Attention Flashcards
What is the background for Morays study of dichotic listening?
Cherry- cocktail party phenomenon, those that shadowed a message were unaware of the message in the other ear. Can respond to own name
Moray interested in what stimuli and situation lead to this
What is the aim of Morays study?
To investigate Cherrys dichotic listening findings in relation to:
1- amount of information recognised in the rejected message
2- effect of hearing one’s own name in the unattended message
3- effect of instruction to identify a specific target in the rejected message
What is the experimental design in Morays study?
lab experiment
1- repeated measures
2- independent measures
3- independent measures
What were the participants for Morays studies?
undergraduates or research workers
male and female
1- not recorded
2- 12
3- two groups of 14
How was Morays study standardised?
messages recorded onto a tape in the same male voice at the rated of 130/150 words per minute
same noise level
p’s had four practice prose passages to shadow
What was Morays method for experiment 1?
short list of words repeated 35 times in one ear
shadow prose in the other ear
word list faded in after shadow began and faded out as shadow ended
P’s asked to recall all they could from unattended message and given recognition test
test included control rejected and shadowed words
What were the results for Morays experiment 1?
shadowed words remembered- 4.9
rejected words- 1.9
control words- 2.6
What was the procedure for experiment 2 Moray?
to find out the limit of the efficiency of the attention block
shadow 10 short passages of light fiction
had different instructions at start or throughout
told responses would be recorded and had to fry score as few mistakes as possible
3/6 during passage began with name
What were the results for Moray experiment 2?
name: heard-20 said-39
no name: heard-4 said-36
what was the procedure for Moray experiment 3?
message with digits interspersed towards end
participants heard two experimental messaged of one experimental and one control
one group told they would be tested on its content
one group told to remember as many numbers as possible
what were the conclusions for Moray experiment 3?
no significant difference
not important enough to break through attentional barrier
what were the conclusions for Moray?
identification paradox- block doesn’t prevent response to own name
- when message rejected almost all content blocked
- rejection apparent even when message is repeated
- subjectively important messages can penetrate block
- difficult to make neutral material important enough to break through barrier
What is Mack and Rocks background for Simons and Chabris ?
inattentional blindess
-preattentional perception- see everything in the field of view but no conscious perception of visual world without attention to it
- fail to notice/ perceive on unexpected object even when it appears at point of fixation
What was Neisser background study for Simons and Chabris?
superimposing two semi transparent videos
viewers had to attend to one of them
viewers unaware of what happened in other video
unexpected object walked across screen (umbrella woman)
6/28 saw
What was Wolfe background study for Simon and Chabris?
inateentional amnesia
unexpected object perceived and then immediately forgotten
if we don’t pay attention to something it won’t reach our long term memory even if we notice it
What was Becklen and Cervone background research for Simons and Chabris
challenged inattentional amnesia
video stopped immediately after umbrella woman
asked if they noticed her
no significant difference in reporting rates between stopped tape and carried on tape
anticipatory possibilities (if looking out for something more likely to notice unexpected object
What was the aim for Simons and Chabris?
to investigate the influence of several factors on lnattentional blindness
one looking at the effect of superimposing compared to live events within the video recording
another measuring the impact of task and difficulty
third considered whether the unusualness of the unexpected event had an impact on detection
What were the participants for Simons and Chabris?
228 participants
volunteer sampling
undergraduate students
offered candy bar or a single fee
remaining: 192
(12 per condition)
What was the DV for Simons and Chabris?
number of ps noticed unexpected event which was either umbrella or gorilla