Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
AUTOMATIC VS. CONTROLLED PROCESSING :PENCIL2: P+C2 LECTURE 3 - Coggle…
AUTOMATIC VS. CONTROLLED PROCESSING
:PENCIL2:
P+C2 LECTURE 3
Gist
We can characterise automatic attention processes as fast and uncontrolled.
Controlled attention processes are slow and effortful, you have to focus your attention and complete them under conscious control.
Work by
Schneider and Shiffrin
shows that you can separate out two processes with different characteristics.
Posner’s task seems to suggest that some spatial cues are automatically processed and some cues are processed in a controlled fashion.
But it is not as simple as that.
Automatic Processing
Fast Cognitive Processing
Parallel processing
A number of such processes can happen at the same time.
Requires little effort.
Doesn't feel like you are doing anything.
Involuntary - attention is captured.
No capacity demands.
Experimental distinction
May arise through extensive practice
Automatic processes can develop through drilling.
No real call on conscious attention
Difficult to control
Stimulus driven (it is inevitable)
Once you start, you can't stop (obligatory)
Automatic attentional control is complicated
Several defining features:
Inevitable evocation
Difficult to control, stimulus driven
Incorrigible completion
Once you start you can’t stop
Efficient execution
No real capacity demands
Parallel processing
Fast and you can do a number of such processes at once.
How automatic a process is depends on how much each of these things contribute.
Controlled Processing
Slower
Serial processing
Is effortful
Feels like you are thinking
Dependent on capacity demands
High demands = low performance
Can be changed quickly
Change instructions then you can change the pattern of behaviour.
Dependent on focused attention
Voluntary decision
Controlled
Dependent on control processes within the brain.
Schneider & Shiffrin task
Search task
Participants presented with items and then asked to search for them in a number of frames with distractors
Set up to examine the difference between Automatic processing and Controlled processing.
Two main conditions:
Variable mapping hypothesised to need controlled processing
Consistent mapping hypothesised to trigger automatic processing
Participants asked to memorise target items (1 or more) in a memory set.
Presented with 20 frames
Each frame contains 2 (or more) items (distractor and/or targets)
Participants had to indicate if the target is present in the frame or not.
Accuracy and RT are the dependent variables.
A set of frames with one memory set is classed as one trial.
Consistent Mapping
The items in the memory set were not ever used as distractors in the frames across the whole experiment.
Number vs. Consonants in the current example, but not always a strong distinction.
So the target is consistently different from the distractors.
Variable Mapping
The items to be remembered in one trial can be used as distractors in the frames in other trials.
“T” in this example is a distractor in one trial and then used as an item in the distractor set.
Items are “variable” in that they can be used as a target in one trial and a distractor in another trial.
Further Independent Variables
Memory set size (a)
1, 2, or 4
Frame size (b)
Number of items on each frame within a trial.
1, 2, or 4
Frame time
Length of presentation of each frame.
Each level of the IVs increased the demands of the task
Is the performance affected by demands on capacity?
Classic Results
Consistent Mapping
No real effect of number of items to be remembered in memory
As frame size increases (search task) - no increase in RT
Change in capacity demands
No change in performance
Variable Mapping
Number of items to be remembered increased RT
As did the number of items on the frames.
Performance affected by:
Memory load: number of items to be remembered.
Perceptual load: number of items to be searched
Increased demand on capacity
Reduced performance
Overall
Consistent mapping much faster than variable mapping
Two attentional processes:
Fast automatic?
Slow controlled?
Consistent-Automatic, Variable--Controlled?
Consistent Mapping:
Quicker reaction times than variable mapping.
No real effect of number of items to be remembered memory
As frame size increases (search task) no increase in RT
Variable Mapping:
Number of items to be remembered increased RT
As did the number of items on the frames.
Automatic Processing:
Quick
Happens in parallel
No capacity demands
Controlled Processing:
Slow
Processing dependent on capacity.
Training
Consonants and numbers are a well learned distinction.
Can other distinctions be learned?
Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) split the consonants into two groups
B-L (group 1), Q-Z (group 2)
Used the same paradigm as before
Consistent mapping used one group for memory sets and one for the distractor.
Variable mapping used both groups for memory sets and for distractors in different trials.
Could the automatic response be learnt?
Summary...
Automatic processing is hard to learn
Harder to unlearn (slower learning in second run - reversed)
Changed to Variable Mapping searches can be easily adjusted through instruction.
