Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cognition and the Brain > Exam 2 > Flashcards

Exam 2 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
The Brain flashcards
1
Q

Spatial Coding Systems

A

allocentric: object-to-object
egocentic: self-to-object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Pohl

A

functional organization of visual pathway

monkeys – lesioned posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and inferior temporal cortex (IT)

landmark discrimination –> spatial discrimination (food hidden in adjacent well to landmark; correct=retrieve food, incorrect=empty well shown to convey no reward)
object discrimination –> choose food well

PPC: important in landmark task, not important in object (spatial, visual relationships, dorsal)

IT: important in object task, not important in landmark (object and pattern recognition, ventral)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dorsal

A

occipital–>parietal

“where” pathway; spatial relations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Ventral

A

occipital–>temporal

“what” pathway; object recognition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Object recogniton

A

process of matching representations of organized sensory input to stored representations in memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The binding problem

A

If ventral-stream neurons encode stimulus identity but not location, and if dorsal-stream neurons encode stimulus location, but not identity, how is this information brought together to create the unitary, “bound” percept that we experience of an object occupying a location in space?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Binding criteria

A

Nearness of lines
Nearness of color
Coherent motion
Experience!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rules of object recognition

A

How do we go from edge detectors (in V1) to knowing what edges go together?

proximity
connectedness
color
closure 
continuation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Colinearity v. relatability

A

Colinearity - orientations are similar

Relatability - easy to connect one line to the next

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gross experiment (hand)

A

waved hand in front of display screen –> high response
neuron’s preferred stimulus: hand
other stimuli could drive response based on hand similarity
responded regardless of location (large receptive field)
visually receptive IT neurons responded to complex stimuli

  1. preferential to complex stimuli
  2. large receptive fields

an IT neuron with responses selective to a hand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Type and Token

A

type: category (ex: faces)
token: example within this category (ex: specific face of someone)
Gross face cells selective for type, not token

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Gross Experiment (face)

A

Single neuron recorded in temporal cortex

Neuron likes faces (category or type) - but not any particular face (token)

responds comparably to human and monkey faces
gradually less responsive as features are removed

did not respond to stimuli that wasn’t face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Gnostic cell

A

hypothetical neuron that represents a complex but specific concept or object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Issues with grandmother cell theory

A

Problems: 1.Need a lot of neurons!
2.Response ambiguity

vulnerability of system that relies on highly specialized neurons on the apex of the processing system–damage?

how would the system a priori know how many gnostic cells are required to represent every distinct object it would acquire throughout its life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hierarchy of stimulus representation

A

bridging gap between V1 and IT/STP (superior temporal gyrus)

complete object recognition
component shapes
conjunction of features
low level features

progressively higher levels of stimulus representation are constructed at progressively higher levels of the system by selective integration of more elemental information from lower levels

Lines and colors represented by V1 neurons are assembled by higher visual areas into recognizable objects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Filling in contours

A

Visual illusions provide evidence for top-down influences

Zurich

find selective neuron
present illusory contour
lower, but still selective response

inference from v4 fed back to v2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

aperture problem

A

each neuron with a small receptive field is, in effect, viewing the visual scene through a very small aperture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

view invariance

A

recognizing objects irrespective to viewpoint

particular shape
invariant 
- location
- size
- cue (color, motion, lines, texture)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Visual agnosia

A

not knowing through visual information
–> cannot experience perception of an object

limited to vision
ex: tactile modality intact (holding keys)
object knowledge is okay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Visual prosopagnosia

A

inability to recognize faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Template matching theory

A

image generated by a stimulus is matched to internal representation (template)

works well when object is well specified and unique

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Challenges for template matching

A

imperfect matches

not powerful enough for general pattern recognition

ex: many fonts of m

cannot account for flexibility of pattern recognition system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Feature matching theory

A

detect objects by the presence of features

each object broken down into features

ex: broken down A

These 3 features are in most As Line features activated by visual cortex

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Stored representations

A

Stored representations ≈ features that are relatively common to all instances of object, and relatively rare in non-instances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Problem to feature matching

