Human Learning And Cognition Exam 1

Front 1

proactive interference

Back 1

older learning interferes with new learning

can't learn new info

Front 2

retroactive interference

Back 2

later learning interferes with earlier learning

can't remember old info

Front 3

Keppel and Underwood (1962)

Back 3

proactive interference build up

Study Spanish; study French; French test OR
sleep; study French; French test
Spanish learning interfered with French learning; more forgetting with each trial (95% -> 70% -> 55% -> 40%)

Front 4

Brown-Peterson paradigm

Back 4

distraction task

3 consonants, then 3 digits and have to count back in 3's, then remember consonants

Front 5

Reitman (1971)

Back 5

retroactive interference

more interference when items are similar (baseball stats and football stats) than when different (stats and dance steps)

distraction task: words cause more interference than humming

Front 6

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) modal model

Back 6

info through senses
if pay attention, then goes to STM
if rehearsed, then goes to LTM

If info from senses not attended to, then will forget

Front 7

sensory store

Back 7

info from senses

Front 8

Sperling (1960)

Back 8

sensory information is susceptible to the effects of decay
Participants shown 12 items in 3 rows for 50 ms, then arrow pointed to row for recall; since didn't know which row in advance, what remembered for that row would remember for others (75%).
seeing (sensing 75% but not retained or encoded)

Front 9

introspection

Back 9

method of study that follows own thought processes to understand how we process information (qualitative)

Front 10

goal of introspection

Back 10

tried to explain how thought worked

Front 11

techniques for introspection

Back 11

trainer would instruct subject on how to report thought process; subject listened to metronome and described experience

Front 12

problems with introspection

Back 12

required training; there was a "right" way to listen; trainer influenced subject's experience
only conscious process could be reported
didn't add the understanding of cognition

Front 13

useful results of introspection studies

Back 13

The beginning of scientific study in psychology; Germany 1879

Front 14

Wilhem Wundt

Back 14

German structionalist; father of psychology
wanted to quantify things in psychology similar to chemistry
taught first course in psychology

Front 15

problem with visual perception

Back 15

inverse projection on retina - how does brain handle that?

Front 16

how visual perception problem is solved

Back 16

make unconscious assumptions about:
shape and orientation
light (source, shadow, reflection)
size and distance

Front 17

what do we do/think when solving visual perception problem

Back 17

we aren't consciously aware of this, so we don't actually do anything or think about it, so it's not really a problem

Front 18

primary vs secondary depth cues

Back 18

primary cues are in the visual system
secondary cues are in the environment
predators need depth perception to stalk and pounce so eyes are on front of head; prey need 360 field of vision so eyes on sides of head

Front 19

primary depth cues

Back 19

accommodation - for things within 1 meter, lens changes shape in order to focus the image on the retina
convergence - eyes adduct as object becomes closer
stereopsis - retinal disparity; each eye sees a slightly different image

Front 20

secondary depth cues

Back 20

perspective - linear (lines converge), texture (more detailed when close), relative height (same real size objects are larger when close)
familiarity - know size of object
occlusion - object that blocks view of another will be closer
atmospheric - darker and clearer is closer than lighter and hazier

Front 21

Epstein (1965)

Back 21

photos of different coins, made same size and hung evenly, subjects thought smaller coins were closer

Front 22

template model of object recognition

Back 22

compare with known object in memory

Front 23

cons of template model of object recognition

Back 23

imperfect lineup
different size/orientation
similar but not exact
lock and key approach

Front 24

feature model of object recognition

Back 24

match critical parts with object in memory; doesn't have to be exact match of angles or colors

Front 25

pros of feature model of object recognition

Back 25

more efficient than template model
process consistent with what we now know about neurophysiology (brain cells respond to lines at different orientations)

Front 26

potential problem with feature model of object recognition

Back 26

doesn't account for perception of natural objects; shouldn't be able to recognize rotated objects

Front 27

Selfridge and Neisser (1960)

Back 27

tip-of-the-tongue
Pandemonium model - layers of detectors for object recognition (demons)
feature demons - basic aspects; lines, angles
cognitive demons - responds to particular configurations of lines, angles
decision demon - selects output of above that is dominant

Front 28

early filter model of attention

Back 28

sensory characteristics are processed, then filtered to decide if will be processed at deeper level (for meaning)

Front 29

late filter model of attention

Back 29

physical and semantic processing occurs, then filtered to decide if will be processed at deeper level

Front 30

Cherry (1953)

Back 30

dichotic listening
listening to different thing on each side
shadow one side, but then has to report on the other side
didn't notice: language change, played in reverse
did notice: change to pure tone, change in gender
Conclusion: unattended speech is not analyzed for semantics

Front 31

first Moray (1959)

Back 31

dichotic listening
something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other
even when same words are repeated 35 times, could not recall

Front 32

second Moray (1959)

Back 32

dichotic listening
something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other
1/3 heard own name
"cocktail party effect"

Front 33

Corteen and Wood (1972)

Back 33

shock was paired with certain city names
then dichotic listening (but no shock)
something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other
GSR used to measure response to special city names (without shock)
Result: couldn't report, but 38% showed GSR with special city names, 23% with any city name, 10% with irrelavent nouns

Front 34

more correct filter model of attention

Back 34

early filter seems more correct
Dawson & Schell (1982) showed subjects were actually shifting attention

Front 35

Strayer and Drews (2007)

Back 35

driving while on cell phone caused inattentional blindness

Front 36

evidence provided in Strayer and Drews (2007)

