Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

psy270 > final > Flashcards

final Flashcards

1
Q

script

A

knowledge of structure for an event or situation

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

heuristic

A

rule of thumb, guideline based on knowledge

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

schema

A

mental structure that organizes info
can be used with heuristics to tell us what to expect

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

Bartletts repeated reproduction technique

A

first to report that memory retrieval is reconstructive, fragile, reencoded every time its retrieved
we use general knowledge and expectations from experience to organize memories (schemas)
- pts reproduce (verbally or by drawing) something over and over again from memory and it will almost always turn into something more familiar and culturally relevant as it is reencoded

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

Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) procedure

A

semantically related lists of words lead pts to falsely remember semantically related words that were NOT on the list
If attention is divided, effect is seen less bc there is less attention available to activate schema
Support for Activation-monitoring theory, a type of source monitoring error in which we use a schema to come to a conclusion and attribute it to a memory

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

Activation monitoring theory

A

proposed that we activate a schema and falsely attribute the source to an episodic memory - source monitoring error
Support: DRM procedure
Also, if there is less available attention, there is less source monitoring errors bc less attention available to activate schema

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

misinformation effect

A

people tend to recall what they were told about an event rather than their experience of the event - for other people

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

phases of the misinformation effect

A
  1. encoding - show info
  2. Post event info - either consistent with reality or misinformation (can be subtle or intentional)
  3. recognition task - which is the correct image?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Implanted memories

A

false memories regarding yourself
“shopping mall study”
harder to implant but still very effective - easier with photoshop

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

procedure of shopping mall study

A
  1. write down 3 real stories from childhood and add a fake story about being lost in a shopping mall as a child
  2. send to pt and ask them to add detail repeatedly over several iterations - not prying for more info, just repetition
  3. When brought in and asked which were fake
    Outcome: 25% guessed the wrong story and after 3 iterations, many ppl added inc detail to the fake story
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Problems with eye-witness testimony

A
  1. Weapon focus and change blindness (attention) - will remember weapon more than person holding it
  2. Misinformation effect from post event interrogation
  3. Source monitoring errors - may attribute blame to a bystander they just remember well
  4. Confirmation bias -confirmation like “everyone said they same story” will increase confidence in memory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

knowledge = ___ memory

A

semantic

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

category vs concept vs exemplar

A

category: group of objects that belong together
concept: mental representation of a category
exemplar: an item in the category

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

classical view of categorization

A

categories are defined by a list of necessary and sufficient features

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

necessary vs sufficient

A

N: must have all
S: no other features required

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

problems with classical view of categorization

A
  1. not all categories have a list of defining features - impossible to agree on a list - maybe we are just bad at coming up with the list but they do exist?
  2. Graded categories - we rate things on a scale of how “in” they are
  3. Typicality effects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Typicality effects

A
  1. rt faster for typical than atypical
  2. generate typical more often than atypical
  3. typical more affected by priming (lexical decision tasks faster for typical pairings - pts decide if something is a word faster if it comes after a semantically paired item)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Prototype theory

A

Rather than defining features (classical), exemplars have characteristic features (common features that are not required for the category)
We determine category membership by matching item with prototype stored in memory (every member shared at least 1 feature with another member)
Compare stored prototype with exemplars

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

central tendency for exemplars

A

categories have a central tendency in which exemplars with the most characteristic features are found

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

All category members share ____ even if they are atypical members

A

family resemblance

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

Levels of categories

A

superordinate: broad category, e.g. mammal, plant - distinctive but not that informative
basic: moderately specific, e.g. dog, tree - informative and distinctive
Subordinate: specific, e.g. poodle, maple - informative but not distinctive

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

exemplar theory

A

“opposite” of prototype
We store exemplars and create a prototype if necessary
Research supports this theory more
Pro: allows access to atypical exemplars thru memory

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

more characteristics = close to the

A

prototype

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

Similarity theories

A

Exemplar and prototype theory

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

Problems with similarity theories

A
  1. People may give typicality rating bc they are just “playing along”, so we cant use that as reliable evidence
  2. These theories don’t define which features are important to categorization
  3. no input of experience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Explanation based theories

A

categorization based on implicit ideas about categories you learn as you grow up
Based on psychological essentialism based on past experience
Accounts for why some features are more important than others

