Cognition Flashcards
(116 cards)
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>