sounds like a crack, but far away sounds like a rumble (because crack has been disrupted)
|
|
|
3 chambers of fluid in cochlea
|
Scala vestibuli, scala tympani = perilymph containing
Scala media = endolymph containing |
|
|
Basilar membrane transduction of sound
|
high freq at base (stiffer). moves organ of corti. tip links open, K+ in -> depolarises -> glutamatergic input
|
|
|
Functions of the MEM
|
Antimasking - low freq
Impedence Matching - air to liquid Loud sound protection - e.g. from voice |
|
|
Fourier decomposition
|
complex sound wave expressed as a sum of sines where sine waves are the alphabet -> more complex language
|
|
|
Amplitude vs Phase spectra
|
Amplitude spectrum = amplitude vs freq
Phase spectrum = phase vs freq (less useful) |
|
|
What are square waves in terms of sine waves
|
Infinite odd harmonics sine waves with that decrease exponentially
|
|
|
What is white noise in terms of sine waves
|
All frequencies at the same amplitude
|
|
|
What is a click in terms of sine waves
|
Lots of different sine waves with destructive interference. i.e. complex
|
|
|
Do we use strict fourier systems?
|
No, we use band pass filters, so it's not a strict fourier analysis -> more blocky than that
|
|
|
Linear system three rules
|
Homogenity - double input -> double output
Additivity - adding two inputs -> output = sum Shift Invariance - response to input always same |
|
|
Fletcher (1990) masking experiment
|
Tested minimum audible frequency with background noise. Expanded band pass filter of noise, until it had no more effect -> characterised many overlapping filters
|
|
|
What is a linear system?
|
Change of amplitude (scaling) and phase, not freq e.g. filters. So our system = basis of filters)
|
|
|
Psychophysical tuning curves
|
Shows the shape of perceptual auditory filters, but may be wider than shown because assume that only using one filter
|
|
|
Applications of understanding band pas filters (x2)
|
Allows assessment of hearing function
MP3 compression |
|
|
Coding of sound pitch and intensity
|
Pitch coded by frequency coding (spatial position) + temporal coding i.e. phase locking (volley principle takes it from 1 to 4khz). Intensity then coded by spontaneous firing rate of different ganglion cells (3 types - combine to get full dynamic range)
|
|
|
Von Bekesy's experiments on ear
|
used silver on Reissner's membrane to monitor movements of BM, but requires much higher dB because dead
|
|
|
Tonotopicity of BM
|
not linear, but log
|
|
|
Continuous response of BM
|
responses not independent, because tones sharpened by Outer Hair cells
|
|
|
Fundamental Frequency / Harmonics determining pitch?
|
F0 determines pitch, and if correct harmonics, even match harmonics
|
|
|
Prestin
|
Outer hair cells use this protein to pull tectorial membrane, amplifying their own characteristic frequencies, sharpening band pass - also gives otacoustic emissions
|
|
|
Inner hair cells connections
|
Connect to 20 ganglion cells each - different spontaneous rates. Code 90% info to the brain
|
|
|
Auditory Nerve and beyond (anatomy)
|
Ganglion Cells -> auditory nerve -> cochlear nucleus (like retina for sound) -> superior olivary complex -> inferior colliculus -> medial geniculate nucleus -> 1ary auditory cortex
|
|
|
Localisation sensitivity
|
100x less sensitive than vision, but always on and 360degrees
10degrees elevation, 2 degrees azimuth |
|
|
ITD
|
Interaural Time difference
Use delay lines in Nucleus Laminaris to be coincidence detectors |
|
|
IID
|
>1kHz - distant ear shadowed up to 20dB
Collated in Posterior Lemniscal Nucleus |
|
|
Cone of Confusion
|
Ambiguous location within a certain cone, but solved by just turning head
|
|
|
Why use multisensory perception?
|
Helps to disambiguate ambiguous inputs from other senses
|
|
|
Sensory Modularity in the mind (and its advantage)
|
Cortices suggest this, but then stitched together e.g. by attention
Allows initial noises to cancel out |
|
|
Shams (2009) multisensory experiment
|
Beeps indicate visual events - can sway your counting
|
|
|
Ventriloquist effect
|
Vision is dominant over sound
|
|
|
What determines vision vs sound dominance?
