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
What were the IVS for Simons and Chabris?
1) two 5 second unexpected events, appeared after 44-48 seconds
2) transparent or opaque video
3) colour of team- black or white, number of passes made by team/ number of bounce passes or ariel passes
4)difficulty of task easy or hard
What was the experimental design for Simons and Chabris?
independent measures
What were the conditions and those within for Simons and Chabris?
transparent/ umbrella
transparent/ gorilla
opaque/ umbrella
opaque/ gorilla
within each condition:
white/ easy
white/ hard
black/easy
black/ hard
(ps do one)
What were the controls for Simons and Chabris?
same players
75 second clips
same woman
same gorilla suit
What did the experimenters do in Simons and Chabris study?
tested ps individually
used a standardised script to deliver instructions
good how and when to present video
videos presented on variety of TV monitors 13-36 inches
What was the procedure for Simons and Chabris?
-Ps watched video
-told to count number and passes
-answer suprise set of questions
- details of any yes responses recorded
-ps asked if they had previously heard/ participated in similar experiment
- if yes disqualified
- debriefed
- opportunity to rewatch video
What were the suprise questions Simons and Chabris used?
-‘while you were doing the counting did you notice anything unusual in the video?’
-‘did you notice anything other than six players’
-‘did you see anyone else appear on the video (beside the players)’
-‘did you see a gorilla walk across the screen
Results and findings for Simons and Chabris?
- 54% noticed unexpected event 46% didn’t
-supports existing research findings- ps demonstrate substantial level of inattentional blindness for a dynamic event - more likely to notice unexpected event in opaque condition 67% compared to 42%
- more P’s noticed umbrella 65% than gorilla 44%
- black team more likely to notice gorilla
- ps more likely to notice event that shares basic visual features with object they are observing
What % of Ps noticed the event in black team opaque umbrella woman?
58
What % of ps noticed event in hard white umbrella?
83
how many ps noticed the unexpected event (s+c)
54%
what % are ps more likely to notice the unexpected event in the opaque condition
67%
was the black or white team more likely to notice the gorilla
black
when are the ps more likely to notice the unexpected event
if the event they were focusing on shared similar visual characteristics to the unexpected event
was the umbrella or the gorilla more likely to be noticed
umbrella
what are the conclusions for simons and chabris?
half of observers will fail to notice ongoing unexpected event while engaged in a different task
- inattentional blindness occurs more frequently in cases of superimposition as opposed to live action
- degree of inattentional blindness depends on difficulty of task
-more likely to notice event if similar to the event they are already focussing on
- objects can pass through spatial area of attentional focus and not be seen if attention not focussed on it
what are the strengths of simons and chabris?
reliable
ethics
data
demand characteristics
usefulness
what are weaknesses of simons and chabris?
method
ecological validity
generalisability
how are Moray and Simons and Chabris similar?
lab experiment
undergraduate students
quantitative data
practical applications
How are Moray and Simons and Chabris different?
m- auditory attention, repeated measure
s+c- visual attention, independent measures
what was the experimental design for Moray?
repeated
independent
repeated
how long was the gap between the shadow and recognition test for Moray?
30 seconds
what were the materials for simons and chabris?
-4 vids, 75 seconds
-2 teams of 3
-3 elevator doors moved between
-unexpected event after 44 seconds entered left-right
how long did simons and chabris procedure last?
5-10 mins
what were some of the instructions in Morays study?
before:
listen to your right ear
listen to your right ear you wil receive instructions to change
after:
all right you may stop now
change to your other ear
john smith change to your other ear
how many people were in each team? sc
3
how long did the videos last? sc
75 seconds
what colour was the basketball? sc
orange
how many experimenters were there? sc
21
how long were the unexpected events and when did they happen? sc
5 seconds
44-48 seconds
