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;
186 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Alternative Names for Short-term memory
|
-Short term store
-Immediate memory -Primary memory |
|
Three Things Associated with Free Recall
|
1. Serial-position curve
2. Primacy effect 3. Recency effect |
|
Serial-Position Curve Trends
|
-Contains Primacy and Recency effect
-Rehearse each early item until list becomes too long then shift to rehearse new items -Usually, recent (last) items recalled first, then beginning and middle items |
|
How is a serial-position curve evidence for 2 seperate memory systems?
|
-STM dumps last items out (recency effect)
-LTM for rehearsed items in first part of list |
|
Primacy Effect
|
-Better memory for first few items on serial-position curve
-beginning items are rehearsed so higher probability of being encoded |
|
Single Dissociation
|
-One cognitive system is dependent upon the other, but the other is not
-Damage to one, see if other works -Example: (Radio's dependent upon car electrical system, but electrical system isn't dependent upon radio) |
|
Example of Double Dissociation
|
-Selectively damage one and leave other intact
-Example: damage radio but windsheld wipers still work |
|
What evidence is there for double dissociation with STM and LTM?
|
-Serial recall
-List-length effects -Distractor Tasks -Presentation rate (item spacing) -STM as rehearsal buffer |
|
Tests for Double Dissociation
|
-Have a variable that affects STM but not LTM
-Bring in a 3rd variable that affects LTM but not STM -Used to show STM and LTM are seperate |
|
What does serial recall affect?
|
-Affects STM but not LTM
|
|
List-Length Effects
|
-Always have recency effect
-Affects LTM but not STM -Affects the probability of middle items in list going to LTM |
|
Distractor Task
|
-Erase STM in a way so there is no recency effect
-Affects STM but not LTM -Primacy portion is unaffected |
|
Presentation Rate (item-spacing effect)
|
-Difference in items from middle of list
-Higher probability of moving middle list items from STM to LTM -Affects LTM not STM -Affect primacy portion but not recency portion of curve |
|
STM as Rehearsal Buffer
|
-Limited capacity
-Keep info in active state by rehearsal: Maintenance Rehearsal: STM->STM Transfer: STM->LTM |
|
Miller: "Magic Number"
|
-7 +/- 2 recall of items (average capacity)
-Chunking -Recoding |
|
Chunking
|
-Grouping items together into meaningful chunks
-7 +/- 2 is number of chunks that can be held in STM -Enables breaking of informational "bottleneck" in STM |
|
Brown, Peterson, & Peterson
|
-STM duration of non-rehearsed info
-Infamous Brown-Peterson task |
|
Brown-Peterson Task
|
-Stimulus: simple three-letter triplet
-Distractor task: count backwards by three from number they'd been shown (variable length of counting) -Task: report back the three-letter stimulus |
|
Brown, Peterson, & Peterson: Results
|
-STM duration is short
-Increasing period of time, less and less info remained in STM -Decay in STM (passive process) -Distractor task prevents rehearsal of stimulus |
|
Waugh and Norman
|
-Decay vs Interference
-Believed distractor task might be source of interference -Longer counting intervals would provide more opportunity for interference |
|
Waugh and Norman: Method
|
-List of 16 digits
-Read at rate of either 1 or 4 digits per second -Final item in list was a repeat and served as probe or cue -Task: write digit that followed the first presentation of repeated item |
|
What was the important part of Waugh and Norman's experiment for the issue of decay vs interference?
|
-Time it took to present 16 digits btw groups
-Presenting entire list took 16 s for one group but only 4 s for the other group |
|
Waugh and Norman: Results
|
-No difference in recall accuracy bwt 2 groups
-Suggesting forgetting was influenced by number of intervening items bwt critical digit and recall test |
|
What results would Waugh and Norman have seen if decay theory was right?
|
-Worse performance when list presentation took 16 s
-More time intervenes during 16 s presentation so have more passive decay |
|
What were the criticisms of Waugh and Norman's experiment?
