Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

COG PSYCH: MIDTERM 2 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Spanish experiment
        
        Knowledge of Spanish retrievable 50 years later after last encoded/rehearsed -> permastore
        
        The longer Ps had studied Spanish, the more spanish they had in Permastore
  - - - unlearning:. (practicing a new association between a cue and a target memory weakens the associative link between the cue and another memory)
- - - - Visual search task
        
        Conjunctive search: combination of features differentiates the targets from the distractors
        
        Disjunctive search:the target differs from the distractors by just one feature
        
        Disjunctive: conducte parallel - all elements are evaluated simultaneously => increasing the no of items doesn't increase total search time
        
        Conjunctive: conducted serial - elements checked one by one => increasing the number of items increases search time
        
        FEATURE INTEGRATION THEORY
        
        Treisman & Gelade: individual features (color, shape) are processed preattentively: attention not needed to know if one of these features is present in the environment
        
        However, conjunctive search: requires knowing that more than one feature belongs to an individual object (redness and circleness) => localizing features in space requires attention
        
        The purpose of attention is to bind features together to assign them to an object
        
        Predictions
        
        When binding of features is interrupted, they would remain free floating/attentional binding wouldn't be complete. => guesses and errors in which features belonged together
        
        - illusory conjunctions: errors of combinations of features caused by interrupting the attentional binding process (reporting a red circle when looking at red triangle + bleu circle
        
        Frequency with which the target is present - "if you don't find it often, you don't often find it"
    - - Treisman's model: Attention as glue that binds features together
      - Metaphor: flash light beam: attention (like eye movement) selects spatial locations as it moves around a scene; anything in its "beam" is selected for further processing
        
        E.g. conjunctive visual search task, cueing paradigm
    - - Lowkey shows flaws of light beam metaphor
        
        Attention can be object based
        
        Harder to judge the relative distance of 2 corners when the corners are parts of different objects than when they're of the same
      - Current consensus: 2 forms of visual attention
        
        Spatial locations
        
        Objects or object features
  - - - Dichotic listening task
        
        Could not recall anything played in the unattended ear
        
        => unattended speech not analyzed to the semantic level (for meaning) but for physical, like loudness
    - - cocktail party effect: when an unattended stimulus is noticed based on its meaning
        
        dichotic listening: added p's name to unattended ear => p noticed => not proving the late theory, but showing attention switching
    - - 1st line: Endogenous
        Active & sustained, driven by an internal goal, controlled; focused on the task at hand
      - 2nd line: Exogeneous
        Passive, transient, driven by environmental cues to see if any stimuli merit attention
      - Explains how ppl can voluntarily allocate their endogenous attention to an area of space when told it likely contains a target, but can't ignore distracting/informative cues
  - - - Test by: Dual task paradigm
        To make sure we are studying attention being divided and not being switched rapidly between tasks -> discrete task
        
        Response to stimulus interval:period of time after participant has responded but before the next stimulus appears
        
        Continuous task: uses a continuous stream of stimuli & often demands continuous stream of responses
        
        Doesn't guarantee that people can share attentional resources between tasks; remains possible that P is switching attention between tasks
    - - Requires few attentional resources
        
        Serial conjunctive search task: with practice, search became automatic & adding nontargets didn't affect the performance
      - Happens without intention
        
        Letter identification is automatic
        
        Stroop task (say color instead of word): reading the names of the colors happens w/o intention, conflicts w/ attempt to name the color
      - Relationship between attention & memory
    - - Can people perform multiple tasks at once w/o changing how well they do each task & how much attention each task requires?
        
