Cognition Flashcards
What is the computer metaphor of the mind?
View by cognitive scientists that the brain is a computer, storing and processing information.
The middle part between input and response which behaviourists failed to observe.
What are examples of studies which challenged behaviourism?
Behaviourists assume all learning involves association and reinforcement.<br></br><br></br><b>Tolman & Honzik (1930)</b> - Learning without reward <br></br>- 3 groups of rats. The third group have no reward until day 3, but still learn rapidly and have the best performance. Group 1 get reward for solving maze, fewer errors over time. Group 2 show no reward, but slow. <br></br>- Learning in the absence of reward.<br></br><br></br><b>Tolman, Ritchie & Kalish (1946)</b> - Cognitive maps in rats<br></br> - Group 1 always receive a reward at some point. Used place learning and faster than those who always received a reward at right turn. <br></br>- Eaiser to learn spatial map than sequence of actions.<br></br>- Learning in absence of reward.
When rat initially experienced map it formed a cognitive map, conception of the maze’s layout. Even though learned to turn right, when placed differently it used its map to turn left to reach food.
Epstein (2016)
Holds view that brain is not a computer. <br></br>We are born with things that computers don’t have e.g. rules, knowledge.<br></br>Every individual has unique experiences and reacts to things differently.
Shallit (2016)
Criticises Epstein (2016) by arguing that there is success in the metaphor. <br></br><br></br>Organisms can do things in the same ways as computers, but not in the exact same way.<br></br><br></br>Humans can process and store information.
What is the behaviourist approach which existed before the cognitive era?
Internal behaviour cannot be studied bc can’t see what happens in mind. Focuses on external behaviour. Only look at observable behaviour.
Two assumptions
- All learning is the result of conditioning
- Conditioning depends upon processes of association and reinforcement.
Aim to explain all behaviour in terms of conditioned responses. How pairing one stimulus with another causes changes in response to the neutral stimulus. Used to argue that behaviour can be analysed without any reference to the mind.
Describe the philosophical approaches to cognitive science
“<u><b>Dualism Epi-phenomenalism</b></u><div>- States that physical events in the brain/body cause mental events. <br></br>Evidence for is the readiness potential - if ask someone to push button when they feel the urge, the brain builds up activity before. Suggests that conscious intent is a mental by-product.<br></br>Evidence Against - Randomness, could be neural noise. Incompatible with evolutionary account.<br></br><br></br><b><u>Monism: Functionalism</u></b><br></br>Looks at functional concepts vs physical things.</div>”
Cherry (1953)
Dichotic listening task.<br></br><br></br>Good recall for one conversation, poor when attending to two.<br></br><br></br>Suggests that we have a fixed amount of processing capacity. When attending to 1, there is already a lot to process, therefore 2 makes this seem almost impossible.
What are the four predictions of template theory?
- Positions are stored in three templates.<br></br>2. Have superior template knowledge which they can access quickly.<br></br>3. Store exact board locations of pieces<br></br>4. Better recall of random positions
Evaluate the 4 predictions of template theory
“<b><u>Storage in Three templates</u></b><br></br>- Evidence supports.<br></br>- <b>Gobert & Clarkson (2004)</b> - Chess experts recalled board positions better than novices.<br></br>- Number of templates constant with playing strength<br></br>- Experts had more templates compared to novices.<br></br><br></br><b><u>Template based knowledge</u></b><br></br>Support<br></br>- Charness et al. (2001) - Experts fixate eyes earlier than non-experts <br></br>- Burns (2004) - Experts use fast template based knowledge.<br></br>Contradicting<br></br>- <b>Van Harreveld et al. (2007)</b> - Time pressure, skilled players also used slow processes<br></br>- <b>Moxley et al. (2012)</b> - Final move better than first. Shows they use slower, analytical processes<br></br><br></br><b><u>Recall of exact positions of pieces close together</u></b><br></br>- No support at all.<br></br>- <b>McGregor & Howes (2002) </b>- Experts have better memory for attack and defence relationships than exact positions<br></br>- <b>Linhares et al. (2012)</b> - Grandmasters better than masters at remembering strategically relevant pieces on the board. Look at what is attacking what. Purposeful info is stored instead of exact positions.<br></br><br></br><b><u>Better recall of random positions</u></b><br></br>- Evidence supports<br></br>- <b>Gobert & Simon (1996)</b> - Skilled players show advantage in remembering random positions, only a small effect.<br></br>- <b>Gobert & Water (2003) </b>- Random positions, 14.8 remembered compared to 12 for weak players. Effect is small.”