|
-Failure to reject null hypothesis
-No difference bwt 2 conditions (rate doesn't matter) -Poorly conducted experiment which is also support for the null hypothesis |
|
Talland
|
-Brown-Peterson task with two different distractors
-One condition: count backward by 3's -Second condition: read #'s from screen |
|
Talland: Results & Conclusions
|
-Support for alternative hypothesis
-Group that used mental effort (counting backward by 3's) had worse recall -Mental effort counting is causing interference |
|
Peterson, Peterson, & Miller
|
-Brown-Peterson task with different kinds of stimulus material
-Stimulus: either nonsense syllables e.g.(MEQ) or meaningful syllables e.g.(NFL) -NFL is single chunk whereas MEQ is 3 seperate chunks |
|
Peterson, Peterson, & Miller: Results
|
-Higher recall for meaningful syllable condition vs. nonsense syllable condition after 6 s of backward counting
-Disagrees with decay theory -Forgetting in STM is thus due to interference |
|
Wickens
|
-Noticed that with subsequent trials on Brown-Peterson task, subjects did worse
-4 trials, each trial had 3 words (stimulus) |
|
Wickens: Method
|
-2 conditions: control and experimental
-Control group: words in all trials were similiar (similiar stimuli) -Experimental group: words in trial 4 were different (change stimuli in trial 4) |
|
Wickens: Results
|
-Both groups did same on first 3 trials
-Build up of PI w/ first 3 trials -Experimental group had 90% accuracy on trial 4 -Release from PI |
|
How do we retrieve (locate) information from STM?
|
-Recognition: stimulus in front of you
and -Recall: generate stimulus from LTM |
|
Subtractive Method
|
-Measure RT1 for task involving mental processes A, B, and C
-Measure RT2 for comparision task only involving processes A and C -Find duration of process B by subtracting RT2 from RT1 |
|
Problems with subtractive method
|
-Difficult to find 2 task that differ in only one mental process
-Assumption of "pure assertion" that by subtracting out B, processes A and C are affected (all have to be independent) |
|
Additive Factors Method
|
-Repeat mental process for some number of times during a single trial
-Still do same processes, but one process is done more than once -Determine how long it takes to do that process by determining how much time was added to people's RT |
|
Additive Factors Method Equation
|
B = RT2 - RT1 / n-1
B: process repeated n: number of times process was repeated |
|
Sternberg
|
-STM scanning task
-Get memory set (1-6 items) -Single letter probe -Respond "yes" or "no" depending upon whether probe item was in memory set -Each trial memory set and probe varied |
|
Why did Sternberg manipulate size of memory set?
|
-He wanted to influence the # of cycles through the search or scan process
-And by examing the slope of RT's, he could determine the additional time needed for each cycle in that process |
|
3 Possibilities for Sternberg's Results
|
-Serial self-terminating search
-Parallel search -Serial exhaustive search |
|
Serial Self-Terminating Search
|
-Search memory set items one-by-one and when find match is found
(how we look for car keys) |
|
Parallel Search
|
-Scan each position in memory set simultaneously
-Equally fast with all set sizes (size doesn't matter) -No increase in RT |
|
Serial Exhaustive Search
|
-Compare probe to each item in memory set, even if find match still continue(exhaustive)
-Comparison is one at a time (serial) |
|
Sternberg's Results
|
-Linear increases in RT's as set size increases
-Increase was nearly same for both "yes" and "no" -Serial exhaustive search -Scan contents of STM at a rate of about 38ms per item |
|
Early Research on kinds of info held in STM
|
-Info was though to be based on verbal/acoustic cues or codes
-Conrad: verbal codes |
|
Conrad
|
-Subject's studied list of words, recall in any order
-Specific errors based on acoustic errors ("E" say "G", "T" say "C") -Even though letters were presented visually, they were stored in STM in an acoustic, sound-based fashion |
|
Semantic Code
|
-Wickens found that release from PI due to semantic interference
-Info in STM is based on semantic code -Evidence was switching categores resulted in release from PI |
|
Shepard and Metzler
|
-Visual Codes
-See complex pattern in two forms -Task: determine if same pattern just rotated or if it's rotated with mirror reversal (enantomers or diastereomers) :) |
|
Shepard and Metzler Findings
|
-RT increased as angular rotation for second drawing increased
-Form a visual image that can rotate in mind, but further rotation takes more time |
|
What in the world did Shand do?