|
Sound used for timing importance (but what about in an echoey cave)
Vision used for Spatial resolution of location |
|
|
Combining senses experiment and why do we do it?
|
Mcgurk effect - say ga, hear ba -> combines to da
Allows us to reduce noise |
|
|
Gaussian model of sensory combination and the MLE
|
given two gaussian distributions for each modality - statistically optimal to combine them, but using a WEIGHTED average determined by reliability of the cue = Maximum Likelihood Estimation - shows how dominance occurs when one cue much better than the other
|
|
|
Alais/Burr (2004) multisensory perception experiment
|
Ventriloquist effect i.e. measured position discrimination for vision vs. hearing alone, then combined.
Showed visual dominance, unless blurred visual target i.e. unreliable |
|
|
Ernst/Banks (2002) multisensory perception experiment
|
used visual vs haptic discrimination of object size. Manipulate visual by adding noise to display -> showed smooth switch to haptic capture.
|
|
|
Pavlovian conditioning definition
|
Behaviour Change (conditioned response) caused by predictive relationship between signal and biological stimulus
|
|
|
Cognitive vs Physiological pavlovian conditioning
|
Change in behaviour (e.g. salivation) vs change in expectation in US.
Which causes which? Explicit if both, implicit if no cognitive |
|
|
Implicit vs Explicit learning
|
Cognitive awareness of what is learnt = explicit learning. Explicit allows transfer to similar situations
Definitely independent i.e. SCR responses in snake conditioning slower to extinguish than cognitive |
|
|
Biological Preparedness for learning
|
Using snakes in learning doesn't extinguish SCR, despite no cognitive expectation. Proves difference between explicit and implicit learning
|
|
|
Implicit vs Explicit learning in neuroanatomy
|
Implicit in Amygdala, Hippocampus in explicit.
Behara (1995) showed double dissociations between lesion patients |
|
|
Temporal contiguity of Pavlovian conditioning
|
Usually shorter time -> less learning, but food poisoning after a long time = cognitive longer?
|
|
|
Blocking in learning
|
If one CS already paired with US, adding a second doesn't cause any learning, because there isn't any surprise at the outcome
|
|
|
Rescorla Wagner rule
|
V=alpha*beta*(lambda-sumV)
V= association strength Alpha/Beta = learning rates Lambda = maximum conditioning for stim |
|
|
Superlearning (Turner (2004))
|
Learned inhibitor + new CS -> gives the response -> fast learning
|
|
|
Neuroanatomy of prediction error (learning)
|
Right Prefrontal cortex activated
e.g. lights up during super learning |
|
|
Nelson (2006) attention in learning
|
Video game with a warning light - but ignore it i.e. conditioned to suppress that. Retards learning later = latent inhibition
|
|
|
Latent Inhibition
|
Lack of attention after preexposure. Sustained attention necessary for prediction error to be calculated
Shown by Nelson's 2006 experiment (ignore the warning light retards later learning) |
|
|
Instrumental Conditioning Definition
|
Change of Behaviour in response to behaviour's outcome i.e. experiencing a causal relationship
|
|
|
Reinforcement of Instrumental conditioning
|
Gain positive, or lose negative reinforcer -> more likely to perform (or opposite). Again long interval - depletes reinforcement
|
|
|
Schedules of reinforcement
|
Ratio schedule - how hard you press lever = how much you get
Interval schedule - only certain amount every amount of time. Both types of Learning Possible |
|
|
Thorndike (1911) Law of effect
|
Reinforcer strengthens stimulus response, until it becomes a habit with no outcome necessary
|
|
|
Goal directed behaviour vs habits
|
habits occur w/o the need for a goal, as opposed to goal directed
|
|
|
Klossek (2008) Outcome Devaluation task
|
Kids have a choice of two cartoons - attained by touching icon.