Krupinksy et al. (2013) Medical Expertise
Recorded eye movements whilst doctors looking at breast biopsies.<br></br><br></br>There is a difference in processing between the years with first years not knowing what to look at. Best in 4th year. Shows that with experience, doctors know what to look at and can apply knowledge quickly.
Kundel et al. (2007) Medical Expertise
Eye-tracking for looking at mammograms.<br></br><br></br>Median time to fixate on cancer was 1.13 seconds, shows that they rely on fast, automatic processing to make a diagnosis.
Kundel & Nodine (1975) Medical Expertise
Chest x-rays shown for 200 milliseconds.<br></br><br></br>Expert radiologists correct 70% of the time. Accurate quickly as know where to look.
Gegenfurtner et al. (2011) Medical Expertise
Eye-movement data meta-analysis.<br></br><br></br>Differences between experts and non-experts are<br></br>- Shorter fixations<br></br>- Faster first fixations on task relevant info<br></br>- More fixations on task-irrelevant info<br></br>- Longer saccades (quick eye movements)
Are medical experts using a special skill?
<b>Melo et al. (2012)</b> - Similar brain regions are activated in both tasks. This shows that they are not doing anything new, but are just doing it better.<br></br><br></br>Experts have a strategy of comparing current patterns to ones stored in their memory when looking at x-rays.
Kulatunga-Moruzi et al. (2004) Medical Expertise
Predicted that everyone performs well with more info.<br></br><br></br>Least experts: Accurate diagnosis with verbal description and photograph<br></br><br></br>Experts: Accurate with photograph only.<br></br><br></br>Shows that higher-skilled experts use a fast and automatic visual strategy. The visual description interfered with decision making.
Evaluate the statement that deliberate practice is all it takes to become an expert.
“Ericsson proposed idea. <br></br><br></br><b><u>Argument for </u></b><br></br>- Correlation between hours of practice and skill. <br></br>- <b>Guida et al. (2013)</b> Experts show activation in their LTM compared to non-experts.<br></br>- Deliberate practice is a predictor of becoming an expert.<br></br><br></br><b><u>Arguments against</u></b><br></br>- <b>Hambrick et al. (2014)</b> - There shouldn’t be much variation in the amount deliberate practice accounts for, but a lot of variance is left unexplained. <br></br>- <b>Campitelli & Gobet (2011)</b> - Every time effort is put in, skill should increase, however people improve rapidly at first and then this levels off after a while. Chess players with lots of hours who aren’t masters.<br></br>- Natural limits to deliberate practice.”
What is creativity? Would you describe it as a special or specialised skill? What is the difference between the two?
Creativity is a unique way of solving a problem. It is an aspect of problem solving because it requires applying knowledge to solve a problem.