|
-Congentially deaf subjects fluent ASL
-2 conditions -Five item lists for serial recall |
|
And what in the hell did Shand find...?
|
-More errors in 2nd condition than 1st condition
-Have kinesthetic code (STM can hold info in any format that can be sensed) |
|
2 Conditions in Shand's Experiment
|
1. sequence of ASL signs that were phonologically similiar in English
2. ASL signs that were cherologically related (similiar hand movements to form sign) |
|
What were some theoretical problems w/ STM?
|
-Limited capacity (magic number)
-Largely based on verbal/acoustic codes -Both wrong SO people began to change conception of STM |
|
Brooks
|
-Burden/load on STM and switching bwt processing and remembering aren't addressed by simplie approached that emphasize 7 +/- 2 "slots"
-We instead have working memory |
|
Brooks: Method
|
-See block letter; take away
-Primary Task: mentally draw letter and point thumb either up or down when come to certain corners -Then combined with secondary tasks: counting and then laser pointer |
|
Brooks: Results
|
-Counting (verbal task) while scanning visual image yield few errors
-Laser pointer task while scanning visual image was more difficult |
|
Explaination for Brook's results
|
-Tracing letter: visuo-spatial
-Counting: phonological resource (doesn't overlap with visuo-spatial so can do simultaneously) -Laser pointer: visuo-spatial (same as tracing letter so both consume resources from same visuo-spatial resource) |
|
Baddeley's Model of Working Memory
|
-Instead of single buffer w/ limited capacity and verbal/acoustic codes, have working memory with 3 systems
-Central executive and slave systems |
|
Slave Systems
|
-Articulatory (phonological) loop
-Visuo-spatial sketchpad -Proceed w/o disrupting activities elsewhere in working memory if task isn't that demanding -If task is demanding, drains resources from central executive |
|
Characterisitcs of Slave Systems
|
-Responsible for low-level processing
-Domain specific -Have own pool of attentional resources (pools are very limited) -Don't overlap |
|
Working Memory: Paired Central Executive task with secondary task that tapped one of the slave systems
|
When slave system drains off attentional resources from central executive, the executive can no longer maintain its speed or accuracy
|
|
Language comprehension in a dual-task setting
|
-Hold 6 digits in memory while doing comphrehension task
-Both comprehension scores and memory span performance disrupted |
|
Physiological evidence of areas of heightened activity in brain during verbal working memory tasks
(i.e Sternberg's task) |
Left hemisphere regions:
-Broca's area -3 frontal sites -Left supplementary motor area (SMA) -Premotor areas |
|
Physiological evidence of task emphasizing executive control
(i.e. switching from one task to another) |
Heightened activity in:
-Brodmann's area 46 -Dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex |
|
Physiological evidence of regions of heightened brain activity durning visual and spatial working memory task
|
Right hemisphere regions:
-Extrastriate occipital cortex -Posterior parietal lobe -Premotor area -Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) |
|
Why is LTM important?
|
-Stores everthing we know
-Fundamental to nearly every mental process and almost every act of cognition |
|
Squire: Taxomony of LTM
|
-Distinction between declarative (explicit memory) and nondeclarative (implicit)
|
|
Declarative Memory
|
-Explicit and with awareness
-Talk about these memories -Can be episodic or semantic memories |
|
Epsiodic Memory
|
-Autiobiographical
-Personal experiences -Context specific |
|
Semantic Memory
|
-Conceptual
-Encyclopedic -Context free |
|
Procedural Memory
|
-Implicit and w/o awareness
-How to do things -Primings, conditioning, and other types of (non-associative) learning i.e. task-aversion learning |
|
What is the debate about declarative memory and its sub-units?
