Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Cognitive Processes, Social Anxiety Disorder, W1: Introduction to…

- - - - Reaction time = how quick mental response is
- - - - ie; Little Albert
        
        Fear response maybe wasnt generalised to other white fluffy things in the world
- - - - Acts as a lesion, stopping one part of the brain from working to test what else stops working ie; language
  - - - for low level cognitive function - complex things require multiple parts of the brain
- - - - chance that damage in one part of brain may cause compensation from other parts of brain to make up for it
    - - When pateitn has brain damage hard to determine which area has disruption for which funciton
    - - too reliant on small samples and case studies
- - - - Bowden et al., 2005 found anterior superior temporal gyrus = right hemisphere is more associated with insight than left
  - - - Impasse = problme represented incorrectly
      - Change representation
        
        elaboration (new info)
        
        constraint relxarion (inhibit what we regard as permissible)
        
        Re-encodining (reinterpret problem)
      - Ollinger et al., 2014
        
        prior knowledge and perceptions -> problem representation -> search -> cant find soluation -> block or impasse -> represantational change -. new search -> problem representation
- - - - Hill climbing heuristics
        
        problem solver has no clear understanding
        
        changing present state within problem into one closer to soltuion
      - Means to an end analysis
        
        Disk and tower task 'tower of Hanoi'
      - Sweller and Levine 1982
        
        P given maze so people could see where they were, some could see where they needed to end some couldnt. Goal info group kept persisting the no goal group worked it out independently and freely
- - - - Intelligence
      - working memory (Morrison et al., 2001)
        
        Problem solving impaired when WM engaged
        
        Verbal analogies impaired with verbal WM task
        
        Figural analogies impaired with visual WM task
  - - - solution-irrelevant
        
        ie; same object in both problem
    - - Causal relations shared between both problems
    - - procedures for coming up with the solution are similar
      - Most effective
    - - Sequential processing stages:
        
        encoding - relationship between pair
        
        mapping - connect a and c to determine d
        
        response - evaluate accuracy of d
- - - - Core (fixed information chunks in LTM)
      - SLots (variable info)
      - Four predictions:
        
        3 templates - some large
        
        Superior template knowledge more important than strategy
        
        Precise board lcoation of pieces stored
        
        better recall of random chess positions
- - - - requires outside the box thinking
      - Solution requires non-dominant response
- - - - processes behavioural plan #
    - - skin, eyes, ears
      - relay behavioural plan to muscles
        
        eg; contract
      - collect information
    - - Brain stem sits atop the spinal chord, connects the two
        
        Controls breathing, digestion etc
      - Subcortical structures
        
        Thalamus (the egg) relays sensory information to the brain
        
        Between brain stem and cortex
        
        Basalganglia - produce skilled movements (part of frontal lobe)
        
        Hippocampus (learning new facts)
        
        Amygdala (emotional memories)
        
        Subcortical white matter
        
        neural wiring connecting regions of the cortex to other areas of brain
        
        corpuscallosum - connects the cortex to the two hemispheres (L and R)
      - Cerebralcortex
        
        thin layering of cells on outer surface of the brain
        
        plays a role in most voluntary behhaviours
        
        thin but folded
      - Matures back to front
        
        (back) Occiptal lobe -> parietal and temporal -> frontal lobe (front)
      - Vision = occipital lobe
      - language = temporal lobe
      - motor control = central sulcus
  - - - Dissociation (brain regions) (image)
- - - - strucrual MRI
        
        hippocapmus may be smaller than should be
  - - - used to localise which brain regions are invovled which cog functions
      - investigate hypo and hyper activitations
      - Prefrontal cortex is activated when performing short term memory tasks
    - - interferes with normal processing of brain area
      - apply TMS to prefrontal cortex interferes with working memory
      - seizures can affect memory consoldiationg (Epilepsy and ECT)
  - - - dopamine = necessary for learning
    - - hippocampus x2 both removed
    - - study patterns of cell activity
      - Dopamine plays role in reward processing
    - - focal damage to single brain area
        
        udnerstand role in certain cog and behvaioural processes
        
        HM = bilateral hippocampal resection
    - - Pro = skill memory (how to dance)
        
        basal ganglia
      - Dec = facts, life events
        
        Hippocampus (temp lobe)
    - - Umbrella term
        
        Alzheimers
        
        Frontotemporal
        
        Huntingtons
        
        Vascular
      - Memeory impairment, language disturbance, impaired ability for daily activities, executive dysfunction
  - - - patients show defecits in VOL but not INVOL att
      - Prefrontal cortex dysfunction might explain VOl att defecits
    - - fMRI = prefortnal cortex is activated
      - att and working memory should have overlapped cog models (closely related)
- - - - neuro degenration at front
    - - temporo semantic memory defecits
- - - - Brocas aphasia = damage to frontal areas
        
        problems speaking
        
        speak in short phrases
        
        ommit small words
      - Wernickes aphasia - temporal lobe
        
        difficulty to understand speech
        
        Affects speech - speak in sentences that have no meaning
- - - - Best memory out of 3
  - - - higher recall for 1) study test test test than 2) study study study study
- - - - Proactive memory disruption = disrupted by previous learning
      - retroactive mem disruption = disrupted by new learning
  - - - experts now say this is completely false. those memories are imagined.
  - - - G1 no better than G2
        
        You'd think G2 would do better bc they have to remember less but no.
        