        No
        
        INTEFERENCE due to Response selection:
        
        stage of processing in which a response to a stimulus is selected (push a button) but the actual preparation of the motor act is not yet complete (finger movement)
        
        We can't select a response for 2 different tasks at once
        
        Whenever we need a response -> must switch attention to that task
        
        Study:
        
        If light turns on -> press button; if sound -> press pedal
        
        Stimulus onset asynchrony: delay; don't know how much time between when one task' stimulus appears (onset) and another task's stimulus in a dual task exp
        
        By varying stimulus onset asynchrony -> can examine interferences among different stages of the tasks
        => we can multitask with some parts of tasks, but not w/ others
        
        While we may be able to perceive 2 things at once, and able to generate 2 actions (button presses); unable to select responses for 2 diff tasks at the same time => PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD
        
        psych refractory period: a delay of a given task to allow response selection in another task
        
        2nd study: Using voice-activated commands slows down reaction time (when seeing a red light) when operating a vehicle
      - Can people efficiently switch their attention between tasks as they choose?
- - - - Levels of Processing Framework: Proposes that the most important factor determining whether something will be remembered is the depth of processing
        
        Depth of processing: how one thinks about materials at encoding (depth = degree of semantic involvement, i.e. the word's meaning)
        
        Deep processing
        
        Greater degrees of semantic involvement (meaning)
        
        Shallow processing
        
        Thinking about surface characteristics: shape, size, color
        
        Craik & Tulving:
        
        Deeper-processed words are not better remembered simply becuz deep processing takes more time/effort
    - - Emotional events...
        
        More likely to be encoded into LTM: people tend to recall highly emotional events as their clearest memories from childhood
        
        Positive correlation between how vivid the memory seems and how emotional it is
        
        Emotional hospital visit experiment
        
        Ps - 2 conditions - emotional or unemotional
        
        Watched slides of a story of a hospital visit
        
        Emotional: told that graphic surgery slides are real; unemotional: fake
        
        2 weeks later, memory test: => emotional group's memory slightly better
        
        Emotional videotape experiment
        
        Reading a list of word -> either emotional or unemotional video -> Ps watching emotional video had better recall
        
        How does emotion that occurs after encoding influence memory for an event?
        
        Memory encoded as we're thinking about experiment
        
        After we stop thinking abt it -> neural changes that correspond to that memory is not complete
        
        Bio processes that create memory continue after we stop thinking abt it
        
        CONSOLIDATION - AMYGDALA
    - - Levels of confidence in memory don't match with accuracy (more confident =/= more accurate memory)
    - - Evolution has selected memory processes that enhance the likelihood of survival
        
        Claim:When ppl experience things that they perceive to be critical for survival => these experiences are processed differently
        
        Memories for objects/events important for survival should be recalled better than neutral events
        
        Survival processing in semantic memory
        
        Ps rated words in one of 3 ways: related to survival relevance (stranded in grassland), relevance to moving, and pleasantness
        
        After delay, recall task
        
        Results: Better recall when they rated words for survival relevance
        
        Survival processing: grassland vs city
        
        Prediction: Cities are more recent cultural inventions -> less likely to experience survival pressures
        => memory in grassland better
  - - - Levels of Processing framework proposes: intention to learn has no impact on memory
        
        incidental memory test: Ps were not told their memory would be tested
        
        intentional memory test:Ps told their memories will be tested
        => no differences in memory
      - While not directly impactful, can have an indirect effect
    - - Why do we remember ad jingles then? (Possibilities)
        
        W/ more repetition, likely that at least one of the repetitions will be processed deeply
        
        Helps if its repetition of one of the effective types of processing
  - - - Reduces what you have to remember
        
        Chunking: effective if chunks derive from prior knowledge (FBI, CIA instead of BIC FAI)
        
        Prior knowledge allows to fit more individual letters in WM, since demands on WM are reduced by knowing what these letters stand for
      - Guides interpretation of details
        
        Guides which details we deem worthy of attention
        
        Schema: a memory representation containing info about what is generally true of the situation/event, representing a type of event (not a single event)
        
        Default value: default value for a particular piece of info is the value that would typically be true => thus assume that it's true unless told otherwise (e.g. dogs having 4 legs)
        
        Schemas
        
        Help us make inferences
        
        Help us interpret ambiguous details by providing us w/ the context of the situation (giving Ps a title of the reading (Washing Clothes) make the para makes more sense -> easier to remember, becuz prior knowledge (washing clothes) shapes ongoing process (reading)
      - Makes unusual things stand out
        
