Moray Flashcards

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

What does dichotic listening mean?

A
  • 2 different stimuli coming into different ears
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the background (general)?

A
  • a cognitive process, allows us to select information that is constantly being bombarded at our brains and concentrate on it, whilst at the same time also rejecting information
  • referred to as selective/focussed attention
  • research has been conducted into both auditory and visual selective attention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the background (Cherry)?

A
  • cocktail party effect -> skilled at tuning into 1 voice/conversation, while tuning out the other conversations. getting people to listen through headphones while 2 different messages were played in each ear (dichotic listening task). participants shadowed the message and ignored the other. Cherry found very little information could be remembered from the ignored message.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was the background (Broadbent)?

A
  • filter model of selective attention -> sensory filter mechanism selected only 1 channel of incoming sensory information and blocked all others. says filtering occurs early in the process of selective attention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was the background (Johnson & Heinz)?

A
  • can happen at any stage in processing of information. we can switch attention if the unattended channel becomes more meaningful to us.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What were the aims?

A
  1. to provide an empirical test of Cherry’s findings
  2. to see if some kinds of messages break through the inattentional block to the rejected ear
  3. to see if expectations may affect the way the message to the rejected ear is processed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What were some controls?

A
  • apparatus -> Brenell Mark IV stereo tape recorded, twin amplifiers to give 2 different outputs
  • loudness was matched, asking ppts to say when the message appeared to be equivalent volume
  • ppts completed 4 trial shadowing tasks
  • the loudness of each message was approx. 60db above hearing threshold, speech rate was approx. 150 words/min
  • all passages were recorded by 1 male speaker
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What were the research methods (exp 1)?

A
  • lab experiment, repeated measures design
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the sample (exp 1)?

A
  • no sample size
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the IV’s (exp 1)?

A
  • message played to the shadowed ear, message played to the rejected ear
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the DV (exp 1)?

A
  • number of words recalled in the rejected message
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the procedure (exp 1)?

A
  • different messages played in the shadowed and rejected ears -> rejected (word list repeated 35 times)
  • ppts shadowed passage by repeating it out loud
  • asked to recall all they could hear from the rejected message
  • 30 second gap between test of recall
  • word list -> similar material but not the same as the passage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What were some results (exp 1)?

A
  • mean words repeated out of 7: shadowed - 4.9, rejected - 1.9
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were some conclusions (exp 1)?

A
  • even if something is repeated it can still be blocked
  • you recognise more while paying attention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What were the research methods (exp 2)?

A
  • lab experiment, repeated measures design
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was the sample (exp 2)?

A
  • 12 participants
17
Q

What were the IV’s (exp 2)?

A
  • instructions to the rejected ear prefixed with ppts name, or not
18
Q

What was the DV (exp 2)?

A
  • number of instructions to the rejected ear that were responded to
19
Q

What was the procedure (exp 2)?

A
  • ppts had to shadow 10 paired passages of light fiction, 1 passage to left, 1 to right (10 times)
  • told responses to shadowed ears would be recorded, told to aim to make as few errors as possible, ignore the rejected ear
  • rejected ear -> middle of passage a random message played containing the ppts name, ‘… you may stop now’, next instruction had no name included
20
Q

What were some results (exp 2)?

A
  • affective/presented = 39
  • affective/heard = 20
  • non-a/presented = 36
  • non-a/heard = 4
21
Q

What were some conclusions (exp 2)?

A
  • cognitive block can be broken down by something important to the participant
22
Q

What were the research methods (exp 3)?

A
  • lab experiment, independent measures design
23
Q

What was the sample (exp 3)?

A
  • 2 groups of 14 ppts
24
Q

What were the IV’s (exp 3)?

A
  • digits inserted into 1 or 2 messages
  • whether ppts asked about just shadowed or about all digits heard
25
Q

What was the DV (exp 3)?

A
  • number of questions answered correctly about the digits heard
26
Q

What was the procedure (exp 3)?

A
  • asked to shadow 1 or 2 dichotic messages
  • digits were put in at the end of the message
  • group 1: asked q’s about shadowed message
  • group 2: remember all the digits they can
27
Q

What were some results (exp 3)?

A
  • no difference in mean scores of digits recalled correctly
28
Q

What were some conclusions (exp 3)?

A
  • numbers are not important enough to break through the inattentional block