        First list of 12 proactively interferred with next 12
  - - - difficult to ever tell difference #
- - - - brains interpretation of information
    - - forming biological connections with past knowledge
    - - passage of time for stored information
    - - reactivation of information v forgetting
    - - Sensory store
        
        modality speicifc
        
        iconic memory (visual) 1 sec
        
        echoic memory (auditory) 2 sec
      - Short term
        
        digit span of approximately 7->2 items or 4 chunks
        
        Info lost through displacement ie a replaced by b and displaced
      - Long term
        
        requires consolidation/rehearsal
        
        unlimited
      - Strengths
        
        evidence for diff memory stores - effect of brain damage some patients have intact STM but impaired LTM and other have opposite pattern: doubl dissasociation
      - Weaknesses
        
        Short and long are not unitary
        
        exaggerates role of rehearsal
        
        oversimplified - short term replaced by qorking emmory ystem with four components
- - - - hold limited amount of info
      - echoic
      - auditory info
    - - pool of resources
      - temporarily store info
    - - visual/iconic
    - - brains workbench
      - predicts many other abilites ie; intelligence, grade, languages, attention control
      - made up of many diff abilites all related to a core "executive functioning" ability
        
        memory updating
        
        shifting
        
        inhibition
      - Real world example: talking while driving, air traffic controllers
        
        Thinking about what to say may exhaust your central exectuive and impact dirivng ability
        
        visual = looking at road
        
        phonological loop = hearing perosn on phone
        
        CE = thinking how to respond
- - - - Can change based on new information
        
        Bays theorem
        
        Neglecting base rates
        
        Ppl tend to take less acc for base rate info
        
        Handsome athletic man - is he more likely to be footballer or nurse
        
        Prior odds before data collected #
        
        Kahneman & Tverskys 1972 Taxi
        
        0.15 blue, 0.85 green -> vision wrong 0.2
        
        odds ratio is 12:17
- - - - Woman more likely to be baby sitter - visual judgement
      - Conjunction fallacy (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983)
        
        mistaken belief that two events are more likely than each of the evens alone
        
        Ie; public servant more likely than FEMINIST public servant
    - - Assumption that the freq. of events can be estimated accurately by their accessibility in memory
        
        ie; suicide mroe common than murder but people assumed opposite
      - Support theory
        
        assumption an event will appear more or less liekly depending how it is described
        
        likelihood or injury on vacay vs on moped in thailand vacay
        
        explicit description increases perceived likliehood
        
        Redelmeier et al., 1995
        
        Woman with abdominal pain - prompted specific conditions. Doctors perceieved likelihood decreased
    - - Take-the-best
        
        search rule: search cues in order of validitiy, stops after finding a discriminatory cue
    - - System 1: use of heuristics, automatic, effortless
        
        emotion processing
        
        implicity processing
        
        difficult to modify
      - system 2: complex cognition, slow, controlled, effortful
        
        flexible
- - - - expected utility theory does not account for irrational decision making
      - greater loss for certain gain
- - - - 1: reference point (present state)
      - 2: More sensitive to potential losses than potential gains (loss aversion)
    - - pursuing action even after proved to be suboptimal
      - ie; you've already invested money and time so might as well see it through
      - loss aversion - people pay attention to their initial investment. dont want to feel like they've lost it
    - - decisions influenced by irrelevant aspects of situation
      - Loss frame v gain frame
        
        People choose gain frame consistently
      - Certain gain > uncertain gain
      - Uncertain loss > certain loss
      - MAGA
    - - Good ecological validity
    - - Forming: eager, excited, high expectations, anxiety, questions, uncertainty
      - Storming: focus shifts from task at hand to frustration, concerns of not meeting goals, handle conflict, less polite
      - Norming: settle conflicts, increased comfort for real idea expression, establish group norms, relationships solidfy
      - Performing: satsifaction in teams progress, attachmnet, part of something bigger, positive sense of initative
      - Adjourning: concern for dissolution, feeling of loss, akcnowledge transition, closure
- - - - Valum closes or opens nasal passage
- - - - Building blocks of language
      - Like english letters but not quiet
      - meaningless units combine in infinite ways to create new meanings
      - Different languages have different phonemes ie; english has 43
        