A

many objects contain similar features

doesn’t work for faces – same features

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Recognition by components

A

Biedelman
geon model

Complex objects are made up of arrangements of basic, component parts; 24 of them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Tanaka experiment

A

how specific do neurons get?
critical features

  • -> isolate single neuron
  • -> present monkey with dozens of 3D objects to find driving cell
  • -> reduction process until neurons no longer fire

not responding to specific objects, instead tuned to a simpler, reduced set of generic features

tiger’s head is recognized by the simultaneous activation of many neurons that each represent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What’s special about faces

A

Recognition of con-specifics critical for survival

Faces seem to be recognized by configuration

Inversion has more detrimental effects on faces than on other classes of objects

Faces recognized as individuals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Thatcher effect

A

more difficult to detect local feature changes in an upside-down face, despite the same changes being obvious in an upright face

when face is rotated away from upright, adults see it as decreasingly bizarre

tuned especially to upright faces

differentiation depends heavily on configuration (the structural relationship between individual features on the face)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Configural processing

A

Determine extent to which quantitative spatial relations deviate from prototype (average)

Recognition based on “distance” between perceived item and prototype

Faces differ in relative sizes of parts and distances between them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Evidence for configural processing

A

Famous faces: better at recognizing caricatures than veridical drawings

caricatures make deviations from prototype more evident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Inferotemporal cortex

A

IT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Kanwisher experiment

A

FFA

area in fusiform gyrus much more active response to face stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Face inversion

A

face-specific processing system that can be accessed only by upright faces

parts of the face are not processed independently

prosopagnosia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Configural processing

A

perceiving relations among the features of a stimulus such as a face

contrasted with ‘featural processing’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Composite face effect

A

Evidence for configural processing

Subjects are slower and less accurate in recognizing the top half of one face presented in a composite with the bottom half of another face when the composite is upright and fused

can detect the difference when the composite is inverted or the two halves are offset laterally
–> disrupts holistic processing

This phenomenon demonstrates that when upright faces are processed, the internal features are so strongly integrated that it becomes difficult to parse the face into isolated features

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Caricatures

A

Evidence for configural processing

Caricatures

Participants’ recognition of facial expressions was enhanced when differences between locations of features in an expression face and a reference-norm face (e.g., neutral face) were accentuated

The exaggeration of these deviations in a caricature may enhance recognition because it emphasizes the features of the face that are encoded.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Face superiority effect

A

2 noses vs. 2 faces differing only in nose

Better discriminations when whole face present! (and better memory for the noses presented with faces)

face superiority effect disappears when inversion occurs

parts of the face are not processed independently
recognizing nose less accurate than recognizing larry’s face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Evidence for configural processing

A

Recognize faces based on spatial relations between features

Composite face effect (can’t tell difference when fused, can tell difference when holistic processing is broken)

Caricatures (easier to recognize bc encoded features are exaggerated)

Inversion (face-specific processing system that can be accessed only by upright faces)

Thatcher (more difficult to detect local feature changes in an upside-down face)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Evidence for featural processing

A

Scrambled faces and Isolated features

recognition can still be found in features alone

41
Q

Modular organization v. distributed representation

A

brain is organized into subcomponents or modules, each dedicated to processing and representing a particular type of visual information

brain processing and representation are distributed, that is, any information is processed by many different parts of the brain and any brain region is likely to represent many classes of information (Haxby)

42
Q

Box thought experiment

A

How do we move from feature recogniton in v1 and v2 to higher perception of box?

before recognition: fire at same rate, not at coincidence, offset in time

after recognition: lines that make up square fire synchronistically, temporal coincidence, this may be what’s needed for object recognition

43
Q

Ventral Temporal Cortex

A

Object Recognition in Ventral Temporal Cortex

Organization for object recognition [ventral object vision pathway]

