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;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Describe the study on Top-Down processing study that had to do with letters. What effect did this study show? |
Method: Participants told to look for a specific letter (e.g. the letter "A") One of three things flashed on screen: a single letter, a mix of letters, a word Participants decide whether their letter was flashed on the screen Used short, medium and long flashes. Number of errors made was recorded Results: words = least amount of errors for all flash durations. Letters = second smallest amount of errors Non-words = most errors for all durations. Longer flash duration = less errors The fact that the words resulted in so much less error demonstrates the word superiority effect. The word superiority effect: Use top-down processing to recognize and read a word quickly Already have knowledge of word = our expectation to see word and knowledge of it allow us to read known word quickly w/o looking at every letter Because we know the spelling of the word we know which letters are in it => this and quick recognition lead to less errors |
|
|
Describe Top-down processing study that had to do with pictures and familiar scenes |
Method: Showed participants cartoon drawing of familiar scene (e.g. a kitchen) Flashed cartoon picture of object either 1) fit in context of scene 2) same shape as something that would fit in context 3) completely unrelated to scene Asked participants to ID flashed picture, recorded errors Results: The context picture was correctly ID'd 80% of the time. The other two were only 40% Top down processing allowed the in context picture to be ID'd correctly more often because the initial scene set up expectations and preconceptions about what might be shown. Brain used these already-present expectations to correctly ID in context picture But that did not help (and may have hindered) correct ID of unrelated or slightly related pictures. |
|
|
Explain the "What" visual system |
a.k.a. ventral stream or perception pathway Controlled by the temporal lobe Object (rather than action or location) based Object and visual recognition/identification Makes judgments on objects (significance etc.) Slow |
|
|
Explain the "Where/How" visual system |
a.k.a. dorsal stream or action pathway Controlled by Parietal Lobe Location (rather than object) based Spatial awareness, guidance of actions Detailed visual map, detects & analyzes movement Fast |
|
|
Describe the "what vs how" visual systems study that involved monkeys |
Method: monkeys given one of two tasks: either "what/perception pathway" task or "How/Action pathway" task What task: required the use of the ventral stream visual system. Food hidden under triangle => monkey finds => food hidden again but this time under cube => monkey learns that food switches between the two objects meaning he must use his ventral stream to differential btwn two and decide which is right this time How/Where task: food always hidden under same rectangle first close to monkey then far away from monkey => monkey learns food is switching locations = must use his dorsal stream to determine which location is correct NEXT monkeys lesioned on either parietal or temporal lobe => see which task monkey can't preform anymore Results: monkeys with lesion on temporal lobe can't preform what task => temporal lobe controls "what" visual system monkeys with lesion on parietal lobe can't preform "where/how" task => parietal lobe controls "where/how" visual system |
|
|
Describe the "what vs how" visual systems study involving hills |
Method: participants asked to either 1) look at hill and estimate angle of steepness 2) look at hill and tilt wooden board on wheel to match incline of hill 1) uses "what" system: ppl look at object (hill) and try to assess one of it's qualities (steepness) 2) uses "how/where" system: ppl must estimate quality of hill (steepness) by preforming an *action* Results: participants using "what" were way off -- always over-estimating. Participants using "how/where" system were very accurate -- only slightly off, sometimes dead on shows difference between object and action streams. Object stream can be fooled, but action stream is not because we need it to physically function |
|
|
briefly describe two studies on auditory selective attention |
Dichotic Listening: two messages, one in each ear: one payed attention to and repeated, other ignored Both studies: how much meaning from ignored message gets through? Method (both) started dichotic listening => nature of ignored message changed => participants notice? Results: 1) don't notice language change, message starts playing backwards do notice change in voice gender, change from words to pure tone 2) don't notice word repeated 35 times and recognize those word(s) later |
|
|
what are the three theories of auditory selection
|
early selection late selection attenuated selection |
|
|
Describe theory of early selection in auditory attention |
messages in L&R ear received and immediately filtered, only attended ear has meaning analyzed so that person can respond |
|
|
Give a study that presents evidence against Early selection theory |
study by same people that did 35 repeated word Method Dichotic Listening => play participant's name in unattended ear => participant notice's? Results: 33% of participant's noticed name being called = suggests meaning is processed before filtering or at least that unattended ear is not completely filtered |
|
|
Describe the late selection theory of auditory selection |
meaning of all sounds is processed => then filtered |
|
|
describe the study that supports late selection theory |
Method: dichotic listening => played sentence with word that has 2+ meanings = sentence is ambiguous => in unattended ear, play synonym or context word for one of multiple meanings => ask participant how they interpret the sentence and if they remember what played in unattended ear Results Most were unarware of what played in unattended ear BUT most interpreted sentence way supposed to suggests meaning was processed before being filtered |
|
|
Describe the theory that gives evidence against late selection theory |
Method: Dichotic listening w/ twist: repeat message from one ear but both listen for target word => what is percent error for both ears? The same or one better? Results: attended/repeating ear (heard 87%) is better than mostly ignored ear (heard 8%) at hearing target word. |
|
|
Describe the currently dominating auditory selective attention theory |
Attenuated theory sounds filtered => then processed BUT some sound that should be filtered out allowed to get through explains both problems with early selection (cocktail effect) and late selection (target word study) |
|
|
Explain spotlight metaphor of visual selective attention and describe the study used to support it |
Vision/Placement of gaze is like spotlight: attention follows where it goes Method: participants look at visual field => visual target flashed on field => they must find as quickly as possible => may or may not be given different target as "visual cue," target may or may not be misleading => for all three options measure rxn time Results ppl were fastest w/ honest visual cue, slowest w/ dishonest cue suggest attn was focused where eyes were looking bc where eyes were changed amnt of time took to focus on target |
|
|
Is visual selective attention location based or object based? Describe the study that supports the answer |
seems to be object based Method: overlay two different pics = two objects, one location => have participants focus on one of two pics => change both pics occasionally => participants must say only when their pic changes => can they do it? Results: participant can focus on one object that's in the same location as another object and tell when their object has changed while ignoring changes in the other one = suggests selective attention object based |
|
|
contrast the two theories of the nature of mental imagery |
Analog code (depiction): mental image has characteristic of physical objects i.e. it's literally an image/a copy of the stimulus Propositional code (description): mental image is an abstract, language-like, verbal description |
|
|
Describe a study that supports the analog theory of mental imagery |
Method: present participant with two pics of Tetris like 3D object => some are pics of same object at diff angles of rotation, other are pics of two diff objects => ask participant if they are the same => measure rxn time, look for correlation btwn rxn time and angle of rotation of objects that are same => do this for both "plane" rotation and "depth" rotation Results: For same objects, rxn time for participants was directly proportional (on average) to angle of rotation i.e. larger angle of rotation = longer rxn time suggests participants are turning literal images in head |
|
|
Describes a study that supports the propositional code theory of mental imagery |
Method: Participants shown two-way image => asked what participant sees => participant gave one of the two possibilities => took away image => asked participants to bring up mental image and try to come up with alternate interpretation of image. Can they do it? => then ask participant to draw image => looking at their drawing, now can they reinterpret it? Results: No participants could reinterpret from mental imagery All could reinterpret after drawing pic Suggest we do not have literal mental images, most likely have language like / verbal code instead |
|
|
Explain the three theories of object recognition, include the problem(s) with each of them |
template matching: compare stimuli to with template stored in memory. Used by machines Problem: too many templates would be needed Feature analysis: recognize by identifying distinctive features (types of lines: curved, horizontal, vertical) Problems: still recognize object even when regular orientation rotated (e.g. sideways letter) AND what about complex objects with many/many lines and fewer distinctive features (cat vs. dog) Geons Theory: ppl have set "alphabet" of basic 3D shapes = geons (e.g. cylinder, cone, cube, etc.) and recognize objects based off the geons they possess and how those geons are oriented to one another -- relies heavily on intersections Problems: what abt the finer distinctions that might separate two objects (two similar size but different dogs have pretty much same geons) AND what about objects with no IDable geons (clouds, puddles)? |
|
|
Which of the three object recognition theories is most likely |
A mixture w/ geons used for general identification and memory used for finer details |
|
|
Describe the study that supports the Feature analysis theory Include results of neuroscience study |
Method: participants asked to say if letters same or different => (for different letters) either given similarly shaped (R vs P) or very different (G vs W) letters => measure rxn time to say different Results: took longer for people to tell similar letters apart than very different letters possible that people are looking for distinctive features (what kinds of lines) to tell apart the two letters => feature analysis ALSO neuroscience study w/ fMRI? showed that we have neurons sensitive to specific line orientations |
|
|
Describe the study that supports the Geon theory |
Method: showed ppl bad drawing and asked them what they thought it was => either given drawing with 1) intersection erased but lines mostly intact 2) lines mostly erased but intersections left in tact Results: more ppl correctly IDed object in drawings with intersections left intact than drawings with lines left in tact geon theory says we rely on intersection of geons to recognize objects |
|
|
Describe the two types of searches in feature integration theory |
Disjunctive/Feature Search: target has one distinctive feature search is immediate = fast # of distractors doesn't affect rxn time actual presence of target doesn't affect RT Parallel search (look at whole scene at once) only requires 1 feature map Conjunctive search: target has at least two distinctive features requires binding of two feature maps => serial search thru serial selective attn generally takes longer than disjunctive but esp. when target not present bc serial search must cover whole area increasing # of distractors increases rxn time not immediate, takes effort and attn |
|
|
Describe the studies that showed the differences btwn disjunctive and conjunctive searches |
Method ppl told to look for target & say whether present => showed screen w/ distractors and possibly target => target could have one distinctive feature (disjunctive) or 2+ (conjunctive) => measured rxn time Results disjunctive search is immediate # of distractors doesn't affect rxn time actual presence of target doesn't affect RT conjunctive generally RT longer than disjunctive but esp. when target not present not immediate, takes effort and attn increasing # of distractors increases rxn time |