But if outcome of one devalued i.e. by overwatching -> will they stop pressing that icon or will they press both i.e. habitually (under 27 months -> habit) |
|
|
Neural Correlates of Goal directed vs Habit learning
|
Ventromedial PFC = goal directive (i.e. sensitive to incentive value of reinforcer)
Dorsomedial PFC = habitual |
|
|
Generalisation in learning
|
If stimuli on a scale, can generalise outcome to similar stimuli
|
|
|
Peak shift in learning
|
Where S- nearby affects S+ response, should mean that S++ (further along) will have greater response, but humans react in opposite way to relational rule. Because cognitive explicit learning interferes.
BUT if that is obscured by using multiple icons, so rules aren't obvious -> people do demonstrate peak shift |
|
|
Does explicit learning prevent associative learning in conflict?
|
No Perruchet's Gambler's fallacy task shows that they can occur independently in different directions
|
|
|
How do computers store information
|
encode -> store -> retrieve
|
|
|
Ebbinghaus (1885) memory
|
Quantified rate of forgetting by learning nonsense syllables i.e. slows down later because consolidated.
|
|
|
Pirolli/Anderson (1985) memory
|
After memorising sentences, made to discrim their sentence from foil ones -> decrease according to practice time
|
|
|
Craik/Tulving (1975) memory experiment
|
Investigated processing level. Different processing of the same word i.e. caps < rhyme < fit in sentence
|
|
|
Depth of processing (memory)
|
Deeper processing -> better encoded memory, so more routes for retrieval
|
|
|
Effect of organisation on encoding
|
Organised lists -> 47% more words learnt. Because more cues for memory
|
|
|
Spacing of learning (short and long term)
|
Short term retention -> use massed study
Long term retention -> space it out |
|
|
Bahrick (1979) memory
|
paired 50 english and spanish words. Training sessions different intervals -> tested after 30 days
|
|
|
Karpicke (2011) Active retrieval of memory
|
shows better learning than other types of study
|
|
|
Flashbulb memories
|
emotionally significant memories tend to be remembered better. Because revisited?
|
|
|
Memory Storage veridical nature
|
Mostly reconstruct with schemas = organisation in your head, but can affect the info -> squish it to fit categories
|
|
|
Transfer Appropriate Processing
|
Retrieval is more likely if cues at recall similar to those during encoding
|
|
|
Loftus (1975) post hoc affect memory
|
Complex fast moving car crash, then questioned by somebody assuming missing item -> week later requestioned -> assume it was there
|
|
|
Hierarchy of Long Term memory types
|
Declarative vs Non Declarative
Declarative -> semantic or episodic Nondeclarative -> procedural (e.g. motor skills)/perceptual (priming) |
|
|
Semantic network
|
Category node and Property nodes associations -> network
|
|
|
Declarative vs Non-Declarative Memory Double-Dissociation patients
|
HM (medial temporal lobe lesion) - good mirror tracing, equal priming (stem completion), poor recall
MS (occipital lobe lesion) - poor improvements at stem completion, mirror tracing, but remembers doing them |
|
|
Kibot Gradient
|
Despite anterograde loss, can be some retrograde - because not yet consolidated
|
|
|
Distinguishing Episodic from Semantic Memory
|
Semantic dementia (perirhinal cortex/anterior hippocampus lesions) i.e. don't know purpose, but remember seeing it (Graham 200))
Alzheimers (retrosplenial, hippocampal, parahippocampal lesions) |
|
|
Forgetting because of time?