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

Psychological Essientialism

A

The quality of an item - a bird is “birdy”
Essential nature of a cat is a cat but the essential nature of a coffeemaker is to make coffee

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

Semantic Network Models

A

Collins and Quillian hierarchical model and Collins and Loftuses Semantic Relatedness model

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

Collins and Quillians Hierarchical model

A

nodes contain info and they are connected by ISA and property pathways that are activated via spreading activation
hierarchy based on specificity - superordinate at the top subordinate at the bottom
Important feature: property inheritance

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

Property inheritance

A

Important feature of C&Q
As you move down the hierarchy, concepts inherent properties from concepts higher in the hierarchy - efficient

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

Evidence for C&Q

A

Property inheritance could be demonstrated thru RT of properties directly related to a word - faster if directly related, slower if related to a related concept (have to mentally travel up the hierarchy to find the feature)
Problem: atypical exemplars are not consistent (chicken=animal is faster than chicken=bird) and so cannot account for typicality effects

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

Collins and Loftus’ Semantic Relatedness Model

A

No hierarchy, instead semantic relatedness determines length of connection (and therefore RT)
Nodes still contain info and are connected by ISA or property pathways
Typical exemplars have shorter pathways and you can have multiple nodes for the same thing, therefore accounts for typicality effects
Different ppl can have different pathways which makes the model unfalsifiable and so unfavored

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

Neural Network Models

A

Like Artificial neural nets

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

ANNs

A

Computing models based on neurons in a brain - connectionist rather than semantic network model
Nodes are like neurons connected by weighted connections (-1-1, inactive, excitatory, inhibitory) making up input, output, and hidden layers
Knowledge is stored in the pattern of activation (distribution of weights across nodes), not individual nodes

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

Hidden layers

A

Layers of ANN nodes between input and output, like cognitive processing neurons, we dont know how they work just that they produce the output
Unknown = hidden

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

Output nodes and input nodes are synonymous to…

A

motor and sensory neurons

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

ANNs are consistent with which theory

A

embodied cognition and memory trace

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

ANN facilitated development of

A

AI, self driving cars, cog psych (make models to represent outcomes of a hypothesis and see if ppl respond the same way)

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

rationalism

A

priori truths
deduction

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

priori truths

A

born knowing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

empiricism

A

posteriori truths
induction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

posteriori truths

A

gain thru observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

deduction

A

remember and/or apply
prinicple to instance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

induction

A

observe and combine
instance to principle
inferences about what will likely happen - impossible to reach logical conclusion bc we can never be sure of the future

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

categorical syllogisms

A

deductive reasoning
draw conclusion from two statements using quanifiers
definite are easier to solve, negation are harder
cant draw logical conclusion = indeterminate
solve using mental models of ALL possibilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

what are mental models limited by

A

WM, prior knowledge, visual imagery skills

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

conditional reasoning

A

deductive
if, then propositions and draw conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

propositions made up of…

A

condition statement is made up of antecedent (if) and consequent (then)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

valid reasoning for conditional

A

affirm the antecedent, therefore affirm the consequent OR
deny the consequent, therefore deny the antecedent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Wason selection task

A

4 cards, have one thing on front and one on back, how few do you need to turn over to validate the rule?
*remember directional so you must affirm ante or deny consequent (OPPOSITE OF WHAT IS STATED)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

wason selection task affected by….

A

confirmation bias (ppl dont look for information to refute) and harder if abstract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

solution to abstract reasoning tasks

A

pragmatic reasoning schemas - concrete examples to reduce resources required to solve

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

belief bias effect

A

relying on knowledge rather than reasoning to come to an incorrect conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

inductive reasoning is limited by

A

WM, prior knowledge, imagery abilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Expected Utility Theory

A

assumes ppl make rational decisions based on subjective utility and probability
ppl don’t actually make all decisions perfectly methodically
NORMATIVE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

subjective utility and subjective probability

A

our personal perception of how much utility we will gain from something and how likely it is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

cognitive approach/heuritiscs + biases approach

A

we make decisions by using short cuts to limit cognitive resources, time, environment
short cuts like heuristics and biases
more realistically what we actually do

58
Q

Framing and Prospect theory

A

framing influences decision making:
- our current state (now) is the reference point
- we choose gains over losses
- losses are more important than gains