44
Q

Hemispatial neglect

A

right parietal lobe

fail to pay attention to stimuli on one side of space, usually the left

being made aware does not alter effects

also show a reduced tendency to explore neglected side of space with either eye or limb movements

looking at plaza

memory unaffected, attention affected

attention disorder, not intention

45
Q

William James

A

attention is “taking possession by the mind”

46
Q

Overt v. covert attention

A

overt attention - eye movements

  • most direct way to shift attention
  • primarily aware of foveal objects (due to poor peripheral resolution)

covert attention - attending without looking
- mental focus

47
Q

Hemholtz

A

first discovered covert attention

Helmholtz would attend to a particular region of his visual field (without moving his eyes in that direction). When a spark was lit to briefly illuminate the box, he found he got an impression of only the objects in the region he had been attending to, thus showing that attention could be deployed independently of eye position and accommodation.

48
Q

Eye specialization

A

fovea: resolution
periphery: motion (hence shooting stars out of the corner of your eye)

49
Q

Siccades

A

quick, continuous eye movements around fixation points

successive eye movements to understand

one of the best ways to attend

50
Q

Cherry experiment

A

dichotic listening test
each ear receives conflicting info, asked to record what is heard in left ear
–> don’t remember right
- echoic memory (~2 sec), name, taboo words

–> brain really able to filter out
some part of brain is taking in info, not being processed by higher levels
–> adaptively important areas break through that level of consciousness (name)

“cocktail party problem” Can filter out irrelevant info and focus on one stream at a time

make downstream processing easier

51
Q

Importance of attention

A

Makes downstream processing easier

brain = limited energy metabolism

  • ignore irrelevant neuronal signals
  • boost reliability of the relevant signals
52
Q

Posner effect

A

covert spatial cueing

reaction time benefit when correct cue, reaction time cost with incorrect

when cues were VALID, response time was faster

–> when attending to one thing, at cost with another thing

53
Q

Preattentive v. attentive

A

preattentive: register basic features without attention, parallel search, fast and equivalent RT, regardless of set size, bottom-up
ex: popout search

attentive: control of viewer, adding features lowers RT, serial search, linear RT with set size, top-down
ex: conjunction task

54
Q

Treisman

A

Feature Integration Theory

features are recognized early, automatically, and in parallel across visual field

object perception occurs separately and later through focused attention that “glues” features together

2 STAGES OF PROCESSING

  1. Preattentive stage: the featural “primitives” in a visual scene are all extracted in parallel across the whole.
  2. Focussed attention stage: Attention is directed to a location, the primitives there are combined to form a whole.
55
Q

Balint’s Syndrome

A

extreme form of visual neglect, damage to both parietal lobes

Optic Ataxia: inability to move the hand to an object by using vision

Ocular Apraxia: cannot control eye gaze

Simultanagnosia: inability to recognize more than one object shown at the same time

56
Q

Selective attention

A

Tune in to important information, tune out of irrelevant stimuli

Attention is a limited resource, so selective attention allows us to tune out unimportant details and focus on what really matters

57
Q

Dichotic listening

A

listening to different acoustic events presented to each ear simultaneously

58
Q

Optic ataxia

A

cannot accurately reach for things

59
Q

Ocular apraxia

A

cannot control eye gaze

60
Q

Simultagnosia

A

inability to see entire picture, cannot see clock face (draw 12-6)

61
Q

Bottom-up processing

A

feature driven
“reflexive” or automatic
exogenous
fast

62
Q

Top-down processing

A

goal or experience driven
voluntary
endogenous
slow

63
Q

Spatial attention

A

a form of visual attention that involves directing attention to a location in space

64
Q

Neural correlates of attention

A

PPC: posterior parietal cortex
LIP: lateral intraparietal cortex, eye movement
PRR: parietal reach region, reaching movement

65
Q

Lateral intraparietal cortex (LIP)

Parietal reach region (PRR)

A

both critical for spatial attention
LIP: eye movement, PRR: reaching

Goldberg & Wurtz monkey experimentation

more driven by hand movements than by eye movements

66
Q

Fronto-parietal network

A

x

67
Q

Moore & Fallah paper

A

Premotor theory of attention testing

Moore and Fallah (2004)