|
Time doesn't actually cause forgetting, it's just changing context makes retrieval harder because encoding was specific + interference (retro/proactive)
|
|
|
What is Mental Chronometry
|
Time taken to process information proportional to brain activity e.g. bigger sums take longer to do
|
|
|
Donders' Subtraction Method (1850)
|
Do one task, then two, (e.g. respond to single stim, then have to discrim between two) then subtract time -> isolate process (i.e. time for discrimination between two stim)
BUT assumes pure insertion i.e. tasks might interact/interfere |
|
|
Sternberg's Additive Factors method and problems
|
Assumes mental processes broken down into serial stages. e.g. when searching for a probe digit in an array:
1. encoded 2. compared successively 3. decision 4. response Manipulate different aspects e.g. encoding by making the probes blurrier, e.g. comparison by increasing number of digits. If variables affect same stage, should have interactive effect, if not - should have additive effect. BUT assumes serial processing, sometimes can occur in parallel e.g. prepares for motor response, or Stroop effect (fast automated colour affects slow reading) |
|
|
Shepard/Metler (1971) Mental Rotation
|
Linear relationship between disparity and reaction time, shows they mentally rotate it. (Kind of donder's subtraction)
|
|
|
Strayer Johnston (2001) Dual Task Technique
|
Radio control doesn't impair reaction time
Talking on cell phone - slower reaction time So talking shares resources |
|
|
Functional Imaging and Donders'
|
Use subtraction between images -> still flawed by pure insertion
|
|
|
Sensory Store types
|
Iconic Store -> brief visual store (1s decay)
Echoic Store -> brief hearing store (2s decay) |
|
|
Treisman (1964) sensory store test
|
Dichotic listening - shadow starts >2s -> notice, so echoic store = 2s decay
|
|
|
Sperling (1960) sensory store test
|
Grid of letters - look at and then recall specific line -> able to if delay between removal and recall <1s
Visual store -> 1s decay |
|
|
Features of original short term memory stores
|
Stuff that is currently held in mind
Rehearsal maintains it (Rundus 1971 - except last few) Capacity limited (miller 1956 - 7plusorminus2) Interference while remembering affects it more than time (counting backwards interferes, but speed of original digit presentation makes no difference (waugh norman 1974)) |
|
|
Primacy effects
|
Early digits rehearsed -> long term
|
|
|
Recency effect
|
Still in short term memory, not eliminated by distracting subsequent numbers
|
|
|
Short term vs Long Term memory double dissociation
|
HM medio temporal lesion - intact digit span, impaired long term
KF parieto occipital lesion - poor digit span, but intact long term => problem for short term serial thing |
|
|
Criticism of serial Sensory -> Short -> Long term
|
Not serial (see KF - parieto occipital -> loss of short term, intact long term)
Different for different senses shown by baddeley and hitch (1974) using dual tasks |
|
|
Baddeley's working memory model main components
|
Phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, central exec
Determined by dual task |
|
|
Baddeley (1966) - Phonological Similarity effect
|
Recalling phonologically similar words far worse than phonologically dissimilar words (visual/semantic sim makes no difference)
Shows speech based representations used to store words - recall requires trace discrimination |
|
|
Baddeley (1975) - Word Length Effect
|
Longer word recall worse than shorter words. Mouth digits during presentation and recall - both bad.
e.g. Digit span better in china because words are shorter, so digits remembered in phonological loop. |
|
|
Articulatory Control Process
|
Speech production (both internally and externally) that gives access to phonological store.
|
|
|
Baddeley (1975) dual task Visuospatial sketchpad vs Phonological Loop
|
Imagery based learning disrupted by pursuit rotor tracking, but not verbal rote learning
|
|
|
Visuospatial sketchpad Visual Cache vs Inner Scribe double dissociation patients
|
LH poor at visual cache tasks e.g. describing imagery
NL poor at inner scribe i.e. perceptual tasks with spatial component |
|
|
Why does the episodic buffer exist?
|
Articulatory suppression doesn't eliminate memor span
Chincotta (1999) found studying numerals vs digit words -> use both visual and verbal, so must be combined/ stored Meaningful chunks -> better span with words even if long term amnesic (e.g. HM) -> so not retrieving from long term memory |
|
|
Central Executive jobs?
|
Attentional system - switching tasks + selective attention + planning sub tasks + checking stores
Control Behaviour - optimise performance |
|
|
Testing Central Executive
|
Random Number generation
Poorer at it if trying to remember more digits. Poor at switching between letters and numbers A1, B2, C3 (but not individual 1,2,3; A,B,C) - task checking |
|
|
Central Executive neuroanatomy
|
PreFrontal lobes - if lesioned -> dysexecutive syndrome i.e. lose purposeful actions
|
|
|
Autonomic vs controlled behaviour
|
Normal driving vs sudden braking.