“Extended consistent training is required in order to develop automatic processing, while controlled processes are established in a few trials and under variable mapping…”
Controlled processes are open to conscious control.
Automatic processes are beyond control.
Dual-tasks
Individuals can learn to do two things at once
Reading prose while writing to diction.
Initially impossible but 6 weeks of practice led to competence (Spelke, Hirst and Neisser, 1976)
The writing to dictation became automatic
Didn’t seem to demand attention.
The information in the automatic task was processed
They remembered the words
Made semantic errors
Not being processed on a semantic level.
Results
After 2,100 trials with consistent mapping:
Performance became independent of items in the memory set and frames set.
Around trial 600, participants report process becoming “automatic”
They then reversed the relation the group that was used in the memory set was then the frames.
Visa versa - group 1 became the distractors group and group 2 became the targets.
Initial performance was very bad
Performance determined by the set size (frame and memory)
After 2,400 trials - performance was similar to around the 1,500 mark in the first run.
Harder to unlearn than it was to learn.
Posner's Spatial Cueing Task
Participants respond to the presence of a target which is left or right of the fixation point.
Prior to the target, a shift in attention is elicited to left or right by a cue
This can be done centrally (replaces fixation point) or peripherally
There can be
valid
trials and
invalid
trials
Either where the cue is telling you to look will be where the target appears, or the cue will direct you to the opposite direction, where you shouldn’t be looking.
Very simple, but powerful task - tells you where to look
Task elements
Peripheral Vs. Central
Valid or Invalid?
Is the cue informative?
What percentage of the cues are valid?
How much can you use it to predict the target (probability)?
CTOA
Cue-Target Onset Asynchronicity
-Time between the cue and the target.
The time between the cue and the presentation of the target
Can be varied
Cue target delay or CTOA
This will have an effect on the validity effect.
The difference in time between the onset of the cue and the onset of the target.
Informative cues
Percentage of
valid
cues is
high
in relation to percentage of invalid cues.
80% = valid
20% = invalid
Cues are informative
Tells you where to look reliably
Peripheral cueing is faster
Validity effect kicks in earlier in peripheral cueing.
Peripheral cueing:
Quick acting - appears to be an automatic response (initially at least)
At short STOA, cues are still being followed, but not for as long.
Central cueing:
Slow acting initially.
Participants have to interpret the cue.
Not an automatic process.
Uninformative cues
Percentage of
valid
cues is
low
in relation to invalid cues.
25% = invalid
25% = valid
50% = neutral
Cues are uninformative
Not really giving you good information on where to look.
No real cueing for the central cueing - participants are not using the cue to tell them where to look.
Peripheral cueing:
Response is fast acting and consistent across STOA.
At short CTOAs cueing is still occurring.
Even though the cues generally are uninformative.
This is an automatic response.
Cue is unhelpful but still captures attention.
Central cueing:
Response is slower acting and consistent across STOA.
Participants realise that the cue is not useful.
The cue doesn't capture attention.
Controlled response.
Overall Results
Validity Factor / Effect
Invalid cues have longer RTs than Neutral cues
Neutral cues have longer RTs than Valid cues
A measure of this is called the ‘validity effect’
The difference between the Invalid/Neutral RT and the valid one
The cost of Invalidity of the advantage of Validity
Take away the invalid/neutral RTs from the valid RTs to get the cost of invalidity/the advantage of validity.
If cues work then the validity effect will be high.
Cues are being used by participants (knowingly or unknowingly)
So we can have...
Central Cues
Informative (mainly valid)
Uninformative (mainly invalid)
Different CTOAs
Delays of 0-500ms between cue and target
Peripheral Cues
Informative (mainly valid)
Uninformative (mainly invalid)
Different CTOAs
Delays of 0-500ms between cue and target.
The validity effect
The validity effect is a difference between RTs in valid trials and RTs in invalid trials.
How are we inferring automaticity?
If there is a validity effect, the participants are following the cue.
However, in the uninformative cue conditions, the cue doesn’t tell them where the target is
So they shouldn’t really use the cue.
With the symbolic ones they don’t
They have controlled their attentional focus
With the peripheral cues they do follow the cue (at the short CTOA)
They can’t stop the attentional focus changing.
Posner's model
Attention is a spotlight
Spotlight is focused on the fixation point.
On cueing
(1) Spotlight disengages from fixation spot
(2) Spotlight moves to cued spot
(3) Attention/Spotlight is focused on that spot
If cue valid spotlight is on the target when it appears = fast reaction time
If the cue is invalid then steps 1-3 have to be repeated, slowing the response.