59
Q

If framed in terms of gains, ppl are…

A

risk averse

60
Q

if framed in terms of losses, ppl are…

A

risk taking

61
Q

representativeness heuristic

A

if similar to population, more likely
heuristic fails with small samples and base rates
most logical conclusion is the most likely
ppl fall for this even with lots of education on the topic

62
Q

small sample fallacy

A

falsely assume small samples are representative of a population when in fact they are inherently more variable
plays a role in prejudice - assume one person from a group represents the whole group

63
Q

base rate fallacy

A

when judging category membership, we ignore base rates and only use representativeness
solution: ignore description, only use probability

64
Q

conjunction fallacy

A

relying on description rather than the knowledge that a single event is always more likely than 2 events

65
Q

availability heuritic

A

if easier to remember, we think its more frequent
Things that effect ease of retrieval (recency, familiarity, saliency) will affect how much we think it occurs

66
Q

simulation heuristic

A

related to availability
easier to imagine a future hypothetical, the more likely we think it is that it’ll come true
e.g. missing the bus by 30 sec is more frustrating than 3 min bc you easily imagine what you could’ve done when its driving away from you even tho outcome is the same

67
Q

dual process theory for decision making

A

two systems are involved in decision making
system 1 (fast, automatic, implicit)
system 2 (slow, controlled, conscious)

68
Q

sys 1 vs sys2

A

1: high capacity, uses heuristics, based on past experiences and biases
2: serial (low capacity), abstract, normative reasoning
Everyone defaults to 1 but can override it by pausing, inhibiting, and using resources to make logical decision
Sys2 is not bad, its based on experience, often that is the most logical

69
Q

experts are more likely to use ____ than novices

A

heuristics/sys1
bc they have a lot more experience

70
Q

experimental evidence for source monitoring error, misinformation effect, and implanted memories

A

DRM procedure, car crash wording, shopping mall

71
Q

prototype theory terms

A

characteristic features, central tendancy, family resemblance

72
Q

how are exemplar and prototype theory similar

A

membership based in similarity of features, explain typicality effects

73
Q

Hockett’s universal characteristics of language

A

semanticity - meaning
arbitrariness - symbols arent drawing
flexibility and naming - everything has a label and the label can change
duality of pattering - signs can be broken down into units
productivity - infinite meaning from finite signs
displacement - we can talk about things that arent there

74
Q

phonology

A

sounds - words

75
Q

morphology

A

words

76
Q

semantics

A

meaning - words, sentences, stories

77
Q

syntax

A

rules of language - sentences and stories

78
Q

pragmatics

A

how we use language everyday - stories

79
Q

phoneme

A

smallest unit that can change meaning without having meaning itself

80
Q

lack of invariance problem

A

based on the rules of a language (accent, speed, etc.) we perceive different sounding phonemes as the same. We perceive invariance when there is in fact physical variances between the phonemes
Influenced by the fact that phonemes almost always overlap each other (coarticulation)
e.g. aspirated and unaspirated t sound the same to english speakers but not for some other languages

81
Q

Segmentation problem

A

we hear clearly separated words even when there isn’t any clear acoustic break between words

82
Q

the mcgurk effect

A

we use vision to help differentiate phonemes
- say ba, play ga, people will hear ga

83
Q

when vocal cords vibrate, a phenome is… when they don’t, its….

A

voiced, unvoiced

84
Q

when vocal cords start to vibrate its called…

A

voice onset time

85
Q

categorical perception

A

we perceive phonemes as discrete categories rather than normal sounds
- if you gradually change the VOT of ba and pa (the only difference between ba and pa) there will be a steep change when ppl detect ba instead of pa or visversa, as opposed to a gradual curve that would be expected from non-phonemes

86
Q

phomenic boundary

A

the point at which you stop hearing one phomene and start hearing another

87
Q

what does the categorical perception of phonemes explain

A

lack of invariance effect (we easily group sounds together into categories)
accents

88
Q

morpheme

A

smallest meaningful unit of language
table is 1, snowman is 2

89
Q

Free vs bound morphemes

A

have meaning on their own vs contribute to a words meaning but cant be on their own

90
Q

mental lexicon

A

mental dictionary in LTM that stores the meaning of words

91
Q

Lexical access

A

retrieving the meaning og a word from your mental lexicon

92
Q

effects of context on lexical access

A
  1. respond faster to high frequency words
  2. notice errors better when in predictable context
  3. recognize letters better in a word than by itself
  4. phonemic restoration effect
93
Q

phonemic restoration effect

A

ppl cant tell if there is a sound missing from a sentence bc of the importance of context
context affects comprehension AND perception

94
Q

homophones

A

words that sound the same but mean different things
lexically ambiguous, use context to disambiguate

95
Q

Is lexical access bottom up or top down?