Stopping at a red light vs. parking |
|
|
Clinical test for dysexecutive x8
|
Shelling (1982) Tower of Hanoi
Shallice Berger (1991) Multiple Errands task Milner (1963) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Stroop (1925) test Letter fluency (words that start with...) Assessment of Risk Cognitive Estimates Dual Task |
|
|
Supervisory Attentional System and two ways schema can be selected
|
Selection of schema can be contention scheduling (bottom up from routine) vs supervisory attention (top down)
|
|
|
How does executive function select schema
|
Spontaneously select OR
Problem solving OR Prior intentions from memory THEN implement, check Distinct executive functions |
|
|
Alternatives to SAS executive functions
|
Somatic Marker hypothesis - decisions guided by somatic markers
Adaptive Coding modes - frontal lobe - flexibly code |
|
|
3 theories of Mind-Body separation in Consciousness
|
Descarte's Dualism - separate
Hobbe's Materialism - neural patterns = consciousness Fodor's Functionalism - not separate |
|
|
What is Global Workspace theory
|
Top Down attention - only aware of small fraction of our global workspace (where all the processing goes on)
|
|
|
Examples of Cognition without awareness (x2)
|
Priming: SCR to angry face + mask
Blindsight (patient DB - damaged VI) - able to judge location of stimuli in blindspot better than chance |
|
|
Examples that show Consciousness is separable from Attention
|
Neglect patients aren't conscious of two houses, but obviously attend to both, because prefer to live in one without flames
Inattentional blindness - gorilla video OR change with flicker OR gradual change in colour. But once conscious of change - easy to attend to it. |
|
|
Where does consciousness reside? +how do we know x3
|
Frontal / Parietal lobe associated with awareness switching (two eyes get different images with filters) tasks + associated with detected changes vs undetected + disrupted in neglect patients
|
|
|
Methods used to understand speech
|
Neurophysiology by neuroimaging
Speech errors |
|
|
Building blocks of language (x3) + how to put them together (x2)
|
Phonemes = /p/ /h/ 44 in english. L/R same in jap
Morphemes = god Words Stress (in lexicon) Grammar (category, number, tense, gender, syntax) |
|
|
Neuroanatomy of language in brain
|
Wernicke's Left Posterior Temporal Lobe (comprehension)
Broca's Left inferior frontal Lobe (production) +distributed network |
|
|
Shared features of diverse written language
|
Recurring shapes,
Use of contours 3 strokes per character average |
|
|
Fixations and movements in reading
|
200-250ms on content words (80%) of time
Stops at 25% mark in word Read 14-15 letters right, 3-4 left = word (+1) Saccades -> 8 letters |
|
|
VWFA disorder
|
Lesioned Left Fusiform gyrus -> alexia i.e. struggles to discriminate letters, but knows if they're real or not. Also no priming with different font word pairs.
|
|
|
What is the orthographic lexicon
|
Stores the spellings of familiar words and their pronunciation i.e. can't say certain words like yacht without having their words in the orthography
|
|
|
Conversion of Grapheme -> phoneme problems
|
Surface dyslexia - can't read familiar words e.g. yacht because spelling weird
Phonological Dyslexia - can't read pseudowords because can't sound them out |
|
|
Dual Route Cascaded Model details, explanations of dyslexias, problems
|
Either lookup in lexicon (lexical route)
OR grapheme to phoneme conversion i.e. sound it out(non-lexical route) If lexical route damaged, gets yacht wrong (i.e. surface dyslexia), but if non-lexical route damaged can't sound out new words (phonological dyslexia). BUT how does one learn, and overemphasises regularity |
|
|
Triangle Model details, explanations of dyslexias, problems,
|
Semantic <-> Phonological <-> Orthographic. All three communicate. i.e. use orthographic to phonological in pseudoword. use semantic to orthographic if known word.
Connections stronger for high frequency words, hence their faster recognition + competition BUT weaker at pseudowards than humans and not explanatory for words>1 syllable. |
|
|
Access to word meaning through sound or form?
|
Probably both orthographic and phonological converge
|
|
|
Word processing in the brain
|
Magnetic Encephalography shows
Occipital -> temporal -> frontal. Coopted evolutionarily visual object processing |
|
|
Cues in Spoken Word segmentation - no boundaries (See spectrogram)
|
MSS + Context + Word Knowledge.
Hierarchy probably + varies depending on if the speech is impoverished Different in different languages |
|
|
MSS
|
Metrical Segmentation Strategy
Stress at onset of content words 3/4 time. Slower for Mintayf vs Mintef (stress at start vs. end) Also accounts for learning in children |
|
|
How meaning is selected when listening to speech
|
Listened to story about bug, then letter string ant, spy, sew appear - asked which one is real. Faster for ant, spy but only for 200ms.
|
|
|
Lexical selection
|
Match input w/ store. Starts as soon as word onset identified, done within 175-200ms. Showed with shadowing paradigm i.e. have to repeat story back - correct incorrect words - happens even before word presented fully
|
|
|
Cohort Model
|
Activates many different words = cohort, then narrows down probability of it being one of them -> uniqueness point i.e. if end mispronounced -> slower recognition (because already selected).
Also late parts e.g. speaker can interfere with beaker. |
|
|
Context effects on word meaning
|
Does it help narrow down word candidates, or does it change initial activation (unlikely), or does it help if missing info?
If words sliced out (i.e. no context) - down 50%, so definitely help. If noise - context helps recognition. |
|
|
Speech processing in the brain
|
Auditory regions (spectrotemporal analysis) -> temporal (phonology processed) + frontal
|
|
|
Different models for Sentence Pocessing x4
|
Garden Path Model (first syntactic)
Constraint Based theory (all sources) Good enough representations Unrestricted Race |
|
|
Bock (1986) - Syntactic Priming
|
More likely to describe something with previously heard representations
|
|
|
Cues for sentence parsing x6
|
Structural syntactic principles (late closure/minimal attachment - allows incoming words to associate with partially formed structures)
Statistical Regularities (S-V-O more likely) Individual Words (eg articles followed by nouns) Prosodic Cues (sensitive to word stress - will complete sentence differently based on it) Semantic info (slower for two animates in sentence) World Knowledge (different brain pattern if wrong) |
|
|
Cost vs Benefits of Bilingualism
|
Positively correlated with IQ (esp Gverbal) BUT reduces frequency of words heard -> more tip of tongue problems
|
|
|
Revised Hierarchical model of language acquisition
|
Initially learn by L1 translation, then build link between L2 and semantic representation. Early errors - form i.e. mistranslated from L1 -> L2, later errors - swap one word for the other i.e. using wrong semantic link (eg. man / guy)
|
|
|
Bilingual brain effcts
|
higher density grey matter in left inferior parietal cortex
|
|
|
Cognitive effects of Bilingualism (x2)
|
Facilitates attention (e.g. don't decline on Simon effect tasks - better reaction times when going to place near stimulus)
More musical ability |
|
|
Different Gestures (x3) and why?
|
Beats (meaningless, simple)
Pointing Symbolic (e.g. thumbs up) Facilitate lexical activation - without, speech fluency reduced Evolutionary hangover |
|
|
Why have Pauses and disfluencies in speech
|
60-70% at the junction between clauses -> cue
Umm - indicates error (better RT in understanding than cutting off word with no filler, or just saying two words in experiment where instructions given yell-uh-purple square) |
|
|
Conversation Convergence
|
Look longer when confederate uses new words as opposed to old word i.e. expect them to use same word as before
|
|
|
Neural basis for communication
|
fMRI shows some brain to brain coupling when both interlocutors understand each other
|
|
|
Getting from Given to Goal State
|
Work out options into a problem space, break goals into subgoals (but subgoal conflict)
|
|
|
Functional fixedness
|
Pendulum problem - have to restructure their thinking i.e. use tools as weights to make a pendulum so they can tie two strings together = AHA moment
|
|
|
Incremental problem solving
|
Algebra - can rate warmth, vs insight problems
|
|
|
Inductive vs Deductive reasoning
|
Inductive uses information beyond what's in the problem
|
|
|
Aristotelian syllogism
|
two or more prepositions (or more) -> then makes a conclusion
|
|
|
Wason Selection Task + why do they get it wrong
|
E 4 K 7, should pick E 7, most pick E 4
Logic language problems + Matching bias + confirmation bias + content effets relevant |
|
|
Matching Bias
|
Answer with nearest thing at end e.g. Wason Selection Task - select even because even in the questions
|
|
|
Confirmatory Bias
|
People prefer to confirm bias e.g. if given 2,4,6 assume it's evens, not odds
|
|
|
How does the content effect work and why (x2)?
