Cognitive area Flashcards
Moray experiment 1 Aim
Test Cherry’s original results that found participants who shadowed one ear were ignorant of the message received by the rejected ear
Moray Experiment 1 Procedure”
A passage of prose was presented to the shadowed ear and short list of simple words played in the rejected ear. The word list was repeated 35 times. The participant was unexpectedly asked to report all they could remember of the content of the rejected message. After tried to recall a test of recognition was given. The recognition test consisted of similar material that wasn’t present in either ear’s message.
Moray Experiment 1 controls
- The ear used for the shadowed message was randomly selected
- The word list/rejected message was faded in after shadowing had begun and was in equal volume to the shadowed message/passage
- The gap between the test of recall and recognition was 30 seconds
- The recognition test consisted of similar material that wasn’t present in either ear’s message
Moray experiment 1 results
mean number of words recalled out of 7:
- Shadowed ear: 4.9
- Rejected ear: 1.9
- Control: 2.6
There was no recall of words from rejected ear as the few words that were recognised were lower than the chance in the control condition
Moray experiment 1 conclusion
Rejected messages don’t penetrate the attention block
Section A Moray
- Passages were all recorded by one male speaker, reading in steady monotone 130-150 words per minute
- Before each experiment participants were given 4 prose passages to shadow for practise
- Brennel Mark Stereophonic tape recorder was used and connected to two earpieces in either side of headphones
- loudness of message was about 60 decibels above participants threshold (what was audible for them)
- quantitative data, mean numbers
- lab experiment
- sample of female and male undergrad workers
Moray experiment 2 aims
to investigate the extent of the attention block
Moray exp 2 procedure
12 participants.
- Each listener received one passage in right ear another heard simultaneously a different in the left ear. This happened to the listener 10 times.
- Told that their responses to the shadowed ear would be recorded and to aim to make as few errors as possible told to ignore the rejected ear. At beginning of each trial they were given instructions to the shadowed ear
- Instructions in the middle of some messages to the rejected ear called ‘interpolated messages’ Three of the interpolated messages contained the listeners’ name called the ‘affective message’
Moray Exp 2 controls
- An Avometer was used to check there was no significant increase in intensity when name was spoken
-Each participants had ten paired passages of light fiction.
Moray exp 2 results:
- 20/39 times the affective message was heard (with name)
- 4/36 of the unaffective messages were heard (no name)
Found most participants ignored instructions in both rejected and shadowed ear as they thought it was an attempt to distract them
- 4/36 of the unaffective messages were heard (no name)
Moray exp 2 conclusions
subjectively ‘important messages, like a person’s name, can penetrate the block. This means certain instructions are attended to if proceeded by the person’s name
Moray Exp 3 aim
to investigate the effect of a individual’s ‘set’ (expectations) further
Moray exp 3 Procedure
14 participants
- Participants were asked to shadow one of two simultaneous dichotic messages (two messages played at same time, one in each ear)
- Digits were interpolated towards the end of the messages
- These digits were sometimes present in both ears, or just one, or neither
- Group 1: told they would be asked questions about the shadowed content
Group 2: instructed to remember all the digits they could
Moray exp 3 results
There was no significant difference between the number of digits remembered by either group
This suggests that neutral material does not become important enough to break through the attentional barrier and penetrate the block even when expectations were increased by telling them they had to recall all digits.
Moray exp 3 conclusions
it is very difficult to make neutral material important enough to break through the block, but must be something personal like one’s name
loft palm and grant diff
One difference between the studies is the sample size.
In Loftus and Palmers study there was a sample size of 150 participants separated into 3 groups of 50 in experiment 2
whilst Grant’s study had a smaller sample of 39 participants from 17-56
grant memory
Grant changes our understanding of memory to a large extent as Loftus and Palmer showed that memory is inaccurate whilst Grant displayed that the accuracy of out memory can be improved.
The results of Loftus an Palmers study showed that the verb used in the leading questions directly altered the participants estimated speed of the car accident. For example ‘smashed’ had an average estimated speed of 40.8 compared to 31.8 for ‘contracted’ in experiment 1. Grant built upon these findings, showing that memory can be improved as it is context-dependent. For example, the findings showed that when participants studied the article in noisy conditions and tested also in noisy conditions on the short answer test out of 10 the mean score was 6.3 as when studying in silent conditions but testing in noisy the average score was 4.6.
eye-witness testimony is inaccurate as memory is unreliable, we now know that memory is more accurate when recall happens in the same environment that the event took place. We could apply this to improve witness testimony by taking individuals back to the scene of the crime; however this may introduce ethical complications, making individuals relive their trauma.
Extend grant increases understanding of diversity
grant = culture and environment effect memory
moray and simon and chabris similarity
they are both are lab experiments
In Moray’s study, all participants shadow the same passage and hear the exact same words in the rejected message.
In Simon and Chabris’ study, the players of each team pass a standard basketball to each other in a standardised order (player 1 to player 2 to player 3) and the unexpected event happened at the same timestamp (44-48 seconds).
moray and simon and chabris difference
sample size.
Moray has a small sample size of 28 participants in total across all the 3 studies who are all undergraduates or research workers; this means results are hard to generalise as they aren’t representative of a large population due to the small scale of the research.
However, Simon and Chabris has a large sample size of 229 undergraduates from an American university.
Simon and chabris section a
self-selected sample of 229 mainly undergraduate from an American University
all conditions - white, black, umbrella woman, gorilla, transparent, opaque
Asked if they had previously taken part in a similar experiment, the data from those who said yes was discarded
Simon and chabris aim
to investigate factors that may effect visual detection rates
Simon and chabris results
54% did notice the unexpected event