A

bottom up immediately (access all meanings) and then a couple hundred milliseconds after top down (access depending on meaning)
Evidence from lexical priming and lexical decision task - when priming word was presented at the same time as related target words, rt was fast (BU). When priming word was right before target words, rt was only fast for the word that was contextually relevant aka we only accessed words that were related/primed for (TD).

96
Q

lexical decision task

A

is this a word? yes/no

97
Q

discourse

A

stories - units of language larger than sentences
often studied in the context of reading bc we cant control what ppl say

98
Q

reading is dependant on…

A

lexical access
orthography (graphemes - written symbols)
phonology (phonemes)

99
Q

3 levels of discourse

A
  1. surface level (your memory of EXACT WORDING intonation, etc. forgotten quickly)
  2. Proposition level (important info is maintained in a propositional network for longer than surface)
  3. Situational (elaborated representation of the story, with your own added inferences - lasts longest)
100
Q

Levels of discourse applied

A
  1. exact words
  2. propositional network
  3. propositional network + inferences from context
101
Q

Local coherence

A

coherence between sentences
necessary for successful discourse
relevant for surface level
sentences make sense together but not as a whole

102
Q

global coherence

A

coherence of all sentences to a theme
necessary for successful discourse
relevant for situation level

103
Q

____ is necessary for local coherence unlike ___ which is helpful for global coherence but not required

A

simple reference/bridging interference
explanatory inferences

104
Q

parts of a simple reference

A

antecedent - the term
anaphor - term that refers to the antecedent
Maria - antecedent, her - anaphor
FASTER THAN BRIDGING

105
Q

bridging reference

A

without explicit antecedent, we make a bridging inference
take more cognitive load and time to process than simple references

106
Q

explanatory inferences

A

instrument and causal
help explain events and help establish global coherence, not required to understand whats going on but automatic for most ppl

107
Q

instrument inferences

A

inferences about tool used

108
Q

causal inferences

A

inferences about what was caused by what

109
Q

what do situational models contain

A

temporal and spatial information that is assumed but not explicitly said

110
Q

updating a situational model is reflected by…

A

increased reading time
If time moves, new characters introduced, or new info is added in a story, we take longer to read it

111
Q

what makes phonemes special

A

lack of invariance, segmentation, using vision to help hear, categorical perception

112
Q

imagery

A

mental representation (visual or otherwise) of a perceptual experience
different from symbols bc symbols are arbitrary

113
Q

Paivios dual code theory

A

thoughts can be represented as words (symbols - arbitrary) OR images (analogue - resembles the thing), one wasn’t more important or primary
everything can be represented verbally (symbolically) but not everything can be imaginal

114
Q

Kosslyn functional equivalence hypothesis

A

most knowledge (imagery and words) is stored as imagery (analogue code) but some is propositional
same as paivio but emphasis on images as primary

115
Q

Pylyshyn propositional theory

A

knowledge is wholly stored as propositions - images are converted to propositions not stored as images. if images are produced, they are produced from propositions

116
Q

proposition

A

smallest unit of knowledge that can be verified, whether true or not
“this is a phone” but not “this phone”
proposition = the idea, imagery/language = method of communicating the idea

117
Q

imagery debate

A

debate of what came first/what is primary: propositions or images? AKA do images come straight from their source or are they converted into propositions and then into images. Not, whether or not they exist or not.
To determine, we look to see if perceptions act like images, if they do, suggests imagery is primary (functional equivalence)

118
Q

Support for functional equivalence

A

mental rotation, image scanning, image scaling, perceptual interference, FMRI

119
Q

how does mental rotation support functional equivalence

A

rt pattern for identifying a physically rotated object is the same as a picture of an object - we rotate the object in our minds in the same way we rotate a real object
perception = imagery`