        Average languages have 20-37
- - - - Greek and Finnish familiar real words = 98%, could pronounce/read 92% of pseudowords
      - Scottish english familar real words = 34% and 29% pseudowords
  - - - logographic, a word based writing system
        
        ie; chinese, single picture for horse
        
        character tree
        
        hirogliphics
      - Syllabic
        
        ie; japanese
        
        symbol 1, 2, 3 = wa-ta-shi
      - Alphabetic
        
        english, greek, russian
    - - NO!!!
      - words like thought, cloud, gnome. thought has 3 phonemes but 7 letters
      - Orthographic Depth
        
        Transparency of letter to phoneme correspondence
        
        shallow or deep
        
        Feedforward vs feedback consistency
        
        feedforward consistent = see new word and know its pronounciation
        
        plobe vs flough
        
        feedback consistent = hear a word and know how it is spelled
        
        English is both Feedforward and feedback inconsistent - makes it hard to learn
        
        Finnish is both FF and FB consistent - easy to learn
- - - - phoneme counting task (Ehri & Wilce, 1979)
      - more sounds in pitch than rich - NO! they both have 3. so just because we are aware of them doesnt mean we really know them.
      - Phoneme deletion task - Portuguese Study (Morais et al., 1979)
        
        can illiterate people perform phoneme deletion tasks
        
        showed learning to read teaches you about the individual sounds (phonemes) in words
        
        Chinese Study (Read et al., 1986)
        
        All participants were literature in chinese characters but half also know another alphabetic script
        
        Found that learning to read an alphabetic script teaches you about the individual sounds (phonemes) in words
      - Alternative explanation
        
        you can picture the word in your head, add or take away corresponding letters and read the word back again
        
        are orthographic processes repsonsible for superior performance of alphabetically literate adults?
        
        Portugese is shallow orthography so it is impossible to know whether graphemes or phonemes were reponsible for the study outcome
        
        English is NOT shallow
        
        Are orthographic processes active during performance on phoneme deletion tasks?
        
        Tyler & Burnham, 2006
        
        If orthographic processes are active during the tasks then therewill be loger reaction times for interfering than non-interfering responses
        
        Controversial Conclusions
        
        Ehri 1980 - learning alphabet = orthographic images
        
        that we only know about sounds in words through knowledge of print
        
        learning phonetic transcription requires cognitive reshuffling
        
        Without alphabetic knowledge we would NEVER know that dog has three sounds - and its not necessary knowledge...
- - - - Methods: lexical decisions, naming, priming
      - major findings to be acc for models of visual word reocgnition
        
        Word superiority effect - detected more readily in words like WORK vs WKOR
        
        Semantic priming effect
        
        Word identification faster when preceeded by a meaning- related word
        
        boat then ship
      - Dyslexia
        
        Disorder of reading
        
        Disgraphia: disorder of writing
        
        Acquired v developmental
        
        Acquired through injury
        
        Subtypes
        
        Surface - selective impairment in reading irregular words (yacht?)
        
        Phonological - can read real words, difficulty reading non-words
        
        Deep - cannot read unfamiliar words AND make semantic errors - reads 'ship' as 'boat'
      - Hopw we read aloud english words - Dual-Route Cascaded Model
        
        compare reaction times of computer reaction time to human
        
        Grapheme - Phoneme Conversion
        
        Lexicon - Semantic Knowledge
- - - - visual information BELOW line of sight is mapped to area above calcarine sulcus and vice versa
    - - Expanidng ring to map perihpheral to central vision activity
      - Wedge - measure calcarine sulcus outward or inward depending on order
- - - - Stimulus may appear in expected box or unexpected
      - Whenevr yellow oval appears press button, but must be focused on red dot in middle of screen
      - Attention tightly focused = quick repsonses
      - Attention spread across bigger space, its less cocnentrated and slower reaction time
      - Predicts smooth gradual difference - multiple spotlight would be quick sharp jumps in difference
      - More accurate than spotlight model - too simple
  - - - Brain ACTIVELY supresses with split attention
- - - - Focused = 100%
        
        Spotlight Model of Att
        
        wherever you aim that spotlight you have greater focus on, notice changes more quickly
        
        peripheral vision, outside of spotlight, dimmer, slower to notice change
        
        Location based
        
        Posner 1980 - One spotlight, has two sizes focusedd or diffused
        
        Participant press response with vaid ccue ie; arrow points left and box shows up left, quick response. invalid cue = slow response
        
