Physiological Psychology

Front 1

Propositions in Schachter

Back 1

1) Biological arousal + no immediate explanation

= emotion based on information given

2) Biological arousal + appropriate explanation

= explanation used

3) No biological arosual = explanation dismissed

Front 2

Method in Schachter

Back 2

Laboratory Experiment

Front 3

Variables in Schachter

Back 3

IV1) Adrenaline Inf.

IV2) Adrenaline Mis.

IV3) Adrenalin Ig.

Ctrl) Placebo, saline solution

IV4) Europhia/Anger stooge

DV) Behaviour

Front 4

Sub Groups in Schachter

Back 4

Placebo Anger

Placebo Europhia

Adrenaline Inf./ Ig. Anger

Adrenaline Inf./Ig. Europhia

Adrenaline Mis Europhia (no anger)

Front 5

Explanation of IV in relation to stooge in Schacter

Back 5

Adrenaline Inf. = should not copy the stooge

Adrenaline Mis. = should copy behaviour

Adrenaline Ig. = should copy behaviour

Placebo = should not copy stooge

Front 6

Design in Schachter

Back 6

Independent groups

Front 7

Participants in Schachter

Back 7

Male college students

Self-selecting sample. Offered two extra points on final exam.

Front 8

Apparatus in Schachter

Back 8

Private room for injections

"Suproxin"

Items for stooge (paper, wastebasket, hula hoop and ambiguous questionnaire)

Front 9

Controls in Schachter

Back 9

1) All participants given an injection

2) Same procedure

3) Stooge's actions and behaviour

4) 2 observers

Front 10

Procedure in Schachter

Back 10

1) Each participant given Suproxin after giving consent

2) Depending on the three conditions, they were either told correct, wrong or nothing at all.

3) Participant placed in room with Europhic stooge/ Angry stooge.

4) Experimenter hands out questionnaire.

5) Debreifs

Front 11

Stooge's actions in Schahcter

Back 11

Euphoric - Doodles on paper, crumples it and plays basketball with wastebasket. Paper plane. Builds tower of folders. Hula hoop. Asks participant to join in.

Angry - While answering questionnaire, makes aggressive comments

Front 12

Observation catagories for Schachter

Back 12

Euphoric -

ignores stooge

Initiates new activity

Ignores stooge

Watches stooge

Angry -

Agrees/disagrees

Neutral

Initiates agreement/disagreement

Watches

Ignores

Front 13

Findings in Schahcter

Back 13

1) Ephinephrine condition experienced more biological responses than placebo

2) For europhia self-reports, Epi. INF. experienced slightly less than others

3) For anger self reports, Epi. INF. had highest score

4) For europhia observations, Epi. Mis. had the most, Epi. IG. had the least

5) For anger observations, Epi. IG. had the most, Epi. INF. had the least

Front 14

Conclusions in Schachter

Back 14

All three hypothesis supported

Back up two-factor theory of emotion

Front 15

Aims in Dement

Back 15

1) Dreming occur in REM or NREM sleep

2) Can participants estimate length of dream

3) Do eye patterns correlate to dream content

4) Duration of words to describe dream correlate to length of REM sleep

Front 16

Method in Dement

Back 16

Natural experiment

Front 17

Variables in Dement

Back 17

Aim 1) IV- REM and NREM sleep, DV- number of dreams recalled

Aim 2) IV - woken after 5/15 minutes, DV - dream estimators

Aim 3) IV - eye movement, DV - dream content

Aim 4) IV - length of dream, DV - number of words used to describe dream

Front 18

Design in Dement

Back 18

Repeated Measures

Front 19

Participants in Dement

Back 19

9 originally

After dropping out after 2 nights, 5 remained and completed 6-17 nights

Self-selecting sample from Uni. of Chicago

Front 20

Apparatus in Dement

Back 20

Sleep lab with equipment (bed, electrodes connected to EEG (eye), bell and tape recorder)

Front 21

Controls in Dement

Back 21

Participants asked not to drink alcohol or coffee.