|
Debate about if episodic and semantic are distinct and seperate or a continum where some memories are more episodic or semantic but still part of same system
|
|
Tulving: Memory and Consciousness
|
-Anoetic Consciousness
-Noetic Consciousness -Auto-Noetic Consciousness |
|
Anoetic Consciousness
|
-Procedural memory
-"Not aware" -Animals with just procedural memory can do these things but aren't aware of themselves doing it -Insects, fish, invertabrates |
|
Noetic Consciousness
|
-Semantic memory
-Awareness about external world -Mammals, birds, octopus |
|
Auto-Noetic Consciousness
|
-Episodic memory
-"Self awareness" -Humans, some apes, cetaceans (whales, dolphins) |
|
Mnemonics
|
-Tool/trick
-"To help memory" -Method of loci, Peg-word mnemonic, and acronyms |
|
Formal mnemonics
|
Rely on preestablished set of memory aids and considerable practice on the to-be-remembered information in connection with the preestablished set
|
|
Informal mnemonics
|
-Less elaborate
-Suited for smaller amounts of info -More idiosyncratic and personalized |
|
What principles are important to the strength of mnemonics?
|
-Practice to-be-remembered material repeatedly
-Integrate material into existing framework -Device provides excellent means of retrieving information to be remembered |
|
Method of Loci
|
-First memorize physical locations you're familiar with
-Form mental image of first thing you want to memorize and mentally place it into first location -Continue with second item, third, etc. |
|
Recall Performance with method of loci
|
-38 out of 40 items in correct order
-One day later, averaged 34 correct, again in order |
|
Mnemonic Devices facilitate
|
-Encoding (structure for learning)
-Retention (organization &/or imagery) -Retrieval (cues) |
|
Atkinson & Shiffrin: Two Effects of Rehearsal
|
-Maintenance: actively maintain info in STM
and -Transfer: actively take info from STM and put into LTM |
|
Hellyer: Frequency of Rehearsal
|
-Brown-Peterson task
-Modification: rehearse items before given an arithmetic distractor task -Varied how many times one could rehearse -Believe accuracy is a function of retention interval |
|
Hellyer: Results
|
-The more frequently the items were rehearsed, the better retention across the distracting period
More rehearsal = Greater chance of getting into LTM |
|
Rundus: Rehearsal and Serial Position Effects
|
-Subjects learned 20-item lists of unrelated words
-Presentation rate of 5 s per word -Subjects rehearsed out loud whatever word from list they wanted during 5 s presentation |
|
How did Rundus compute his results?
|
Tabulated number of times each of the words had been rehearsed and compared this tally to the likelihood of recalling the word correctly in free recall (serial-position curve)
|
|
Rundus' results
|
-Items at beginning of list are rehearsed frequently
-Middle items not really rehearsed -End items not rehearsed at all |
|
From Rundus' results what do primacy and recency effects depend on?
|
-Primacy effect was viewed entirely dependent on rehearsal
-Earlier items can be rehearsed more frequently and so are recalled better -Recency effect was viewed as simply recall from STM |
|
Craik & Lockhart: Depth (levels) of Processing
|
-Single memory system: sensory, STM, & LTM (not seperate systems)
-Perceived stimulus receives some amount of mental processing -Processing can be shallow or deep and more meaningful -Two types of rehearsal |
|
Type I (maintaince)
|
-Low level, repetitive info recycling at same level
-Once stop cycling information, it's lost (no permanent record in memory) |
|
Type II (elaborative)
|
-Complex rehearsal that uses the meaning of the info to help store and remember it
-Move info to deeper level in memory system |
|
Craik & Watkins: Depth of processing and repetition priming (1975)
|
-Running sequence of words
-3 conditions -Manipulate subject's depth of processing -Free recall |
|
What were the 3 conditions in Craik & Watkins experiment?