        When att diffused, slower response times
      - Divided = spread across multiple tasks
      - Vigilance = prepared to respond quickly, ready
      - Top-down/Endogenous = consciously decide where to focus
        
        enhances electrical activity in brain
        
        EEG record brain scalp, surface of brain
      - Bottom-up/Exogenous = automatic attention, reaction, ie; spider lands on shoulder
      - Covert = direct att to something without moving eyes or head, ie; eavesdropping
      - Overt = turn around, direct gaze at gossipers
      - Modality speicifc = ie; taste, smell, senses
- - - - subject awareness and experience, individual personal
    - - Ability to report on the content of subjective expeirence without ability to report on the cognitive process that produces that expeirence
      - enhanced by attention
    - - ability to have awareness of ourselves
  - - - Focus on cross, followed by jumbled letters (mostly L with a T) - have to decide if all letters are the same
      - complicated central task + peripheral image of Tom Cruise face for 26 milliseconds
      - minimal att for the facial recognition task
      - Findings
        
        Did well on either task seperately
        
        Integration of both
        
        suggests participants can effectively perform both tasks simultaneously
        
        Slight decrease in letter task show it had SOME detriment
        
        Face task - attention is NOT needed for facial recognition
- - - - cued object, invalid location = quicker reaction time than -> appeared on uncued object
      - Faster if was on cued object (even if location was invalid)
      - location spreads across an entire object, when a cue directs att to 1 part of an object that attention extends to rest of object
  - - - VENTRAL system
      - message notifcation, automatic grabbing attention
    - - DORSAL system
      - concious redirection of attention
    - - minimal overlap
- - - - brain is still developing, cant form or store memories
      - lack complex linguistics, language knowledge is needed to code and retreive memories
  - - - trouble with retrieval stage
- - - - difference levels ie; novel, state, exemplar
        
        interference increases. the less distinct the two image are the more the non-target item interferes with memory of target item
      - 88% accurate even in hardest condition
    - - we can recognise a lot more than we can recall
      - System 1 - Heuristics, intuition
        
        Automatic, fast, emotions, stereotypes
      - System 2 (systematic, reasoning)
        
        slow, conscious, controlled
- - - - Repeated presentation of stimulus -> better processing of perceptual features of that stim
      - ie; seeing faces in inatiment objects, were primed to recognise faces
      - ie; seeing line drawing of camel, primed by words like desert
    - - repreated presentation enhances processing of concept/idea
      - Lexical decision task
        
        TIger -> Stripe vs Tiger -> Train
        
        Spreading Activation - Collins & Loftus 1975
        
        Words related come up easier ie; table may be connected to wood, chair etc like a web
    - - untrue information being repeated more we begin to believe its true
    - - prime to bunch of names - more likely to say was name of famous person if they were shown it prior
    - - The more fluenty (easy comes to mind) the more familiar and true it feels
- - - - able to remember someones face thats your age rather than an old persons
    - - harder to differentiate asians
- - - - important mems retrieved through LIFE SCRIPT
        
        cultural expectations of marriage, baby, graduated etc
        
        US: individualist culture, retrived self focused mems
        
        China: collectivist, group events focused retrieval
        
        only attach positive events to young adulthood
        
        better at recalling happy memories - emotion regulation strategy
    - - encode more negative memories
      - bias recollection of negative mems
- - - - 'smashed' produced higher predicted speed
      - broken glass reported in 'smash' condition, there was no broken glass
      - did you see 'the' or 'a' broken headlight
- - - - Phonotactic constraints
        
        PF cannot go together with a word in english 'hip flask' #
      - Possible word constraint
        
        all words must have an least one vowel
      - Stress (in engilsh)
        
        strong syllables treated as possible word onsets ie; 'a whole nother'
      - Coarticulation
        
        stronger within words than between. phonemes bleed together within words not between
      - By recognising words we know
  - - - Distributional (Statistical) cues
        
        Transitional probability
        
        likelihood a particular syllable following a given syllable
        
        higher when two syllables form part of the same word than when they are different words
        
        if next syllable part of same word = high predictability vs a new word = low predictability
        
        Artifical Language Studies
        
        Infants preferred to listen to the novel 'nonwords' showing that they had learned the "words"
- - - - Sapir/Whorf hypothesis
        
        Strong version = language determines thought
        
        Weak = language influences perception
        
        weakest = language influences memory
        
        Case: space (frame of reference)
        
        Relative: fork is left of spoon
        
        absolute: fork is north of spoon
        
        intrinsic: the fork is at the noose of the spoon
        
        Majid et al., 2004
        
        top down view of people looking at table, swivel around, pick object you saw at the start. some may pick relative solution if you prefer aboslute itll be different.
        
        dutch = relative, central americans = absolute
    - - Chimps/monkeys can learn words labelled to objects
  - - - cannot be entirely due to reinforcement because children will produce sentences that they have never heard #
    - - we can make languages out of anything