Woken by bell

Recorded by tape recorder

Front 22

Conclusions in Dement

Back 22

Dreams occur in REM sleep

Dreams happen in real time

Dream content matches eye direction

Front 23

Aim in Maguire

Back 23

1) To confirm other studies that specific brain regions are involved in semantic topographical memory retrieval

2) To see which region of the brain is associated with landmark knowledge

3) To see the link between topographical memory and non-topographical semantic memory

Front 24

Method in Maguire

Back 24

Labratory experiment with pre-study questionnaire

Front 25

Pre-study questionnaire in Maguire

Back 25

1) Familiar areas of London

2) Familiar filmed from a list of 150

3) Familiar world-famous landmarks they have not visited

Front 26

5 tasks in Maguire (semantic/topographical)

Back 26

Recalling a London route (S+T+)

Describing world famous landmarks (S-T+)

Film sequence (T-S+)

Film frames (S-T+)

Baseline task of reading out 2 four digit numbers to control for speech output

Front 27

Design in Maguire

Back 27

Repeated measures

Counter balanced

Front 28

Participants in Maguire

Back 28

11 RH, male, taxi drivers

Minimum of 3 years experience

Average age 45

Front 29

Controls in Maguire

Back 29

All participants never visited landmarks

Participants had all seen movie at least 5 times

Scanner and injections the same

Pilot study

Front 30

Procedure in Maguire

Back 30

1) Pre study questionnaire

2) Blindfolded and put in scanner

3) Recived an injection of H2"15O. And saline flush.

4) Underwent task

5) Steps 3 and 4 repeated 12 times

Front 31

Results for Topographical Tasks in Maguire

Back 31

Routes Task (S+)

bilateral activity in extrastriate region, medial parietal lobe, posterior cingulate cortex, parahippocamal gyrus, right hippocampus

Landmarks Test (S-)

Medial parietal lobe, posterior cingulate cortex, parahippocamal gyrus, left inferior and middle frontal gyri.

Front 32

Results for non-topographical tasks in Maguire

Back 32

Film Tasks

Left frontal regions, middle temporal gyrus, left angular gyrus, left angular gyrus

Front 33

Conclusions in Maguire

Back 33

1) Aim 1 confirmed

2) Routes = landmarks except routes uses right hippocampus

3) Hippocampus involved in the processing of spatial lay outs over long time periods

4) Right hippocampus for large scale navigation,

T-S+ left inferior frontal gyrus

Front 34

Aim in Dematte

Back 34

Whether olfactory cues influence people's judgements of attractiveness

Front 35

Method in Dematte

Back 35

Laboratory Experiment

Front 36

Variables in Dematte

Back 36

IV1) Pleasant/unpleasant smell

IV2) Attractive/unattractive faces

DV) Ratings of attractiveness (1-9)

Front 37

Design in Dematte

Back 37

Repeated Measures with counterbalancing

Participants viewed 40 faces, 10 of each condition

Front 38

Participants in Dematte

Back 38

16 female Oxford students

Front 39

Apparatus in Dematte

Back 39

Questionnaire to determine health problems

40 male faces

4 odours (male fragrance, germanium, b.o and rubber)

Olfactometer

Computer

Front 40

Controls in Dematte

Back 40

Questionnaire determined smelling ability

Counterbalanced

Time of presentation kept constant

Tone and odour release standardised

Odour strength

Front 41

Procedure in Dematte

Back 41

1) Participants answered health questionnaire

2) Participants sat at computer and tones determined their actions

3) Participants confirmed if they could smell a smell

4) Participants rated face out of 9

5) At the end participants rated the odour

Front 42

Findings in Dematte

Back 42

1) Male fragrance gave the highest rating

2) Lowest rating was for b.o

3) Faces as less attractive with unpleasant odour

Front 43

Conclusions in Dematte

Back 43

More attractive if bad smell

A pleasant smell does not increase attractiveness