|
-Case decision: surface features of letters (shallow processing)
-Rhyme judgements: (medium processing) -Pleasantness: (deeper processing) |
|
Craik & Watkins: Results
|
-Processed words to different depths
-Case judgement was shallow -Rhyme -> STM -Pleasantness -> LTM -Increase recognition accuracy w/ deeper level processing |
|
Craik & Watson: Depth of processing (1973)
|
-Hypothesized that amount of time word is kept in Type I rehearsal will not help recall
-Heard long list of words -Task: remember most recent word starting w/ "G" |
|
Craik & Watson (1973): Results
|
-Hypothesis confirmed
-No recall difference for "G-words" held a long time in STM vs those maintained only briefly -No benefit |
|
Baddeley's Criticisms on levels of processing
|
-Circular definition of Type I and II rehearsal
-Task effects: different results with recall vs recognition -Useful heuristic but not a real alternative today |
|
Circular Definition of Type I & II rehearsal
|
-Have premise that's used to draw conclusion, then use conclusion to support premise
Thus, -Items that are processed deeply are remembered better (premise) -Items that are better remembered are processed deeply (conclusion) |
|
Task Effects: Recognition
|
-Generally a higher accuracy found with recognition
-Influenced by recollection and familiarity -Less retrieval effort than recall tasks -Type I rehearsal had effect on LTM when recognition tasks were used ***not true with recall tasks |
|
Glenberg, Smith, and Green: Against depth of processing position
|
-Brown-Peterson Task
-Remember 4 digit number as (supposed) primary task -Distractor task: repeat 1 or 3 words out loud (assumed they only used Type I processing) |
|
Glenberg, Smith, and Green: Results
|
-Replicated Craik/Watson: amount of rehearsal didn't help recall of 4 digit number
BUT -recognition of 4 digit number was influenced by the amount of rehearsal |
|
What is the significance of Glenberg, Smith, and Green's results?
|
-Disconfirmed levels of processing theory
-Mere repetition and time in STM did affect retention (better performance with recognition task) -Shallow processing (i.e. repeating words) can result in equal or superior perfomance |
|
Bower: Organization of Information
Why should I care? |
-He proposed organizational schemas for improving storage of info into LTM
-Presented 112 words; 4 trials -Words fit under categories (hierarchy) -Control group: words were randomly assisgned to position -Experimental group: organized in hierarchy |
|
Bower: Results
|
-Hierarchical organization led to 100% accuracy on 3rd and 4th trial
-Control only got 62% accuracy by 4th trial |
|
Visual Imagery and Storage of Info in LTM
|
-Paired-associate learning encoded by imagery were recalled at better than 80% accuracy
-Dual coding hypothesis |
|
Tulving & Thompson: Encoding Specificity
|
-Recognition failure of recallable words
-Wierd pairing: Glue-Chair (learn chair) -2 tests to see if can recognize chair |
|
Tulving & Thompson: 2 Tests
|
Test 1: table, top, chair
-not able to recognize chair as target Test 2: Glue-? -able to recall chair |
|
Tulving & Thompson: results
|
Original context cues will give you the best access to the information during a recall attempt, whether those cues are based on verbal, visual, or other info
|
|
Godden & Baddeley: Context Effects
|
-Had deep sea divers learn list of words underwater
-Couldn't recall words out of water, but were able to recall when back underwater |
|
Eich: State-Dependent Learning
|
-Study high, take test high -> get higher scores vs. if one takes test sober
-Same with alcohol -Increase access to information in memory by reinstating original learning context |
|
Patient KC: Declarative Dissociation
|
-Frontal brain damage
-Retrograde and anterograde amnesia for episodic memory -Intact semantic memory though -Evidence of a dissociation bwt episodic and semantic systems |
|
Patient HM: Hippocampus lesioned
|
-Almost complete anterograde amnesia (no new memories)
-Normal memory for motor learning -Episodic and semantic memory may eventually be compromised since ability to encode new connections to existing knowledge was lost |
|
What region of the brain is important for time-related aspects of memories?