        Prior knowledge -> expectations of what usually occurs
        
        Unexpected things => notice it and process it more deeply
        
        SCRIPT: a schema for series of events; knowledge about common situations encoded (like attending a college lecture)
- - - - Span of Apprehension: the amount of info that can enter consciousness at once
      - Sperling's task:
        
        flashed arrays of numbers & letters
        
        4-12 items
        
        Ps reported about 4 items
        
        partial-report procedure: see arrays, hear a pitched tone (pitch determines which row they should report) => an average of 3 correct items (75%) on the row they had to report
        
        Inference: limited span of apprehension - more a limit of how long it took to report than a limit of true capacity
        => Sperling argued: when the array of stimuli is presented, it enters a large-capacity iconic memory (visual buffer( from which contents decay rapidly -> Ps rush to report the contents of iconic memory, but by the time they report 4 letters, contents have faded
    - - Large capacity
        
        Capacity depends on what comes before & after stimuli -> closely related to basic sensory qualities
        
        Can be large (holds 17 letters w/ briefest delay at dark fields)
        
        Size and capacity depends heaviily on exp situation
      - Forgetting
        
        Spontaneous decay
        -> Decay begins NOT when stimulus disappears, but immediately after its onset/appearance
        
        Masking: to present some random visual stimuli that replace the current item in memory
        -> A mask erases the content of iconic memory
      - Representation
        In addition to physical characteristics, also contains postcategorical info - info related to semantic categories
        
        Info related to semantic categories
        
        Ps have been successful in representing overall patterns of a group of stimuli based on features that are not simple sensory qualities
    - - Capacity
        
        An instant of time
        
        Determining pitch of a tone: made difficult w/ a subsequent mask; delay between tone and mask increases performance and vice versa => second tone interferes with auditory system transferring the first tone to a more stable memory store
        
        Around 250milisecs?
      - Forgetting
        Info lost in 2 ways
        
        Decay/Interference (if mask interferes w/ transfer to a more stable memory store)
        
        Masking: second tone actively erases echoic memory
      - Representation
        
        Represented in a sensory code (e.g. an echo) rather than semantic
        
        Not categories or meaning, but simply raw data
      - What?
        Auditory version of iconic memory
  - - - Broadbent: human mind as info-processing system
        info -> large-capacity sensory info -> attentional filter -> working memory
      - Miller: limit of WM is 7
        
        Researchers used: digit span task
        
        reciting digits until Ps can't recite them without making mistakes => typically 7 digits
        
        answer questions about sentences you hear and keep track of numbers that follow each sentence. -> effective for WKM because requires both storing and manipulating info
        
        Simon:
        
        Capacity of WM when measured in digits/syllables varies a lot, but much less when measured in chunks => chunks are the right way to measure memory
        
        Amount of info per chunk makes a difference in capacity
        
        as syllables per chunk increases => no of chunks recalled decreases
        => info has a capacity limited by TIME, not by a discrete number of slots
        => word length effect:Ps can remember more short words than long ones in memory tasks
        
        When words knit into familiar phrases -> phrases must have been represented in terms of meaning/semantic content rather than no of digits or secons of auditory info
        
        Chunk
        
        A unit of knowledge that is decomposable into smaller units
        
        A way to combine several units
        
        Effective chunk: semantic relationships between the words
        
        => CAPACITY DEPENDS ON
        
        Info grouped by meaning depends on stimuli -> how easily they can be chunked
        
        this depends on what is already in LTM
        
        e.g. string of random numbers can represent important birthdates
    - - Resource view: WM is a process => Limits on processing rather than on capacity
      - Structure/slot view: WM is a place w/ slots to put things
      - Consensus:
        
        If a simple item (like a digit) -> can fit a lot in WM
        
        If a complex item -> capacity of WM collapses to a single item
    - - Decay
        
        Brown-Peterson task: hears 3 consonants, 3-digi number, starts counting backwards by 3 (to prevent rehearsal of consonants) -> after some delay, asked to recall the 3 consonants
        
        Results: longer the delay (and counting), recall dropped
        -> Inferences:w/o a rehearsal process, the info fades away
        