Posner Cuing (1980)
Questioned what happened when ppl provided with diff sources of information.<div><br></br></div><div>Computer screen, saw a dot and click when see dot. Hint shows where dot will appear. Some cues valid, some invalid.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Valid cues = Fastest responses</div><div><br></br></div><div>Led to development of endogenous system - controlled by an individuals intentions, used when cues are presented. And Exogenus system - shifts attention, involvled when uniformative perhipheral cues presented.</div><div><br></br></div><div>When focused on one side, allocate more resources to side to react fast. Leaves few on other sides = slow response times. Cue directs attention.</div>
Describe the attentional blink
Rapid presentation of items. 2 targets of interest. Delay between targets varied to see how the detection of the second target changes.<div><br></br></div><div>High performance with one target, low performance with 2. Suggests we are bad at detecting when 2 things happen in quick succession and determining what happens immediately after. Used to show the limits of our attention over time.</div><div><br></br></div><div>No universal agreement on why this happens. Some ev shows that gamers and meditators do not show attentional blink. 17 ppl given intensive meditation training, all of them picked out the two numbers, suggesting that meditation can improve focus.</div><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>
Describe the Psychological Refractory Period
Used to show the limitations of our attention. 2 stimilti rapidly flashed on screen to measure RT. If 2 stimilui presented close together, response to second stimulus delayed.<div><br></br></div><div>Suggests we have no separate information processing system as if we did, then it would happen at the same time. We only choose 1 reaction at a time. Only 1 thing go through at a time. Response selection to the second target needs to wait until the first is finished. Shows limits in response selection.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Suggested that there is a bottleneck at stage of decision or response selection. <b>Pashler et al. (2009)</b> bottleneck prevents more than one central decision process from operating at any given moment.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Ruthruff et al. (2009)</b> - Still found a large PRP when participants given strong incentives to eliminate it.</div><div><br></br><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div></div>
What are the criticisms of the bottleneck hypothesis for the PRP?
<b>Schumacher et al. (2001)</b> - Two tasks.<div><br></br></div><div>Task 1 - participants had to say one, two or three to low, medium or high-pitched tones</div><div><br></br></div><div>Task 2 - press response keys corresponding to the position of a disc on a computer screen.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Tasks were completed together for over 2,000 trials.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Those performing each task on its own showed the smallest PRP effect. Could be explained by, participants were rewarded for fast responding on single and dual-task trials, however the set up of the task may have led participants to exert more effort in dual-task rather than single-task trials</div>
What are the effects of prolonged practice on the PRP?
Possible that effect of PRP may disspear with prolonger practice.<div><br></br></div><div>Pashler (1993) - Still a PRP after 10,000 practice trials. Shows that practice can typically reduce, but not eliminate the effects.</div>
Explain the idea of limited resources
Studies suggest that the mind is an information processor with a limited processing capacity. Clear there is some form of selectivity within attention, shown by dichotic and posner cuing. When performance can be enhanced in one way, but at the cost in another.
<div><br></br></div>
<div>However, limited resources idea has limitations. Tasks do not always interfere, but some do.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div>Suggested that there are multiple resources - each task draws from different resources.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><b>Wickens (1994)</b> - Processing system consists of multiple resource pools. Allows to predict when tasks can be performed together and when they will interfere. When increase difficulty of one task there will be loss in performance of another. </div>
<div>1. Stage of processing.</div>
<div>2. Input modality</div>
<div>3. Nature of reasoning</div>
<div>4. Response type</div>
<div>Tasks requiring diff resources can be performed together compared to those requiring the same.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
What are the criticisms of the multiple resources idea?
<b>Bonnel & Hafter (1998)</b> claim that multiple vs single resources may depend on the type of task.<div>Identification - Shared resourced, difficult</div><div>Detection - No shared resources, easier</div><div><br></br></div><div>Dual-task performance requires higher level processes of coordinating and organising the demands on the two tasks. However, processes deemphasised by theory.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Theory doesn’t provide info on diff forms of cognitive processing interevening between perception and respnding.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Overall idea is messy, no universal agreement on how many resources there are and how they relate to tasks.</div>
What are the three components of mnemonic devices and who came up with the idea?
<b>Worthen & Hunt (2008)</b> claimed that the 3 components are<div><br></br></div><div>1. <b>Organisation</b> - Categorising info to make it easier to remember. Remember better if told not to do this. Connecting new info with existing is one method.</div><div><br></br></div><div>2. <b>Elaboration</b> - Process of enriching with additional information. Easier to remember new information if you can apply it to things you already know. Remember better if think deeply about information. Aim to make info stick, easy to retrieve.</div><div><br></br></div><div>3. <b>Mental Imagery </b>- The process of coming up with an image, usually visual. Use of bizzare imagery effective. Has the potential to enhance both organisation and elaboration of to-be remembered information.</div>
What are some memorizartion techniques used by super-memorizers?