Back 36

incidental-recognition-memory paradigm
when on cell phone: less likely to recognize signs they had looked at, regardless of how long; brain activity reduced 50% when on cell phone
task success 88% to 50%, conversing in car, conversing hands-free

Front 37

which resources model is supported by Strayer and Drews (2007)

Back 37

does not support multiple-resource model; apparent central processing bottleneck

Front 38

components of Baddeley's working memory model

Back 38

central executive
visuospatial sketchpad
phonological loop
episodic buffer

Front 39

central executive component

Back 39

Baddeley's working memory model
directs activities of visuospatial sketchpad, phonological loop, and episodic buffer
does not process

Front 40

visuospatial sketchpad component

Back 40

Baddeley's working memory model
processes visual input
fluid; unchanged by learning

Front 41

phonological loop component

Back 41

Baddeley's working memory model
processes auditory input
fluid - doesn't change with learning

Front 42

episodic buffer component

Back 42

processes on multimodal level
meaning
episodic
language
crystallized - capable of accumulating long term knowledge

Front 43

working memory and math anxeity/performance

Back 43

processing efficiency theory - general anxiety disrupts working memory process because attention shifts to intrusive thoughts and worries

Front 44

Ashcraft (2002)

Back 44

study on math anxiety and working memory

Front 45

anxiety vs competence issue for math anxiety

Back 45

able to score higher on untimed paper and pencil test

Front 46

proposed qualities of flashbulb memories

Back 46

resulting memory is:
complete
accurate
immune to forgetting

Front 47

Brown and Kulik (1977)

Back 47

flashbulb memories are very accurate
"Where were you when JFK was assassinated?"

Front 48

Talarico and Rubin (2003)

Back 48

9/11 questionnaire at 3 days
asked again at 1, 6, or 32 weeks
not accurate
same level of forgetting as for everyday details

Front 49

Schmolch et al (2000)

Back 49

OJ Simpson verdict at 3 days
asked again at 15 or 32 months
not accurate
same level of forgetting as for everyday details.

Front 50

Craik and Lockhart (1972)

Back 50

memory theory for levels of processing framework rather than stages for sensory, working, and long-term memory

Front 51

levels of processing theory of memory

Back 51

shallow processing - surface, information only
deep processing - semantic, meaning attached

Front 52

Troyer et al (2006)

Back 52

study of levels of processing theory of memory and name and face recognition
semantic and intentional learning was highest recall
physical features and phonemic was lowest recall

Front 53

Craik and Tulvig (1975)

Back 53

study of level of processing theory of memory
word recognition study
structural - features of letters (20%)
phonemic - sound of word (75%)
category - put in group (90%)
sentence - use in sentence (95%)

Front 54

reasons for forgetting

Back 54

occlusion
unlearning
decay
changes to target memories
regression

Front 55

Brown and McNeill (1966)

Back 55

occlusion (forgetting)
tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon
know learned something, but can't remember
agitation relieved by remembering

Front 56

Melton and Irwin (1940)

Back 56

Unlearning (forgetting)
Learn word list 1; 30 min with magazine OR word list 2; retest on list 1
learning list 2 causes weakening of learning of list 1

Front 57

Minami and Dallenbach (1946)

Back 57

decay (forgetting)
cockroach study - learn to stay in lit area; then active OR inactive; inactive remembered better
activity interfered with learning

Front 58

Anderson, Bjork, and Bjork (1994)

Back 58

changes to target (forgetting)
words in category; practice half; didn't remember unpracticed words in practiced category
recall not good if something changed (context, different meaning)

Front 59

Schooler, Bendiksen, and Ambador (1997)

Back 59

repression (forgetting) - active forgetting for self preservation (too painful)
WB raped at knifepoint; forgotten until triggered by male coworker

Front 60

Karpicke and Roediger (2008)

Back 60

memory study using testing effect

Front 61

Karpicke and Roediger (2008) method

Back 61

English-Swahili word pairs
ST (all), SnT (all), S(all)Tn, SnTn (n=nonlearned)

Front 62

Karpicke and Roediger (2008) retention test results

Back 62

All conditions learned all word pairs on initial phase
SnT and STn - similar # of trials during learning but SnT 80% vs STn 35% retention
T(all) conditions similar retention regardless of Sn or S(all)

Front 63

Karpicke and Roediger (2008) student perceptions

Back 63

all conditions thought they would remember about 50% after 1 week

Front 64

Karpicke and Roediger (2008) implications for learning and recommendations

Back 64

practice retrieval of learned, do not need to re-encode
Restudy what don't know, retest on everything every time

Front 65

encoding specificity principle

Back 65

encode context along with target, so better retrieval if context is present

Front 66

Light and Carter-Sobell (1970)

Back 66

study about encoding specificity principle
strawberry JAM used in sentence
then tested on recognition of JAM using cues of strawberry (70%), raspberry (43%), and traffic (28%)

Front 67

influence of prior knowledge on memory

Back 67

reduces amount of new encoding (chunking)
guides interpretation (put into a schema, give default value)
unusual things stand out (check against what we expect, our script)
Example: expected activities at a restaurant include being seated, looking at menu, ordering meal, eating food, paying bill, leaving. If something doesn't happen, we will remember

Front 68

iconic memory

Back 68

type of sensory memory with:
large capacity
spontaneous delay/potential to be erased
brief duration (500ms)
representation (physical)

Front 69

echoic memory

Back 69

type of sensory memory auditory version of iconic memory

Front 70

Di Lollo (1980)

Back 70

iconic memory study
starts to fade when stimulus appeared, not when it went away