120
Q

how does image scanning support functional equivalence

A

we take longer to mentally scan the distance between two objects that are spatially far away than close by
if it was propositional, the distance would be the same regardless bc we would just know the distances between objects`

121
Q

how does image scaling support functional equivalence

A

takes longer to answer questions about the details of small imagined things than large imagined things, just like if you were to be looking at them both in front of you (smaller would be less visible)
used the same subjects as the small/large thing to control for specific effects

122
Q

how does perceptual interference support functional equivalence

A

if imagery = perception, real and imaged stimuli should interact aka if they are the same, should use the same brain functions and would not be able to use them independently at the same time
Displayed visual and auditory stimulus at the same time as imagined visual and auditory stimulus, found matching modalities slowed RT = interference. opposite modalities did not show interference

123
Q

how does fmri data support functional equivalence

A

FFA only responds to seeing faces, PPA only responds to places
When asked to imagine faces and places, the same areas lit up although at a lower level (makes sense so we don’t think fake things are real)
viewing = imagining = same brain mechanisms

124
Q

what evidence supports propositional theory

A

difficult and ambigious figures

125
Q

how do difficult and ambigious figures support propositional

A

when asked if there was a parallelogram in a davids star, majority said no even tho there is UNLESS they were looking at it
imagery was worse than perception
we made davids star into a propositional shape of several triangles so we don’t see a parallelogram when asked

126
Q

conclusion to imagery debate

A

mental images are ANALOGOUS to real objects (functional) unless relatively complex objects or assigning meaning is required
majority of evidence supports functional but it doesn’t really matter what came first bc we use both, what matters is application

127
Q

picture superiority effect

A

improve LTM by imagining interactive images

128
Q

bizareness effect

A

weird things like interactive images improve memory

129
Q

concreteness effect is influenced by….

A

imagery, when imagery is supressed, concreteness effect diminishes
dual coding is probably what determines concreteness effect, as you have 2 copies of the object (visual and verbal)

130
Q

how to improve LTM

A

generate info yourself
imagery (dual code theory)
interactive images

131
Q

problem with functional equivalence and propositional theory and imagery in general

A

both representational = grounding problem
functional equivalence support could also be embodied cognition support
imagery debate should instead be: how much of knowledge understood thru embodiment?

132
Q

Barsalous situated simulation theory

A

embodied cognition version of functional equivalence
1. no representation, gain knowledge thru body and sensorimotor system interacting with the environment
2. cognition requires simulation of the sensorimotor system
3. only representation is the distributed activation of sensorimotor neurons, not abstract/amodal
3. knowledge is flexible and goal driven

133
Q

support for situated simulation theory

A

brain activity when moving part of your body is in the same areas as thinking about moving the areas of your body
however this is complicated by hub and spoke model/sensory functional hypothesis

134
Q

semantic dementia

A

damage to anterior temporal lobe (ATL) causing difficulty with semantics (knowing what things are or how to use them), suggesting ATL stores semantic info, not varied areas like simulated theory suggests
HOWEVER, when there is further damage to specific areas, knowledge is further impaired, suggesting these varied areas still hold some info

135
Q

problem for situation simulation theory

A

semantic dementia/hub and spoke model/sensory functional hypothesis

136
Q

sensory functional hypothesis

A

combo of situated simulation hypothesis (activity is only in varied areas) and data from semantic dementia (ATL stores semantic info)
hub and spoke model

137
Q

hub and spoke model

A

sensory functional hypothesis
a hub, modality-independant center (ATL), with spokes, modality specific sensory/motor areas across the cortex that contain supplemental “embodied” info

138
Q

hub vs spokes

A

properties and features (semantic)
that are invarient
sensory and motor info depending on modality

139
Q

hub and spoke evidence

A

when TMS “shuts off” hub (ATL), naming was slowed for both living and nonliving this. when lesion motor spoke (IPT), naming was slowed jus for nonliving
When lesion hub, naming for both high and low manipulability objects was slowed. When lesion IPT, only high was slowed
AKA ATL is a hub that stores knowledge of everything, IPT is a spoke that stores specific knowledge about grabbing

140
Q

TMS

A

virtual lesion thru magnetic field which makes neurons behave different

141
Q

individual differences in imagery abilities

A

aphantasia (cant picture anything) and hyperphantasia
measured by self report questionarres and performance tasks

psy270 (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions