PSYU2246 study doc PDF

Preview

Summary

Tute notes for psyu2246...

Description

Phonological similarity Effect - Baddeley’s working memory system: central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad and episodic buffer - All components limited in capacity - Phonological loop - Temporary storage and manipulation of phonological info - Involved in new word forms - Passive phonological store: speech perception, holds verbal info - Articulatory control process: maintains phonological info by rehearsal, provides access to phonological store for visual input - Phonological similarity effect: words that sound - similar are harder to remember in an immediate serial recall test (over dissimilar words) - Articulatory suppression: prevents subvocalisation (conversion of visual to phonological info) - Auditory info bypasses articulatory suppression and goes straight to the phonological store - IVs - phonological similarity of letters & articulatory suppression - DV - percent of letters correctly recalled Experiment -

-

-

A series of 7 letters are shown on screen one at a time, and after the last letter in the series you will be prompted to type the letters that you saw. You will then move on to the next set of letters. On half of the trials, you will see similar sounding letters and on the other half of the trials you will see dissimilar sounding letters. On some trials you will be asked to count "1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4..." out loud over and over. You should start speaking when told to and continue doing so until you are prompted to enter the letters. On some trials you will see "Quiet", and you should not count aloud on those trials.

Results… so… - Dissimilar words recalled more and also dissimilar words were affected the most for articulatory suppression

Levels of processing (Deep Processing Task) Definitions: the deeper information is processed, the longer the memory trace will last. IV: the level of processing induced by the judgment task: shallow (the letters task), medium (the rhyme task), and deep (the semantic task). DV: the proportion of times the word was correctly recognized as being in Phase I. Method: There were two parts to this experiment. In Phase I, you were given a word and a judgment task. There were three types of judgments. The first type of judgment (letters) was to decide if the word had a particular pattern of consonants and vowels. The second type of judgment (rhyme) was to decide if two words rhymed. The third type of judgment (synonym) was to decide if one word was a synonym of another. In Phase II, you saw a series of words, half of which had been shown in Phase I. For each word, you were asked to indicate if it had been shown in Phase I Hypothesis: People should correctly recognize more words with the deep processing task and fewer words with the shallow processing task. The reason is that on a standard word recognition task, most people use semantic information as a cue to retrieval, and the type of processing most appropriate for a semantically-driven task is also semantic processing at test Robustness and Limitations: The effect is quite robust and is not limited to recognition tests. However, the effect can be altered if the test is changed. For example, if the test asked you whether there was a word on the list that rhymed with a particular test item, you would do better for those items you made a rhyme judgment on in Phase I than the items that you processed deeply Theory: Craik and Lockhart model Experiment: Study phase -

-

Incidental Encoding Instruction (unaware of upcoming memory test) Orienting tasks (Independent variable): Manipulated TYPE OF ENCODING used - Visual: Consonant/ vowel - Phonemic: Rhyme - Semantic: synonym Yes/ No Judgement task

Test phase -

Yes/ no recognition test DV: Proportion of correct words recognised from the study phase

Hypothesis: People should correctly recognize more words with the deep processing task and fewer words with the shallow processing task. The reason is that on a standard word recognition task, most people use semantic information as a cue to retrieval, and the type of processing most appropriate for a semantically-driven task is also semantic processing at test Results: -

% recognised: visual < phonemic < semantic (reflective of level of processing)

Analysis: -

One-way repeated measures of ANOVA

THEORY Main theory for episodic encoding Memory trace is stronger due to distinctiveness from other memory traces in long term memory. Spread of processing: Response type also interacts with orienting task WITHIN-LEVEL -

No response: meaning is not elaborated while more elaborated in yes response

-

Complexity of sentence; more adjectives, makes it more distinctive and links it to other characteristics (spokes?)

Real life example: Generative note-taking vs non- generative note-taking. Performed better on conceptual Qs (generative) (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014) “...laptop note takers’ tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning.” (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614524581) Limitation: exaggerated for language/ verbal items in contrary to non verbal stimuli (doors, clocks) → Baddeley and Hitch (2017) -

Standard levels of processing effect much greater for menu items LoP effect smaller for non verbal stimuli as it is harder to produce elaborate SEMANTIC CODING with doors/ clocks than most words.

Cocktail Party and Bottleneck Models ― All bottleneck models assume transfer of information from sensory register to short term memory store ― Sensory register has a large capacity; STM store is limited in capacity: à a bottleneck They differ in where they regard the bottleneck is, and the nature of the bottleneck. Broadbent’s Early Selection Theory

Critic: Doesn’t explain why you perk up when you hear your name → “The Cocktail Party” effect

Deutsch and Deutsch Late Selection

Critic: Given our limited resource of attention, it seems wasteful to spend so much time assigning meaning to things we don’t need.

Treisman’s Attenuation Theory

Critic: We are still assigning meaning from the unattended ear, however it is not prioritised, meaning when the unattended information becomes important, we can switch over. Studies: Cherry (1953) Participants noticed pure tone + gendered voice, but did not take notice of foreign speech and reversed speech in the unattended ear. Critic: unattended information receives minimal processing - only physical characteristics. Moray (1959) Repetition of one word in the unattended ear was not noticed, however one’s own name was. Critic: Some meaning in the unattended ear can be processed.

The Assignment The IVs were: - Self-relevance (one's own name, yoked control name) and; - Semantic expectation (expected vs unexpected). The DV: - The % of participants who noticed their own name (vs. yoked control name) was the measure of the cocktail party phenomenon. Dichotic Listening task: Participants were asked to shadow the women’s voice presented to them in their right ear (relevant messaging). Meanwhile, a male voice (irrelevant messaging) would simultaneously speak into the left, unattended ear.

Change Detection 1. Explain change blindness Failure to detect change in visual stimuli (e.g. than an object has changed, moved or disappeared), heavily rely on memory (Rensink, 2002). Less likely to occur for an explicitly attended to object, a previously described object and object/scenes familiar to experts. 2. Describe the flicker paradigm and other methods of observing change blindness Flicker Paradigm: An original image is followed by a blank field (a mask) and is then followed by a changed image. The presence of the mask prevents automatic detection of change. You know you have to search the scene, object by object, to detect the change. (change seems like a movement cue). When there is no movement between images, it is stagnant. Scene Moves Compose of scene shifts that are temporarily unpredictable and force saccades. Scene Interruption Comprises of a 5 second scene, followed by a 1 second mask. Mudsplash Change onset is concurrent with the appearance of brief small masks on the scene. Mudsplashes do not cover actual change, but still prevent change detection. 3. Experiment IV: Presence of flicker (Flicker and no flicker) DV: Proportion correct ( images correctly judged) and the response time Hypothesis: Higher proportion of correct responses with non-flicker (movement cues, that draw our attention). - Flicker will have a higher response time (RT) compared to non-flicker - In the no flicker condition, the changing object is easy to identify. Likewise, it is easy to tell when no change is occurring Method: -

Method: on each trial, two pictures were presented in alternation. On half of the trials, the two pictures were identical and on the other half of the trials, the pictures were difference. For each kind of pair, either the pictures appeared immediately one after the other (no flicker) or a blank gray box appeared between the pictures (flicker). Task was to report whether the pictures were identical or different (through a keyboard response).

Results: The expected pattern of results is that percentage correct is smaller (more

mistakes) and reaction time is slower for the flicker condition than for the no flicker condition.

Semantic Priming Experiment: ● Lexical decision task: string of letters (words/ non-words) → procedure measures how quickly participants can identify if a target is a word/ non-word ● Hypothesis: semantically related words should decrease RT ● IV: semantic relatedness of prime and target ● DV: RT to classify the target (where only correct answers were recorded) ● Results supported hypothesis 1: Describe semantic memory - Semantic memory is a subcomponent of declarative memory. It consists of a permanent memory store of general knowledge of the world including language and other conceptual information - It is also known as conceptual/linguistic memory 2. Describe the spreading activation model ●

Craik and Lockhart (1975)

●

Nodes (concepts), pathways (represent relationships) and network (interrelated sets of

●

Non-hierarchical organisation of semantic memory

●

Pathways make directional associations between concepts

●

Main principles

concepts)

○

Activation spreads visa pathways

○

Pathways (links) vary in strength (therefore becomes diffused)

○

Spreading activation takes time (therefore concepts close in semantic meaning activate faster)

3. Explain the semantic priming effect ●

Semantic priming: exposure to a word effects response to subsequent word

●

Semantic priming effect (Meyer and Schvaneveldt 1971): response to a word is faster when preceded by semantically similar word ○

Priming effect: RT(unrelated) - RT(related)

- When the prime and target are related and the prime is activated, it is quick to move to neighbouring nodes in the network. Neighbouring nodes nclude the target word. This target word node activates very quickly so a decision can be made quickly. - Where the prime and target are unrelated and prime is shown, its nodes are activated. When the target appears, part of a network some distance away needs to activate to find that word, and then allow you to make a decision. This takes more time which explains the semantic priming effect....