20 - Functional Equivalence Hypothesis PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes...

Description

Functional Equivalence Hypothesis 3 March 2017 







 











Using images rather than propositions for knowledge representation o Images pictured in the mind is analogous to physical perception o Imagery and perception used similar brain areas Mental rotations o Each increase in degree of rotation, there was a linear increase in response time  Larger angles of rotation  Degraded stimuli  Complex items vs. similar  Unfamiliar vs. familiar Evidence from neuroimaging o Areas involved in perception also involved in mental rotation tasks o Motor cortex activation o Different brain areas were activated in men vs. women (training caused differences to decrease/disappear) Imaging o Imagining pairs of animals (ie. Elephant vs. rabbit)  Takes longer to describe the details of smaller objects Mental image scanning o Mentally representing something as an image, in your mind Intons-Peterson (1985) o Suggested different outcomes to different groups of experimenters  Performance better for perceptual task OR better for mental imagery task  Results reflected the condition (did better in whatever task the experimenter expected them to) Representational neglect o Ignoring half of the imagined scene only when there is a vantage point o Usually occurs together with spatial neglect  Only representational neglect will struggle with mental imagery tasks Propositional vs. functional equivalence hypothesis o Imagery isn’t responsible for everything o Propositional theory – mental representations that are more abstract and underlie relationships Mental models o Knowledge structures used to represent an individual’s experience  Not dependent on physical laws, just beliefs (ie. How a plane flies, photosynthesis) Mani and Johnson-Laird o Detailed or ambiguous information o Detailed information  additional inferences of spatial location, but not the details word for word o Ambiguous information  information verbatim, but did not infer anything else  Reflects the huge number of possibilities for the mental models based on information given Kerr (1983) o People who were born blind  Never experienced visual perception  Form mental image of board using touch









 Slower response times when mentally scanning longer distances Intons-Peterson, Russell and Dressel o Auditory mental images o Asked to mentally shift a sound in pitch  Took longer to shift from low to high pitch Mental models o Complementary to propositions or mental imagery o Can explain haptic or auditory forms of imagery Faulty mental models o Responsible for errors, especially in the classroom o Having a model that is not accurate can lead to false predictions  Demonstrations of a process helps correct this o Split brain patients  Right hemisphere – visuospatial knowledge  Left hemisphere – verbal and symbol based knowledge Visual vs. spatial imagery o Visual – colors and shapes o Spatial – features such as depth dimensions, distances, orientations o Patient L.H.  Injury led to impairment to represent and manipulate visual and spatial images  Could copy various pictures  Couldn’t recognize any of the pictures copied  Performed poorly at questions asking about color and shape o Certain types of knowledge use propositions and symbolic knowledge o Manipulation of images uses imaginal, analogous knowledge of objects...