<b>Method of Loci</b> - Using an already known location and putting images into place while mentally walking through in order to retrieve information.<div>Advantage is that if you forget one part, you can move onto next, not dependent on each other.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Peg-Word Method</b> - Pre-memorising a set of memory pegs and hanging memories on them e.g. 1 = bun. Interact with word.</div><div>Advantage = go back and forth between pegs</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Link Method </b>= Build a chain of images/ a story. Link one image to another. However, if forget one part, cannot remember the rest.</div>
Describe the experiment of Roediger (1980) for memorisation methods
Studied 3 lists of 20 words each using reheresal, simple imagery, link method, method of loci, peg-word method.<div><br></br></div><div>Most effective were those which used a more elaborate technique e.g. method of loci or peg-word.</div>
What does it take to become a memory athlete?
<div><b>Ericsson (2003)</b> - Claims that exceptional memory skills are a result of the right tools (menemonics) and deliberate practice. Everyone can become one if put in time and effort. No support for naturally superior memory. Explains that experts have been using strategies for up to 10yrs.<br></br></div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><b>Maguire et al. (2003)</b> - Looked at brain anatomy and brain activation patterns in memory athletes. No difference in anatomy, but some areas more active than others which allowed them to make quick connections when using techniques.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><b>Roediger, McDermott, Balota & Pyc (ongoing)</b> - Memory athletes better in all tasks. Selection effect suggested. Could have higher WM which attracts them to competition.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><br></br></div>
Describe the experiment of Roediger, McDermott, Balota & Pyc (ongoing) and the results
Measured memory for list of words, non-words and working memory. Stroop test was non-memory test.<div><br></br></div><div><b>Immediate Free Recall </b>- Better performance for athletes. Perf drops when have to remember something they have never done before, no longer use mnemonic device.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Delayed Free Recall </b>- Still have good memory for words after a delay, hard to forget info.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Working Memory Span Score</b> - Used computation span task where given equations. Memory athletes better.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Stroop Task Perf </b>- Memory athletes responded to q in less time.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Practiced memory tasks - Superior performance.</div><div>Unpracticsed - Only a small advantage.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Selection effect suggested - higher WM attracts them to competition.</div><div><br></br></div>
What is HSAM?
Highly superior autobiographical memory. Hard to verify so look at public events.<div><br></br></div><div>First shown by <b>Parker, Cahill & McGaugh (2006)</b> - Jill Price. Take any date, recall what day it fell on, what she was doing. She could perfectly recall what happened up to 25yrs ago. They came up with 2 defining features</div><div>1. Person spends a long time thinking about personal past</div><div>2. Extraordinary capacity to recall specific events from the past.</div><div><br></br></div>
What are the causes of HSAM?
<b>LePort et al. (2012)</b> - HSAM participants could recall autobiographical and public events better, but no increase in performance in standard memory tasks.<div><br></br></div><div><b>McGaugh & LaPort (2014)</b> - Looked at brain regions.differences in grey and white matter. Suggested that this was due to them using the areas more, them being more activated.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Two causes</div><div>1. Innate strucural differences in the brain</div><div>2. Unique experiences during development</div>
What is the profile of those with HSAM?
<div><b>McGaugh & LaPort (2014)</b></div>
<div>- Only remember specific events, not every second of lives</div>
<div>- Don’t use strategies like mnemonic devices</div>
<div>- Recall memories in a structured manner, day, date, emotion connected. Only for events they have experienced directly.</div>
<div>- Enjoy having vivid memories, keep on doing it.</div>
<div>- Links to OCD</div>
Can those with HSAM have their memories distorted?