|
Frontal Lobes
|
|
What region of the brain is important for semantic retrieval?
|
Posterior regions (i.e. hippocampal regions)
|
|
HM's and motor skill tasks
|
-Intact skill learning
-Normal learning curve for mirror drawing task w/ few errors by day 3 -However, HM has no memory of doing the repeated task before (no explicit memory record) |
|
Role of Hippocampus in memory
|
Critical pathway for successful transfer to LTM
|
|
Typical Implicit Memory Results
|
-Measure with perceptual or word stem completion task
-Show significant priming or facilitation regardless of how info was studied ***Even with no conscious recollection of orginal event, there's facilitation when stimulus is repeated |
|
Typical Explicit Memory Results
|
-Measure with a recall or yes/no recognition task
-Generally show strong effects depending on how the info was studied -More elaborative processing leads to better explicit memory performance |
|
Roedigor & McDermont: False Memory
|
-List of words in which they were all similiar (i.e. dream, night, nap, etc.)
-Reported false memory of hearing word "sleep" which wasn't on list -Episodic and semanitc memory interacted b/c they said "sleep" |
|
Aristotle: Classical View of Concept
|
-Concept is a set of neccessary and sufficient features
-Classical view works well with artificial concepts but not with natural concepts -Doesn't tell much about how semantic memory works (i.e. organization of it) |
|
Example of Artificial Concept
|
"Bachelor"
-Not married -Male Two neccessary, sufficient features |
|
Example of Natural Concept
|
"Student"
-Fuzzier category -Many different features |
|
Collins & Quillian: Semantic Network Model
Two fundamental assumptions are? |
- Structure of semantic memory
- Process of retrieving info from structure |
|
What is the structure of semantic memory?
|
*Semantic Network Model*
-It is a network structure -Each concept in the network is a node -Concept nodes are linked by pathways -Every concept is related to every other concept b/c some sets of pathway (however indirect and long) can be eventually traced bwt 2 nodes |
|
What is the major process that operates on this is structure?
|
-Spreading activation
-Activation spreads through the network along stored pathways -Once a concept is activated, the concept spreads activation to other concepts it is linked with |
|
Two types of Propositions
|
-Property Statements
-Category-Membersip Statements |
|
Property Statements
|
-Inherit properties from concept above "A robin has wings"
(i.e. has wings b/c bird) -Can have specific property "Robin has a red breast" |
|
Category-Membership Statements
|
"A robin is a bird"
-Is a relationship -Indicates category membership -Reverse direction is not true: "All birds are robins" |
|
What are the two orginzational principles of the semantic network model?
|
1. Cognitive economy
2. Inheritance |
|
Cognitive Economy
|
-No redundance
-Economize number of concepts stored -Store properties at highest level of generality as possible to save space |
|
What do the mechanisms of inheritance and cognitive economy allow to happen?
|
The mechanism allows inferences about higher-level properities rather than forcing the system to store each of them directly and repeatedly
|
|
Collins & Quillian: Sentence Verification Task
|
-Decidide if sentence is T or F
-Used both category relationship and property statements -Varied semantic distance bwt S and P (distance in hierarchial structure) -DV was RT |
|
Colling & Quillian: Results
|
-Longer to retrieve relationship bwt two concepts at more distant levels in the hierarchy vs, those stored closer together
-Fast at category relationships (is a) -False statements were slowest |
|
How did the subject access the information to make a "yes" decision?
|
-Spreading activiation
-Find intersection between two concepts -Decision stage operates to make sure retrieved pathway is valid and repsonse of "true" can be given |
|
What were the con's of Collins and Quillians experiment?
|
-Spreading activation doesn't explain for the "no" responses
-No explanation of how network is learning -Silent on ad hoc categories -Faster with typicality |
|
Ad Hoc Categories
|
-Categories you come up with on the fly
-Example is "good things to take out of a burning builing" |
|
Why does typicality matter in Collins and Quillians experiment?
