Cognitive Psych Midterm 3 Part 2

Front 1

different types of visual recognition impairments

Back 1

1. letters and words--alexia (acquired dyslexia) (different from developmental dyslexia

2. objects--visual agnosia

3. faces--prsopagnosia

Front 2

visual agnosis

Back 2

impairment in the ability to recognize objects despite intact redimentary perceptual abilities. includes apperceptive agnosia and associative agnosia

Front 3

apperceptive agnosia

Back 3

1. cannot discriminate between objects

2. cannot copy/match simple shapes

Front 4

associative agnosia

Back 4

1. can copy and match simple shapes line by line

2. fail to recognize objects

Front 5

prosopagnosia

Back 5

impairment in recognizing faces. failure to recognize own face. usually brain injury, but some without brain injury have been reported

Front 6

cause of prosopagnosia

Back 6

typically from right hemisphere damage and often implicate the fusiform face area

Front 7

evidence that FFA is the brain module dedicated for just face processing (TED speaker)

Back 7

1. neuroimaging evidence in video

2. direct electrical stimulation results in the video

Front 8

evidence that the FFA is just visual expertise evidence (CU Curren)

Back 8

1. dog experts activate FFA while viewing dogs (but not birds), wheras bird experts activate FFA while viewing birds (but not dogs)

2. car experts activate FFA while viewing cars (but not birds or dogs)

Front 9

how many subsystems in Farah's analysis?

Back 9

two subsystems

Front 10

farah's subsystem 1

Back 10

holistic (global) analysis: crucial for face processing and important for object proessing

Front 11

farah's subsystem 2

Back 11

analysis by parts (eg features, geons): crucial for word processing and important for object processing

Front 12

combinations that do not occur in Farah's analysis

Back 12

1. objects impaired, but not words and faces

2. words and face impaired, but not objects

Front 13

holistic analysis and face processing--the composite effect

Back 13

if you automatically engage in holistic analysis of an entire face, then recognizing the individual faces in a composite face is difficul

Front 14

tanaka and farah (1993) study

Back 14

study phase with face and house. individual components are hard to identify in isolation for faces but not for objects

Front 15

holistic and face processing--thatcher illusion

Back 15

holistic analysis of faces is difficult when they are not presented in the upright orientation

Front 16

face perception results

Back 16

slower to respond to inverted faces than to normal faces and made more erros for inverted faces than normal faces, so holistic analysis of inverted faces is difficult

Front 17

two central characteristics of attention

Back 17

selectivity and limited capacity. applicable to all types of attention

Front 18

3 types of attention

Back 18

selective, divided, and sustained

Front 19

selective attention

Back 19

focusing one's consciousness on a particular stimulus ex maintaining a focus on the ongoing conversation in a noisy environment

Front 20

divided attention

Back 20

performing multiple tasks simultaneously (when the tasks require attention for effective processing) "multitasking" ex using cell phones while driving

Front 21

sustained attention

Back 21

continuously monitoring an environment for an extended period of time in an attempt to detect rare target signals "vigilance" ex air traffic controller looking for strange things

Front 22

auditory selective attention metaphor

Back 22

"filter"

Front 23

visual selective attention

Back 23

"spotlight" (spatially based) and "glue" (feature binding)

Front 24

dichotic listening

Back 24

two simultaneous messages--you "shadow" one and ignore the other

shadow attended channel and ignore unattended channel

Front 25

what people notice in the unattended channel

Back 25

1. physical characteristics of the message (sex of the speakers and a switch to non speech sounds)

Front 26

what people fail to notice in the unattended channel

Back 26

the content (meaning) of the message--message played backwards, a switch to a different language, the same word repeated over and over

Front 27

early selection theory

Back 27

little or no semantic analysis for the unattended information

sensory analysis---filter---semantic analysis

Front 28

late selection theory

Back 28

full semantic analysis for the unattended information

sensory analysis---semantic analysis---filter

Front 29

problems with late selection theory

Back 29

the unattended information is highly unlikely to be as fully processed semantically as the attended information

Front 30

problems with early selection theory

Back 30

some semantic information seems to be processed in the unattended channel

ex cocktail phenomenon and meaning based switch of the channels

Front 31

the cocktail party phenomenon

Back 31

people sometimes detect their names in the unattended channel (morey, 1959)

Front 32

meaning based switch of the channels

Back 32

good semantic continuation can elicit unconscious switch to unattended channel

Front 33

attenuation theory

Back 33

partial semantic analysis for the unattended information

sensory analysis---attenuator---semantic analysis

selection is still made on the basis of sensory analysis, but the unattended information is "attenuated" for semantic analysis

Front 34

main metaphor for auditory selective attention

Back 34

selective filter "attenuator"

Front 35

how much analysis does the ignored stimulus undergo?

Back 35

1. sensory characteristics anaylized

2. some (but limited) semantic analysis

Front 36

inattentional blindness

Back 36

a perceiver's failure to see stimuli right in front of his/her eyes

selectively attending some stimulus and lack of processing other unattended information (invisible gorilla)

Front 37

the "flexible spotlight" metaphor

Back 37

spatial aspects of attention. movable and can flexibly change the width of focus

Front 38

the "glue" metaphor

Back 38

for feature binding (color+shape)

different features are processed separately, attention "glues together" multiple features of an object

Front 39

laberge

Back 39

1983 study narrow vs wide focus. wide focus no position effect and narrow focus a clear position effect

Front 40

treisman and gelade

Back 40

simple feature search vs conjoint (combined) search. found no attentional glue is needed for simple feature search but attentional glue is needed to bind multiple features together in a conjoint search

Front 41

pop out effect

Back 41

single features "pop out" and are easy to find. no effect of distractor size and no effect of target present vs absent

Front 42

conjoint search results

Back 42

strong effect of distractor size and clear difference for taret present vs absent trials

Front 43

how much analysis does the ignored sitimulus undergo in visual selective attention

Back 43

1. very limited outside the spotlight (inattentional blindness)

2. without attentional glue, it is often difficult to perceive complext objects with multiple features