Conclusions...
Central cueing
Slower (relatively)
Seems to be under conscious control
You can ignore the cues when they aren’t any use.
Seems to need interpreting
Symbolic Cues
Controlled processes
Peripheral cueing
Relatively fast
Not under conscious control
The cues still cue when not unreliable / uninformative
Seems to be very driven by stimulus
Automatic process
New distinction
Endogenous
Top-down conscious allocation of attention.
Effortful and interpretive
Controlled or modulated by goals and context
Voluntary
Exogenous
Bottom-up automatic allocation of attention
Controlled by external events
Reflexive, involuntary
Attention is captured.
Inhibition of Return
For peripheral uninformative cues, initially there is a strong positive effect of validity (~100ms)
Around cue target delays (CTOAs) of 200ms this changes → validity effect disappears, it is reversed.
Non-cued responses are faster than cued responses and valid responses, so when it’s valid, you’re actually slower than when it is invalid.
At longer cue target delays (CTOA) uncued targets are quicker
The fact that the target is being cued (valid) increases the RT compared to uncued.
Attention drifts away and is slow to come back.
If you don’t find something somewhere, it makes sense to look elsewhere and not where you were looking.
Facilitated foraging behaviour
(Klein, 2000)
Evolutionary explanations
Triggering visual search
What other cues are automatic?
Frisesen & Kingston (1998)
Central cue of eye gaze
Non-informative (equal numbers of valid, invalid and neutral)
Cued (valid), uncued (invalid) or neutral (staring straight ahead)
Participants were told to ignore the gaze as a cue.
Found a definite validity effect - suggesting automatic response.
Participants quicker to cued (valid) targets than uncued (invalid) targets.
Effect present at 100ms (very early)
Persistent effects over CTOA.
Schematic stimuli
Real faces
Driver et al. (1999)
Used real faces as central eye gaze cues.
Participants had to make a judgement on whether the target was a T or an L
Cue was uninformative (correct 50% of the time, incorrect 50% of the time)
CTOA manipulated: 100ms, 300ms, 700ms as a cue target delay.
Validity effect present at 700ms - shows its not an automatic process.
May be task related, extra level of complexity, this is a judgement task, not a straight response (T or L?)
The appearance of the face itself may capture attention before cues.
Part 2
Used a new Frame 2 which allowed participants to get used to the face.
hen presented the gaze cue and then the target.
(50% valid, 50% invalid)
Cues were uninformative again.
Found better validity effects (present at 300ms) = more automaticity.
Part 3
Third study used 80% invalid cues and 20% valid cues
Cues were counter-indicative of stimulus location.
Still a validity effect at 300ms, but an opposite effect at 700ms.
Incongruent condition = faster than congruent.
Automatic cueing early on, and controlled later on?
Participants knew to look in the opposite direction.
It seems that eye-gaze cue automatic attentional shift
Evidence from early validity effects
Central cues can provoke automatic-like responses
Not as simple as:
PERIPHERAL = AUTOMATIC
CENTRAL = SYMBOLIC / SEMANTIC / CONTROLLED
Are the eyes special?
Ristic et al. (2002)
Used eye gaze and arrows as cues.
They found validity effects for both eye gaze and arrows
At CTOA of 195ms and beyond
Even with 3-5 year old children
Evidence of automaticity with a central symbolic cue
Arrows are special
They have a strong social significance.
Leads to a learned automatic response.
But no Inhibition of Return (IOR)
So don’t behave like automatic peripheral cue (nor does eye gaze)
These central cues don’t show inhibition of return even though they are all uninformative.
What do cueing tasks tell us?
Peripheral cues do seem to be automatically directing attention
But not in a straightforward way (IOR)
Central cues can be used to direct attention in a voluntary fashion
Central cues can automatically control attention
When cues are “biologically primed”
Important for survival, like paying attention to eye gaze.
When cues have social significance / strong meanings
“Automatic symbolic orientating”
Kahneman & Treisman (1984)
Perhaps there are
gradations of automaticity :
Perceptual processing is
strongly automatic
if it is neither facilitated by focusing attention on a stimulus, nor impaired by diverting attention from it.
Perceptual processing is
partially automatic
if it is normally completed even when attention is diverted from the stimulus, but can be speeded or facilitated by attention.
Perceptual processing is
occasionally automatic
if it generally requires attention but can sometimes be completed without it.