  • Controlling spotlight of attention with microstimulation of FEF in monkeys
  • Microstimulation: electric current that produces APs in neurons
  • When microstim. applied to FEF, saccade to a particular location would be produced
  • Level of stimulation was enugh to produce covert shift of attention
  • The closer the stimulation was to the target dimming, the stronger its effect on accuracy was
  • Activation of FEF improved attention
  • Stimulation directly shifted spatial attention
  • Moore’s experiment shows that FEF increases response in visual neurons and that target detection improves as resuls
  • FEF is critical brain area for controlling where attention is directed
  • Part of netwrk of brain areas that act together to control attention
  • Moving your eyes and docusing our attention onto object A versus B might feel like different behaviours, but appears that it’s the same neural mechanisms and processes
  • > premoror theory of attention
68
Q

Broadbent’s model of selective attention

A

Registration –> perceptual analysis –> semantic encoding

selective processing occurs after complete perception

69
Q

Goldberg & Wurtz

A

(a) passive fixation: light flashing but goal-irrelevant, visual response of 4 APs
(b) Saccade to stimulus: LIP, attend to stimuli because flashing is now goal-relevant
(c) Reach for object: monkey attends to goal-relevant stimulus by reaching, largest increase in response

upregulation of neuron firing is attentional correlate
more driven by hand movements than by eye movements
moving past visual response, now have attentional response

70
Q

Spatial attention: relationship between visual stimuli and subsequent brain activation

A

Attentional effects are seen in visual cortex in the hemisphere contralateral to the attended target

You can modulate V1 with attention–not pure!

71
Q

Goldberg & Wurtz

A

(a) passive fixation: light flashing but goal-irrelevant, visual response of 4 APs
(b) Saccade to stimulus: LIP, attend to stimuli because flashing is now goal-relevant
(c) Reach for object: monkey attends to goal-relevant stimulus by reaching, largest increase in response

upregulation of neuron firing is attentional correlate
more driven by hand movements than by eye movements
moving past visual response, now have attentional response

72
Q

Attention v. Intention

A

Goldberg: attention
Snyder: intention

73
Q

Snyder & Anderson

A

PPC mediates between sensory attention and motor intention

delayed response task

LIP saccade immediate jump
PRR smooth movement

trained monkeys to saccade to a distractor item before responding; at the offset of the distractor, they were to respond. In this case, the cells were modulated more by the response than by the location of the distractor item, indicating they represented movement intentions independent of spatial allocation of attention

intention: LIP
action: PRR

74
Q

Armstrong & Moore Paper

A

Frontal eye field (FEF) V4
Motor field
Super- and sub-threshold stimulation
microstimulation

75
Q

Working memory

A

Working memory is a cognitive system with a limited capacity that is responsible for temporarily holding information available for processing

76
Q

Prefrontal cortex

A

Concluded that the monkey’s ability to use “immediate memory” was impaired. “It was as if ‘out of sight, out of mind’ were literally applicable.”

77
Q

Chunking

A

Chunking is a term referring to the process of taking individual pieces of information (chunks) and grouping them into larger units. By grouping each piece into a large whole, you can improve the amount of information you can remember.

limit: number of objects an average human can hold in working memory is 7 ± 2

78
Q

Maintenance

A

Maintenance rehearsal: information repeated to keep from fading from working memory

79
Q

Representation and Operations

A

Representations are symbolic codes for information stored either transiently or permanently in neuronal networks. Operations are processes or computations performed on representations.

80
Q

Verbal WM

A

Verbal WM - verbal rehearsal

Representations are symbolic codes for information stored either transiently or permanently in neuronal networks.Operations are processes or computations performed on representations.