|
-Faster with "yes" response to "A robin is a [bird]"
-Slower with "A penguin is a [bird]" -Should be equally fast b/c both are one link apart from the concept of [bird] -No explanation provided for this |
|
Rosch: Typicallity Effects
|
Collected category membership norms and found some items listed as members of category more frequently than others
|
|
Rosch: Typicallity Effects Results
|
Exemplars listed very frequently as category members yielded significantly faster judgements than those lose of lower frequency
|
|
What did Rosch's results suggest?
|
-Pathways were not all equal in length
-Pathways to less frequent category members were longer, -Those members were farther away in semantic network than frequent category members |
|
Smith et al.: Feature List
|
-Most basic structural element was feature list
-Semantic memory is a collection of lists -Each concept in semantic memory would be represented as a list of semantic features |
|
How does feature list compare to Collin and Quillian's network model
|
-Simpler than Collins and Quillians network model
-More elaborate in assumptions about the process of retrieval |
|
How are feature lists ordered?
|
-Defining features
-Characteristic features -Feature lists are ordered in a priority ranking with defining features at top of list and least defining features at the bottoom |
|
Defining Features
|
-Necessary features for concept
-Essential feature -Placed at top of feature list |
|
Characteristic Features
|
-Not necessary but generally true
-Common but not essential -Lower features at the bottom of the feature list |
|
How is information retrieved in the Smith model?
|
-Through feature comparison
-Two types of comparison: 1. Stage I 2. Stage II |
|
What is Stage I Comparison?
|
-Some randomly selected subset of features on each of the two lists is compared to "compute" the similiarity btw the two concepts
-Comparison process yields a feature overlap score |
|
Characteristics of Stage I Comparison
|
-Rapid, global comparison of the features
-High overlap score produces a rapid "yes" -Little or no feature overlap produces a rapid "no" -No need to continue search when overlap scores are very high or low |
|
What is Stage II Comparison?
|
-Look at defining features of two concepts being compared
-Careful and slow comparison -Respond with slow "yes" or "no" -When overlap score is moderate, a second comparison is necessary |
|
What are the pro's and con's of the feature list?
|
Pro: it handles what semantic network theory could not (i.e. slower comparison processing when have lower feature overlap)
Con: it is not clear what defining features exactly are |
|
What three characteristics would a modified network representation have?
|
1. No rigid cognitive economy
2. Properties listed for a concept would be linked directly to concept rather than indirectly via pathways 3. Pathways would be different length reflecting semantic relatedness (which applies to both category and property statements) |
|
How is the amount of one's knowledge connected to semantic relatedness?
|
-More knowledge and greater semantic relatedness go together
-More you know about something, the easier it is to integrate new related knowledge into memory -Greater knowledge leads to more activation in memory and enhanced retrieval |
|
What was Roch's argument about artificial concepts that led to the prototype theory?
|
Roch argued that artificial categories bear little relationship to natural categories
|
|
How did Roch view natural categories or real-world categories?
|
-Real-world category members do not belong to their categories in simple
yes/no, all-or-one fashion -3 principles of natural categories |
|
Three Principles of Natural Categories
|
1. Fuzzy definition
2. Family Resemblance 3. Prototypes |
|
Fuzzy Definition
|
-Ill defined or uncertain membership for many categories
-No single feature seems absolutely necessary as a criterion of membership or classification |
|
Prototype
|
-Has most characteristic feature of concept
-Central, core instance of a category -Average or best example of a concept |
|
Family Resemblance
|
-Degree of variation from prototype
-Typical members are stored close to prototype and peripheral members are stored farther away |
|
Rosch-Heider: Reasons for studying Dani Tribe
|
-Dani language has two color terms, one for "dark" and one for "light"
-Used different colored chips as stimuli |
|
Rosch-Heider: Recognition Experiment with Dani
|
-Administered short and long term memory tasks
-Task was to recognize the chips they had seen before -Better recognition with prototypical colors even though they don't have words for specific color conepts |
|
Rosch-Heider: Paired-Association Learning with Dani
|
-Paired chip with clan name
-Use chip as a cue to recall clan name -Prototypical colored chips were most useful cues |
|
What conclusions did Rosch-Heider draw from the results of the experiment?
|
-There are structured, mental categories of colors in the subjects' semantic memories
-Categories do not rely on spoken language -Natural concepts have an internal structure corresponding the the idea of typical and atypical (semantic relatedness) |
|
Rosch: Prototype Theory (Three Levels)
|
1. Basic level
2. Superordinate level 3. Subordinate level |
|
Basic Level
|
-Highest level in category at which you can remember what generic concept looks like
-Level best able to use to think and talk about concepts -Set of features that define concept at this level are specific |
|
What does the Basic Level depend upon?
|
-Concepts at this level depend on your expertise with the area
-The more knowledge you have in an area, the more specific and distinct your basic level will be |
|
Subordinate Level - How many features does it differ from others?
|
-Differs by only one or a few features
|
|
Priming is a.... (two things)
|
-Phenomenon
-Method |
|
How is Priming a phenonmenon?
|
-Mental activation when think about or see concept
-Spreading activation |
|
Why do we study Priming as a method?
|
We study how things are mentally represented
|
|
Key terms associated with priming
|
-Prime
-Target -Task (lexical decision, naming) -Facilitation vs cost -Stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) |
|
What is priming across trials?
|
-One trial is the prime for target trial
-Example: trial such as "fruit-P" is followed by another "fruit" trial -The first was the prime and the second was the task |
|
Lexical Decision Task
|
-Present targets consisting of words or nonwords
-Task is to decide if target is word or nonword -Look at RT |
|
How does semantic relatedness affect lexical decision task?
|
-Two related words are judged more quickly as words than two unrelated words
-Influence of the meanings of the words -Words semantically related prime |
|
Priming is Automatic
|
-Automatic spreading activation (ASA)
-Facilitation is rapid and w/o intent |
|
Neely: Priming Summary
|
-Lexical decision task
-Each letter string was preceded by a prime, either a related word, an unrelated word, or a neutral prime (baseline condition) -2 sources of priming: automatic spreading activation and expectancy |
|
Expectancy Priming
|
-Controlled, deliberate, slower
-Neely told subjects that when see prime word "building" to expect target to be a member of the body part category |
|
Neely: Results for semantic pairing
|
-Faciliation for prime-target trails such as "Bird-robin"
-Not dependent on SOA *so semantic priming is automatic |
|
Neely: Results for unrelated prime
|
-Inhibition
-Inhibition effect grew stronger across longer and longer SOA |
|
Neely: Results for "building" prime and body part target
|
-Should expect switch to body part category: "building-leg"
-At short SOA there was no priming -At long SOA there was significant priming b/c formed expectancy set due to instructions |
|
Neely: Results for "building" prime when didn't switch to body part target
|
-"building-door" had faciliation at short SOA (tapped into normal semantic priming) BUT cost at long SOA
-"building-shark" had baseline at short SOA and cost at long SOA |
|
Priming Experiment
|
-See prime, time passes, see targe
-Task is to name target as fast as you can -Fastest at naming target when prime and target are semantically related (i.e. prime nurse, target doctor) |
|
Marcel: Priming is implicit process
|
-Prime was immediately followed by visual mask (scrambled visual pattern)
-Purpose was to present mask soon after the prime so subjects were not consciously aware of the prime |
|
Marcel's Results with Priming
|
RT's still faster at target when prime was semantically related even though they didn't consciously register prime
|
|
Implicit vs Explicit memory priming effect
|
-Implicit memory priming effect is rapid suggesting priming can operate automatically
-Explicit memory priming effect is deliberate (like in Neely experiment with "building" as expectancy prime) |