        However, decay is not a straightforward process to study
      - Interference
        
        Proactive interference: when older learning interferes w/ newer learning
        
        Retroactive interference: newer learning interferes with older learning
        
        Reitman: much more retro inter if new material becomes more similar to old materials
    - - visuospatially
        -
      - acoustically:
        
        huge cost to performance when trying to recall a list of words that sound the same
        
        acoustic confusion effect: errors based on sound (e.g. thinking heard g instead of d) -> such errors indicate Ps use an acoustic code in primary memeory
      - semantically
        
        Release from proactive inteference: the effect in which proactive inteference dissipates if one changes the stimulus materials
        -> change of Brown-Peterson task: heard fruits, delayed, heard either fruits, vegs, meats, or professions -> group w/ profession stimuli performed best => WM codes semantic , if it didn't, the change in semantic content on the last trial would make no differeence
    - - Early models
      - WMM
      - WM as a Workspace
        
        WM theory (as oppsed to modal model): used for other cog functions, not just briefly storing info
        
        Phono loop
        
        Acquiring new vocab (vocab size correlates w/ digit span)
        
        Correlation with reading comprehension
        ==> Because sometimes figuring out the grammar of a sentence requires comparing two words
        that are far apart in a sentence.
        
        Following instructions
        
        To help participants store more words on the phonological loop of working memory -> Encouraging them to say the to-be-remembered words quickly, to squeeze more information into the loop
- - - - Addressing Systems
        
        Organizing memory by giving each memory a unique address that can be used to look it up
        
        Inconsistencies:
        - Near misses and memory errors tend to produce
      - Content-addressable Storage
        
        The content of the memory itself is the storage address
        
        Retrieves memory quickly
        
        Produces near misses when content tryna search for is similar
        
        Another problem: Doesn't account for how we make inferences (since those are not memories - e.g. does ABC have intestines?)
      - Hierarchical Theory
        Concepts are organized in a taxonomic hierarchy (animal -> bird -> canary) and characteristics and properties are stored at each level
        
        Nodes: represent concepts
        
        Activation: make nodes active when concepts they represent are present in the environment
        
        Links: relationships between concepts
        
        property inheritance
        
        concepts inherit the properties that concepts above them have
        
        Collins & Quillian prediction
        
        Prediction: going up the levels would take time (statements farther apart would take more time)
        
        Results: NOPE
        
        The problem of cognitive economy
        
        Cog economy: designing a system that conserves resources
        
        However, brain doesn't work that way
        
        Findings: people writing down features that are 1-2 levels higher in the hierarchy (e..g seeing robin -> "flies"; "flies" thought to be stored with "birds" only -> "flies" stored multiple times
      - Spreading Activation Theories
        Memory is conceived as a network of nodes connected by links in which activation spreads from node to node via the links
        
        Concepts associated w/ each other through meaning instead of a hierarchy;
        
        Active nodes send their energy to other linked nodes -> can also become active
        
        Activated nodes send a high proportion of their energy to closely related nodes -> can send differing amount of activation
        
        6 properties
        
        A set of units: each unit represents a concept
        
        A state of activation: each unit has its own state of activation, an amount of "energy" at a given moment
        
        An output function:
        -> Output function: the current activation state of the unit -> connects to the amount of activation it sends down its links
        -> E.g.: multiply activation by 1 = sending same amount of activation down the links as the unit itself has or sending 0.5 - half the amount
        -> threshold function: unit must meet a required level before it can be sent
        
        A pattern of connectivity:
        -Units connected to one another by links of different strengths
        -E.g. knowing bird flies depends on strength of link between "bird" and "flies"
        
        An activation rule: Determines how the inputs (levels of activation) should be combined
        
        Learning rules to change weights: How should we determine the weight of new links for new knowledge?
        