|
facilitates problem solving i.e. if use envelopes better at solving (not in US)
Because we're better at social contracts (deontic reasoning i,e reasoning about rules, permissions, regulations) Because we use memory cueing |
|
|
What biases do we make in judging probabilities
|
Underestimate common events (e.g. CHD)
Overestimate rare events (e.g. lottery) |
|
|
Heuristics x3
|
Recognition eg. germans better at estimating city size because don't just pick one they know
Availability Heuristic e.g. words with k at start or 3rd Representative Heuristic i.e. ignore base rate e.g. Linda problem (conjunction fallacy) e.g. engineers and lawyers |
|
|
Base Rate Neglect and how to improve it
|
e.g. Breast cancer problem e.g. taxicab problem -> if use frequency - much better at it
|
|
|
Gambling heuristics
|
Misjudge your chances, ignore independence of turns = gambler's fallacy
Representativeness heuristic i.e. short sequence of outcomes to judge chances Availability heuristic = hot hand |
|
|
Expected Value
Expected Utility |
Probability x Amount
Probability x Utility (value of each different outcome in common currency) Maximise EU |
|
|
Prospect theory example
|
Asian Flu Problem - positive frame i.e. save x
vs negative frame i.e. kill x. FRAMING EFFECT in positive - risk averse (i.e. diminishing marginal utility) in negative - risk prefer because don't want to lose many because losses loom large |
|
|
Shiv (2005) positive EV trials
|
Make money - so should do all. but only 58% average because gut feeling don't like losses
Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex - invest 84%, don't associate that emotion of loss |
|
|
Johnson Tversky (1983) mood manipulation
|
Read article about positive, or negative then asked to judge probabilities
|
|
|
Keinan (1987) stress on decisions
|
Threat of electric shock - premature closure + incorrect
|
|
|
Porcelli (2009) cold water
|
Stronger framing effect on gambling task i.e. more reliance on automatic biases
|
|
|
Nisbett Wilson (1977) awareness of decision
|
window shopping, bias left, but don't say way.
|
|
|
Dijksterhuis (2006) distractions on decision making
|
Distracted group (anagrams) pick better car because go with gut feeling. somatic marker?
|
|
|
Emotion Categories (6) vs dImensions (2 axis)
|
Axes - valence (neg to pos) and arousal (calm to excited)
Categories - surprise, sad, happy, fear, disgust, anger |
|
|
Problems with James-Lange
|
Disabled people?
Body response Rapid enough? Different enough changes? i.e. too insensitive? |
|
|
Evidence for James Lange
|
Diminished emotionality if spine severed
Cognitive Labelling theory i.e. if injected then put with stooges - more affect, until told |
|
|
Arana (2003) Menu Choice experiment
|
OFC activated if choice has to be made
Amygdala responds to incentive value (based on previous rating) |
|
|
What is the somatic marker hypothesis?
|
Retrieve emotional states (gut feelings) that have been associated with options in past - go with them.
|
|
|
Iowa Gambling Task and lesions
|
A/B risky decks, C/D - profitable.
If Orbitofrontal lesion -> choose risky decks because don't retrieve emotional states i.e. no anticipatory SCR. But could be dysexecutive? Perseveration problem - dual task interference with random number generation If amygdala lesion -> fail task because no SCR at all If spinal transection - no feedback, so don't fail |