<b>Patihis et al., 2013</b><div>- False memory tasks. They are just as susceptible to false memories. No effect on any other type of memory.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Roediger & McDermott (2013)</b></div><div>- Two types of event memories</div><div>1. Laboratory remembering</div><div>2. Autobiographical remembering</div><div>Those with HSAM excel in only 1</div>
What are both ends of the intensity of the visual imagery spectrum?
<u>Aphantasia</u> - <b>Zemen et al. (2015)</b> - Condition in which individuals have extremely poor visual imagery. Unabled to create mental images.<div><br></br></div><div><u>Charles Bonnet Syndrome</u> - Opposite. Where individuals experience the sight of images which are not real and only visual in nature. Extremely strong visual imagery.</div><div>Experienced by 10-40% of people with partial or severe blindness.</div>
What is the debate discussing whether or not visual images are supported by a separate visual representation system?
<b>1. Mental images may exist, but non-depictive (symbolic, words, phrases) representations doing the work.</b> Mental images are a by-product.<div>- Held by Pylsyhn (2003) - Neural evidence doesn’t provide new info on format of mental images. No diff between pictorial and other forms on reasoning. We should not look for spatial properties in image format.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>2. There is a depictive file format</b></div><div>- Kosslyn (2004) - Difference between visual mental imagery and visual perception.</div><div>Visual perception happens whilst viewing stimulus. Visual mental imagery is a set of representations that give rise of the experience of viewing a stimulus in the absence of appropriate sensory input. Based on previously stored info in the brain.</div><div>Says that imagery shares mechansims with perception. Brain areas which implement the visual buffer crucial during mental imagery.Believes we should look at spatial properties.
</div><div>- Evidence for by<b> Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser (1978)</b> whereby the amount of time scaled linearly with distance.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Le Bihan et al. (1993)</b></div><div>- End of imagery debate.</div><div>- fMRI evidence. Visualising a remembered pattern uses the same brain areas as percieving.</div>
Describe mental rotation by Shepard and Metzler (1971)
Two objects are shown and response times are recorded for participants determining if the two objects are the same if rotated.<div><br></br></div><div>Results - response times quickest when there was no rotation. As the amount of rotation increases, the reaction time also increased.</div><div><br></br></div><div><div>Important because it is strong evidence for visually based cognitive processing. This suggests that individuals can have an image-based representation in the mind.</div></div>
Describe Dual Coding Theory by <b>Paivio (1971)</b>
<div>Used to explain the powerful mnemonic effects of mental imagery. Proposes two kinds of mental representation. Verbal representations and visual imagery and these are both functionally independent systems. If the memory is stored in two distinct functional locations then the chances that a memory will be retained are greater.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div>Brain uses a different rep for the word tree than the image of tree.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Ran word association experiments.</div>
<div>Similar words are remembered easily and concreate images are remembered better than words.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><u>Explanation</u> - Information goes into the sensory system and then responses come out the end. In the middle, dual-coding is occurring which is where there are two different types of receptors and they must have connections between them. Visual stimuli are dually coded in the brain to give it an advantage over verbal. </div>
<div></div>
Introduction to learning styles
Learning is a cognitive process carried out by all humans. From learning to walk to learning advanced mathematical concepts, learning is a crucial part of life.<div><br></br></div><div><div>Learning styles the idea that individuals have a preference on how they take in information and that the way they learn should match their preference as this determines success.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Popularity of learning styles emphasised through the fact that 93% of teachers believed that individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style and 98% of UK teachers received training on how to promote learning styles to pupils (<b>Dekker et al., 2012).</b></div><div><br></br></div><div>Gives individuals the opportunity to be treated like individuals. Blame something if it doesn’t work.</div></div><div><br></br></div>
What is the learning styles hypothesis?
“Defined as ‘learning will be ineffective if learners receive instruction that does not take account of their learning style’<div><br></br></div><div><u>Four steps to test</u></div><div>1. Divide participants into groups based on reported learning style</div><div>2. Random assignment to different instruction modes</div><div>3. Take final test</div><div>4. Find crossover interaction between learning style and interaction method.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Pashler et al. (2008)</b> - Filtered out studies which did not follow 4 steps. One study which revealed crossover interaction and 3 which contradicted.</div><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>”
What evidence did Pashler et al. (2008) find which supports the learning styles hypothesis?