81
Q

Visuospatial WM

A

visuospatial WM -maintenance of spatial location shapes

82
Q

Phonological loop

A

verbal info

83
Q

Visuospatial sketchpad

A

visual info

84
Q

Dorsal stream, ventral stream attention

A
  • When attention shifted from one visual field to another, ventral set of brain regions withing fronto-parietal network was engaged (TPJ, VFC) -> bottom up, exogenous control
  • After this shift, attention sustained at location or towards a feature, dorsal set of brain regions were engaged (FEF, IPS) -> trop down, endogenous control
85
Q

Principle sulcus of the dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC)

A

These monkey data predict that lesions to human dlPFC will impair spatial WM performance, including the accuracy of MGSs. However, human neuroimaging studies typically find persistent activity or multivoxel decoding of information restricted to the PCS, posterior to the likely homolog of the monkey principal sulcus in the dlPFC

specialized in a certain type of working memory, namely computational mechanisms for monitoring and manipulating items, or if it has a certain content, namely visuospatial information, which makes it possible to mentally represent coordinates within the spatial domain

86
Q

Oculomotor delay response task

A

were trained to remember the location of a target in order to make a rapid eye movement to i

87
Q

Mnemonic Scotomas

A

memory deficits for particular hemifields or visual field locations, unaccompanied by simple sensory or motor deficits

88
Q

Delay-dependent error

A

impairment is delayed dependent: longer delay, more demands on memory and impairment is worse

89
Q

Frontal eye field (FEF) in Superior Prefrontal Sulcus

A

FEF = motor neuron, primary function: eye movement

90
Q

Control

A

Control elaboration - assigning meaning to information

relating new concepts to old concepts that are already in the long-term memory so that these new concepts ‘stick
mneomnics ex

91
Q

Tripartate model of WM

A

central executive: directs attention and coordinates activity
phonological loop: verbal info
visuospatial sketchpad: visuospatial info
episodic buffer: brings in info from LTM

92
Q

Den Heyer & Barrett

A

“what where task”

A grid flashed on screen with letters in a certain position.

Condition 1 had to match visual patterns before recalling the shape of the grid, where they were and what letters they were.
Condition 2 had to count backwards. They were then asked to reconstruct the grid. C,1 recalled the letters but could not remember where they were positioned on the grid, however C,2 recalled where the letters were but not what they were.

Results: relative to unfilled controlMemory for “what” (i.e., the letters) 68% worse following verbal vs. 56% worse following spatial distractionMemory for “where” (i.e., the locations)45% worse following verbal vs. 90% worse following spatial distraction

93
Q

Neuropsychological Double Dissociation

A

ELD: visuospatial deficit (corsi), intact verbal

PV: extremely poor at serial recall of verbal material (digits, letters, words) but shows no visual memory impairment

NOT a perceptual deficits: intact phonological & visual discrimination

94
Q

Corsi block test

A

Corsi block-tapping test is a psychological test that assesses visuo-spatial short term working memory. It involves mimicking a researcher as he/she taps a sequence of up to nine identical spatially separated blocks. The sequence starts out simple, usually using two blocks, but becomes more complex until the subject’s performance suffers

95
Q

WM, STM

A

Short-term memory (STM) refers to the span of information (e.g., a telephone number, an array of objects) that one can hold in mind without assistance from the MTL. Although it is quickly lost when attention is directed elsewhere, it can, in principle, be maintained indefinitely.

Working memory refers to the mental manipulation of information in STM, such as performing mental arithmetic, or reordering items into numerical or alphabetical order.

96
Q

Delay response test

A

monkey, perfectly performed, with PFC lesion: 50% correct

97
Q

delayed response task

A

It is during the transition from cue to delay that apparently the greatest number of prefrontal units discharge at firing levels higher than

98
Q

Why so much importance on PFC

A

Experimental Lesions of Monkey Prefrontal Cortex- damage leads to WM impairments

Electrophysiology of Monkey Sulcus Principalis- persistent neural activation during delays–> suggests cognition

99
Q

Brain driving attentional spotlight

A

back, parietal= sensory, where

frontal=action–>eye movements

Cognition and the Brain (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions