Cognitive Psych 2 Partttttt 2

Front 1

metacognition

Back 1

how do we think we think? knowledge, awareness and control of cognitive processes, what we known about we know

Front 2

why we study meta-cognition

Back 2

study to understand thought and be better thinkers as well as to understand th elimits of conscious awareness
-relevant to attention, memory, comprehension, learning, problem solving, decision making

Front 3

Judgements of Learning

Back 3

Judgements of how difficult it will be to learn/remember stimuli.
BB-77, CD-34-recognize repititions and acrynoms of of Cd as easy to remeber, recognize semantic meanings
90% accuracy in what theyll be able to remember if tested immediatly, 70% accurate if delay but still better then chance

Front 4

subjects have knowledge that they will better remeber things that are

Back 4

highly related, repititions of characters, sequential characters, concrete (can picture) vs abstract, familiar vs unfamiliar.

Front 5

Better accuracy when

Back 5

-better accuracy when material is overlearned, easy and learned intentionally. better accuracy if you say you are goingh to learn it you do, accurat ein predicting that youll know it
-can discriminate items in terms of memory of memorability, which requires knowledge of how memory works.

Front 6

Tip of the tongue

Back 6

give definition "type of doctor who specializes in skin disease" know you know it but cant produce it. induced with definitions, pictures, fictitous animals

Front 7

Browns Review of TOT research- partial info available at first

Back 7

-can give first or last letter
-give similar sounding words
-similar meaning words or associations of features
-number of syllables and stress pattern in prononciation
-elicited with wide variety of materials

Front 8

Resolved

Back 8

quickly, though spontaneous pop ins happen, 2hrs later youre able to remember, partial activation but neurons not completely activated when a lot of info is avilable about the world.

Front 9

Blocking

Back 9

interlopers sometimes hurt., sometimes help, sometimes no effect.
melissa vs marisa- melissa name blocks need to let go sometimes

Front 10

Illusort feeling of TOT

Back 10

can be illusory due to the way it can be reminding

Front 11

impending sense of retrievability

Back 11

TOT is all or non, hence different from feeling of knowing

Front 12

FOK-feelings of knowing

Back 12

"warmth" ratings reflect state of believeing that information can be retrieved from memory though it is not currently recallable-you know you know it. you know you know this..how likley do you think it will be that youll be able to retrieve it?

Front 13

FOK ratings reliably predict performance on

Back 13

on later retrieval (recognition, cued recall, relearning rates)

Front 14

with FOK tend to be overconfident, overestimate

Back 14

more accurate if FOK judgement of accuracy is delayed rather then making judgement right away
***textbook-item by item vs overall

Front 15

TOT and FOK--> Organization of Semantic Memory?retrieval and assessment of FOK as separate processes

Back 15

FOK is a rapid pre-retrieval state during which you judge the expected retrievability of a queried piece of info.
-FOK and TOT illustarte partial access of info (PDP models, seantic networks)

Front 16

Metacomprehension

Back 16

how good you are at judging whether you have understood something
-ppl tend to be overconfident for metacognition judgements (but not so bad for metamemory)
SAT subtests
Reading Comprehension-NOT accurate in metacomprehensin judgement
Vocabularly-confidence=accuracy
Math-confidence= accuracy
so metamemory for vocab and math was correct but metacomprehension judgements were not as accurate.

Front 17

Improving metacomprehension

Back 17

-need to learn to read more effectively:
-summarize info in own words, make connections, visual imagery, different reading approaches based on context
-self test-practice retrieving info

Front 18

Development of Metacomprehension. Young children (6yr old) have some metacognition awareness, they are good at

Back 18

knowing that familiar items are easier to recognize then unfamiliar items
and recognition is easier then recall

Front 19

kids are not good at

Back 19

-do not know that narratives are better then lists
-gist is easier then verbatim
-do not know how and when to use mnemonic strategies
-overly optomistic about memory span and ability to recall exact order
-do not realize there will be savings inrelearning, that delay will hurt them or that more effort=mor memory, bad at metacomprehension
-effects of delay on recall
-tend to be overly optomistic on metamemory and meta comprehension, relate dto development of memory system and frontal lobe.

Front 20

korsakoffs amnesiacs

Back 20

(damage in diencphalons, thalamus & mammillary bodies) FOK accuracy impaired, but recognition is intact, poor knowledge and use of memory strategies
-deficiency in vitamin b due to alcoholism

Front 21

Medial temporal lobe amnesiacs (patient HM)

Back 21

impaired recall and recognition (explicit memory) but intact procedural memory (know how but dont know how they know how)

Front 22

frontal lobe impairment

Back 22

impaired FOK judgements

Front 23

Blindsight

Back 23

damage in occipatl lobe
-perception without conscious awareness, dont know that you see. what we say experience is isnt actually so

Front 24

visual agnosia

Back 24

imapired ability to visually recognize objects that they can actually see. not blind. can draw pics but cant tell you what they actually saw. disjunction b/w visual and language
-occipital temporal damage.

Front 25

range of problem solving

Back 25

simple to difficult, concrete to abstract

Front 26

problem

Back 26

whenever the present situation is different than the desired situation/goal and the way to reach the goal is not readily available, finding a non obvious means to a goal (initial state, obstacle, goal)

Front 27

well defined problems

Back 27

clear goal, clear state of info from the start, often have set of rules or guidelines to follow, make better decisions when you think about goals

Front 28

ill defined problems

Back 28

dont have goals, starting info or steps clearly spelt out.

Front 29

situational cognition

Back 29

limits of the lab (drug dealers)

Front 30

Generate and test technique

Back 30

generate possible solutions and test them (locker combinations) technique best with small range of possible solutions

Front 31

Algorithims

Back 31

step by step, will always poduce a solution sooner or later NPE, NEP, PNE, PEN!
systematic search through th eproblem space if a solution is possible its guaranteed to be found

Front 32

Heuristics

Back 32

rules of thumb
-think about which letters are found in usual combinations, which letters in psychological go together

Front 33

Means-End Heuristic

Back 33

reduce difference between problem state and goal state by creating subgoals (DONALD +GERALD=ROBERT) good but sometimes need to go backward

Front 34

Hill CLimbing Heuristic

Back 34

take most diect path to goal, move steadily foward A to B

Front 35

Analogical Reasoning

Back 35

Gick and Holyoak work using th etumor problem and generals military plan (problem solving facilitated by previous analogous solution but need to point out anaology or really have subjects think deeply, can be thrown by surface rather then structural similarity
solve problem:
no analogy-10% of time
analogy + story-30% (not too many ppl capable of applying anaolgy on their own)
analogy + hint-75%
-ppl thrown off by superficial aspects of story and do not notice the analogy they could be using, analogies great for solving problems but most ppl fail to use them, look for solutions in places that dont seem similar-requires thinking and seeing things in a creative way

Front 36

non insight problems

Back 36

solve gradualy using problem solving skills, know whether you have th eability to solve

Front 37

insight problems

Back 37

metcalfes work show sthat insight problms differ from non insight problems in ways that they are solved (aha experience vs gradual, incremenetal reasoning. feeling of warmth and predictions of being able to solve is more accurate for noninsight that for insight problems

Front 38

possible problems and difficulty in problem solving

Back 38

-failing to understand problem
-not representing info in an optimal way
-being distracted by extraneous info
-failing to use connections or see analogies
-tendency to hill climb instead of working backwards

Front 39

tower of hanoi problem

Back 39

means-end analogy will not work in problem solving, need to work backwards, move disk one at a time so that they are in the same arrangement on the last leg

Front 40

Set effects/Mental Effects

Back 40

a frame of mind that leads to a particular way of representing or solving problem, tendency to create mental set and use that even when a simpler startegy would be more effective
mental rigidity- rigidly aply STRATEGY
-development of mental set-becomes automatic and mindless to find a solution, but it is not the optimal solution bc it is not the most effective one.

Front 41

functional fixedness

Back 41

tendency to use objects in their usual or customary way, lack of creativity
dunker-fail to use box of tacks as a functional object
Maier problem*

Front 42

how to improve problem solving

Back 42

-creativity
-expertise-expertise-broader knwledge base, superior memory within domain, view at subordinate level
-avoid negatve thoughts
-represent problem effectively
-attend to relevant info
-dont overburden working memory
-run through solution-hypothesis testing
-incubation