        Some other info
        
        Allows for retrieval of properties
        
        Allows content-addressable knowledge
        
        Can account for typicality:typical examples of a category (birdier birds) will have strong links
        
        Naturally creates default values that a variable or an attribute takes in the absence of any other info: e.g in the absence of info we automatically default that birds move by flying unless specifically told otherwise
        
        Resistant to faulty inputs
        
        Evidence: concepts in memory become active & when activity surpasses a threshold -> enters awareness
        
        Repetition priming effects (showed by bias in performance of task): interpreted as nodes representing concepts become active when Ps first read the words on the list -> 2nd task: still somewhat active -> easier to retrieve
        
        Semantic priming: indicates activation passes through nodes
        
        semantic priming: performance of a task is biased by the person having earlier viewed semantically related words/pictures
        -> response times faster when shown both strings that are semantically-related words (doctor - nurse) than when they're not
        ==> when saw "doctor" -> node active -> immediately passed activation to other semantically-related nodes -> when read "nurse", it's already active => easier to recognize the word
        
        Repetition priming effects: suggest activation of nodes last ~ 1 hour
    - - Episodic
        
        Memories associated w/ a particular time and place
        
        "When was the last time you bought new shoes?"
        
        7 characteristics
        
        Involves consciousness
        
        Involves the past & events
        
        Encoding rapid & automatic
        
        Retrieval process is required
        
        Retrieval depends on cues
        
        Fallible & reconstructive
      - Semantic
        
        Knowledge of the world
        
        Dependent on episodic first (need primary experiences)
      - 2 conceptual problems
        All semantic knowledge starts first as episodic
        
        Some knowledge are kinda both: Episodic - encoded and rehearsed much less than semantic
      - Biological support (anatomic dissociations)
        -
    - - Subcortical structures
        - Hippocampus
        
        Some nuclei of the thalamus
  - - - Knowledge of how to complete a set of motor actions, w/o necessarily realizing we are using it
        basal ganglia
        
        Adaptation motor skills:
        Adapting to a relationship between vision and movement (visual shifting goggles)
        
        Sequencing
    - - Definition: Effect in which performance of a task is biased by one's having seen the same words/pictures sometime earlier
        
        Makes recently used representations more available to reuse
      - Brain:cortical perceptual areas
    - - Emotional conditioning:
        
        in which the UR is an emotion (e..g fear)
        
        Amygdala
      - Classical conditioning:
        
        Cerebellum and hippocampus
- - - - Differences in cues
        
        Match between Encoding & Retrieval: Transfer-Appropriate Processing
        
        Experiment
        
        Encoding: Ps given 32 words to remember; 2 conditions to answer: shallow (rhyme) or meaning-deep (would it fit in a picture frame?)
        
        Retrieval: 2 diff kinds of retrieval tasks:
        +standard recognition test on all 32 words
        +take test w/ rhyming cues on all 32 words
        
        Results:
        
        when memory tested w/ rhyming cues: depth effects reversed
        ==> Better memory when cue at encoding matched cue at retrieval
        
        Definition: memory will be better to the extent that cognitive processes used at encoding match cog processes used at retrieval
        
        Argues that one type of encoding (e.g. deep processing) is not inherently better than another
        
        Testing effect: finding in memory research in which being tested on previously studied materials leads to better recall than repeating a study session
        
        tryna retrieve your memories is a good way of increasing ur chances of retrieving them later
        
        matching the format of the studied iterms w/ the exam
        
        Bio support:
        
        Matching brain activity: successful remembering was associated w/ similarity in brain activation at encoding & retrieval
        
        Retrieval cues & Memory Test Sensitivity
        
        Recognition test is more likely than a cued recall test to make process of info similar to how we did at encoding
        
        Having more cues -> likely that one of them will match what you thought abt at encoding -> successful retrieval
        
        Experiment
        
        Pair of words (lowrcase, CAPITAL) -> tested on CAPITAL
        
        Fail to recognize some words (recog test) but successful when given lowercase (cued recall) -> recog not always more sensitive
        => recognition failure of recallable words: effect in which words that were not recognized are nonetheless successfully recalled on a later test
        
        Inference (possible explanation): participants connect cue and word semantically (semantically linking them - glue-chair -> glued joints)
        