<div><b>Sternberg et al. (1999)</b></div>
<div>324 gifted high school students took the Sternberg triarchic abilities test to obtain ratings on analytical, creative and practice ability.</div>
<div><br></br></div>
<div><u>Issues </u>- Test created by the author. Only a third of the whole sample was included and there was no reason supplied as to why some students were excluded.</div>
<div></div>
What evidence did Pashler et al. (2008) find which contradicts the learning styles hypothesis?
<b>Massa & Mayer (2006)</b><div>- Categorised into visual or verbal learner.</div><div>- Computer based lesson help screen aimed to help a particular learner.</div><div>- Those matched showed no improved performance. No crossover effect</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Cook et al. (2009)</b></div><div>- Medicine residents categorised to sensing or intitutive.</div><div>- No support for hypothesis.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Constantinou & Baker (2002)</b></div><div>- Visual verbaliser questionaire.</div><div>- No crossover, but visual presentation led to better free recall.</div>
What did <b>An & Carr (2017)</b> suggest in regards to the learning hypothesis?
They suggest an alternative - look at multiple factors.<div><br></br></div><div>Suggest <u>problems</u> with hypothesis</div><div>- <b>Failure to explain underlying mechanisms</b> - Should inform of these, they don’t explain the underlying cognitive or psychological mechanisms.</div><div>- <b>Borrowed constructs</b> - E.g. personality</div><div>- <b>Measurement problems</b> - They often use rank-odering or self-report assessment measures which have poor realiability.</div><div>- <b>Ignorance of research</b></div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Kuepper-Tetzel (2017)</b> - Supports these ideas that the approach is too simple to be applied to the complexities of human cognition.</div>
What are the difficulties in applying learning styles?
<b>Pashler et al. (2008)</b><div>- There are not enough resources in education to apply this. - It is not worth it when approaches have a strong evidence base such as active recall.</div><div><br></br></div><div><b>Willingham, Hughes & Dobolyi (2015)</b></div><div>- Agree with Pashler.</div><div>- Could have a big impact on education if were true.</div><div>- Need to ensure students are aware</div><div>- Cost-factor involved as would need to use expensive assessments and would be large-scale.</div><div><br></br></div><div>- No scientific evidence supports the hypothesis.</div>
Describe expected utility theory
Term introduced by <b>Bernoulli</b>who used it to solve St. Petersburg paradox. Coin tossed, winnings doubled each time play. Most people not willing to pay much to play game. Bernoulli then claimed that we do not base decisions on objective value, but utility. Utility refers to outcomes that achieve a person’s goals. People do not always make decisions that result in the desired outcome.
Expected utility theory proposed by von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944). Suggests we try to maximise utility which is the subjective value we attach to an outcome. Individuals will choose the act which results in the highest expected utility. How we place value on things.
What are the problems with expected utility theory?
Loss aversion - £100 felt more deeply than the gain of £100. Greater sensitivity to potential losses than potential gains.
Endowment Effect - Value you place on a mug depends on whether you own it. Loosing a mug you own is worse than gaining the same mug.
Framing effects - E.g. vaccine problem. Question then changed. According to this theory, the only thing that has changed is the framing of the problem. When question framed in terms of how many people to save, most people pick this. When it is framed in terms of how many people will die, most likely to pick over option to avoid killing ppl.
Suggests that people’s decisions can be swayed by how the problem is presented.
Describe Prospect Theory
Proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1984) to describe how we actually decide.
Main assumptions 1. Indvs identify a reference point representing their current state. 2. Indvs more sensitive to potential losses than potential gains.
Rare events receive more weight than they should do.
Framing effect - Decisions can be influenced by how the problem is presented. When a choice is framed in terms of gains, people use a risk aversion strategy, but when the choice is framed in terms of losses, people use a risk-taking strategy.