        Retrieval Cues and the Physical Environment
        
        context effects: idea that memory will be better if the physical environment at encoding matches the physical environment at retrieval
        
        usually small/weak
        
        present for free recall, smaller for cued, absent for recognition
        
        seem stronger when encoding items that are relevant to whateevr schema is being activated by that context (remembering fish underwater is easier than cupcake)
        => memory is not that context-dependent
        
        General info
        
        Context: info about TIME AND PLACE in which a memory was encoded
        
        - Free recall: incomplete context -> cooked
        
        Cued recall: provides context + hints about the materials (semantically or through sounds, like rhyme)
        
        Recognition: provides context + materials not present at encoding -> P's job is to determine which stimuli go with the encoded context
        
        Strength view of memory: idea that memories varies in how strongly they are represented & more strongly represented memories are easier to retrieve
        
        Strong memory needs few cues
        
        Weaker memory needs more cues to be retrieved
        
        Sensitivity of a test: determined by the quality & quantity of cues it provides
        
        Problems:
        
        Retrieval doesn't work the same way each time (times you can't recall, some times u can)
        
        Experiment: successive encoding + recall attempts: Ps remember more, but also sometimes forgot words that they successfully recalled in a previous trial => challenges strength view, which would argue there's no reason for this waxing and waning
      - Retrieval and Prior Knowledge
        
        Bartlett's war of the ghosts
        
        Ps listened to a story that might not fit their traditiona/cultural schema of a typical story (no logical connections, etc)
        
        When asked to recall: added and omitted details, etc -> recall influenced by their own schema
        ==> memory is reconstructive
        
        Reconstruction: memory retrieval as reconstructive
        
        Reconstruction: memories not simply pulled out from storehouse, but interpreted in terms of prior knowledge to reconstruct what probably occured
        
        Experiment: showing reconstruction occuring during recall/retrieval
        
        Ps read a paragraph abt this wild girl
        
        1 week delay: asked if each sentecne was present
        
        1 critical sentence (That did not appear): "She was dumb, deaf, blind"
        
        1 condition: control; 1 condiiton: told that real name of the girl was Hellen Keller
        
        RESULTS: Ps mistakenly recalled seeing that sentence after being told so
      - False memory
        Memory of an event that never occured but participant still believes occured
        2 broad types:
        
        because memory system (w/o individual's attention/awareness) includes prior knowledge in a memory => "remembers" sth that never happened
        
        Source of confusion: P misremembers the source of the memory
        
        Experiments:
        
        Showing related materials and then asked Ps to recall if a category (a brand, a word) that is heavily similar but was not actually in the experiment was present -> Ps highly likely to report yes
        
        Explanations
        
        Memory system will still use background knowledge if it's applicable
        
        Participants think abt the word "sleep" during encoding of sleep-related words -> when recall, remembering thinking abt the word "sleep" -> don't realize they're thinking about their own thoughts
        ===> source of a memory: where and when it was encoded, whether someone told u the info, u experienced it directly, or just thought about it
        
        Source: having the content of the memory correct, but mistaken about the source
        ==> Source confusion: occurs when mistaking one's own thoughts for an event (or vice versa), or when misremembering when & where an event happened
        
        Biologically
        
        Visual imagery more active during encoding for words that would later be falsely remembered as having been presented w/. a pic => producing a vivid mental image might make P more likely to falsely remember that they acc saw a picture
        
        Loftus
        
        Ps being misled during questionnaire
        ==> interpretation: Ps experienced source confusion
      - Vocab
        
        Cues: Info in the environment that is used as a starting point for retrieval
        
        Free recall: way of testing memory in which experimenter provides no cues other than the time and place ("words read to you an hour ago") in which the memory was encoded
        
        Cued recall: experimenter provides hints of time & place in which memory was encoded AND hint about the content ("words read an hour ago, something to eat?")
        
        Recognition test: Experimenter presents the target materials (to be remembered) along with distractors -> Ps must select the targets
        
        Savings in a relearning: P learns materials faster the second time, possibly due to residual memory from the first time
        
        Sensitivity of a test: its efficacy in detecting memories (easy or difficult to detect memories?)
        
        depends on which cues experimenter provides
      - Easy (easiest to hardest): Recognition > Cued > Free