Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psych 240 Exam 2 > Psych 240 > Flashcards

Psych 240 Flashcards

Exam 2

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Mental arithmetic

A

When doing mental math you need to use working memory to do so regardless of how you do it

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

Raven’s progressive Matrices

A

Raven’s performance predicts performance of wide variety of cognitive tasks
- WM is important for higher level thinking
- Constantly storing temporary information

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

Measure of working memory span

A

“reading span”
- read a series of sentences then recall the final word of each sentence

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

Raven’s score/Aging and working memory

A

Ravens Score: show correlation between performance and age/working memory
- Old people have worse scores
- Score is higher if WM is good

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

Interference: Random number generation

A

Able to number off in 2’s or 3’s etc

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

Interference: Syllogistic reasoning

A

All men are mortal
Professor Lee is a man
Professor Lee is mortal

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

Interference: Reading comprehension

A

Being able to infer based on context what the meaning is
Individual difference: People with high working memory span have better comprehension of text

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

Dissociations: Anterograde amnesia (LTM disorder) vs. working memory disorder

A

Anterograde amnesia: inability to remember events occurring after brain injury
WM disorder:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Dissociations: Serial position curve
Primacy effect vs. recency effect (which is LM and which is WM)

A

Primacy Effect: Ability to remember things at the start of the list
- long term memory
Recency effect: Remember at the end of the list
- working memory

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

Double dissociation logic;
Applied to lesions, behavioral dissociations, and nuero-imaging

A

Double dissociation logic: Specific brain damage on 2 areas but each are has different outcomes
- having two different brain processes to do one thing

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

Baddeley’s 3-part model: Phonological loop
Buffer vs. rehearsal

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

Baddeley’s 3-part model: Visuospatial sketchpad

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

Baddeley’s 3-part model: Central executive

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

Phonological loop evidence: Phonological coding
Acoustic confusion
- Acoustic similarity effect
- Visual similar or similar meaning?
- Articulatory suppression

A

Acoustic similariy: the number of things you can remember decreases if the items all sound the same
Visual similar or similar meaning: confusion does not occur for words that look the same or have the same meaning compared to when they sound a like
Articulatory supression: repeatedly say “the” when viewing the list “the the the the the the”
- prevents formation of phonological code

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

Phonological storage capacity: Chunks
Time effects:
- Word length
- Speed of speech

A

memory for short words is better than those of longer words and remember better if the information is delivered in a slower way

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

Phonological storage capacity: Speed of speech:

A

WM span is large for-
- Words that are pronounced quickly
- People who speak quickly
- Languages where words can be pronounced quickly

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

Visuospatial sketchpad:
Behavioral double dissociation:

A
  • Brooks letter-scanning task or sentence task couples with pointing responses or vocal response
  • Pattern of interference
  • Nuero-imaging evidence
  • Visuospatial WM activates right frontal lobe and not left
  • PET double dissociation between phonological loop and visuospatial sketch-pad
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Phonological loop neuroimaging evidence:
- Rehearsal process activates left hemisphere (Broca’s area) and not right frontal lobe

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

Central executive: frontal lobe syndrome
- Perseverance
- Distractibility

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

Modern View:
Distributed representation
Sensory recruitment
Infinite buffers

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

Baddeley Article:
Dissociation between long term and short term/working memory
Recency effect
Acoustic coding
Modal model (3-stores model):
Sensory memory
Short-term memory
Long Term memory
Levels of processing (depth of processing)

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

Baddely Artical: Individual differences in WM:
Working memory span (reading span)

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

Tripartite theory of WM:
Central executive
Phonological loop
Visuospatial sketchpad
Frontal lobe syndrome (central executive dysfunction)
Perseveration
Distractibility (utilization behavior)

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

Phonological loop
Verbal store
Articulatory loop
Subvocal rehearsal
Phonological similarity effect (same as acoustic confusability)
Irrelevant speech effect
Word length effect
Articulatory suppression

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

Explicit vs implicit memory

A

Explicit: conscious recollection
- What did you have for breakfast
implicit: unconscious change
- Riding a bike

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

Recall vs. Recognition

A

Recall: ability to use information that was stored a while ago
- long term memory
Recognition: Ability to recognize something that has happened
- Short term memory

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

Amnesia
Psychogenic vs. organic
Anterograde vs retrograde
Patient H.M
Hippocampus spared implicit memory
Mirror reading
Tower of Hanoi

A

Psychogenic Amnesia: often portrayed in movies or tv, relatively rare in real world
Anterograde: inability to learn new explicit information after trauma
retrograde: inability to retrieve explicit information prior to trauma
Patient H.M:
Mirror reading:
Tower of Hanoi: moving the blocks to stack on top of each other but can only move one at a time
- Amnesics perform just as well as controls in learning ‘cognitive’ implicit skills

27
Q

Priming
Word fragment completion
Amnesic’s implicit performance (completing more old words than new vs explicit (recognition)

A

Priming: complete more old fragments than new
- prior experiences influence the new
- showed that amnesics show normal priming, but poor recognition memory (do not remember having seen the words)
Saw a list of words and then after some time they needed to complete the fragmented section of the words

28
Q

PET studies of healthy individuals
Word stem completion
Explicit test and results vs implicit task and result

A

Study a list of words and then view word stems
Explicit task had to say word from list that began with that stem –> hippo campus and frontal lobe activity increases
Implicit task say first word that comes to mind–> posterior visual area activity decreases

29
Q

Behavioral double dissociation
Modality of presentation
Implicit test and retail
Explicit test and results
Depth of processing
Implicit and explicit test and results

A

Behavioral double dissociation: find manipulation that will affect IMPLICIT but not Explicit memory
Explicit test: visuallly presented yes-no recogntion test –> no differnce in performance for words that had been visually presented and words that had auditory presentation
Implicit test: visuallty presented priming test, subjects had to name word as fast as possible–> faster at naming the word if the word is also visually in the test phase
Depth: words can be encoded at different depths
- Physical (apperance of the letters)
- acooustice (the way it sounds)
- semantic (meaning of the word)

30
Q

Taxonomy of long-term memory
Type of implicit/explicit memory and associated brain regions

A

Implicit: classical conditioning and priming, skills, habits–> amygdala/cerebelum, cortex, striatum
Explicit: semantic, episodic–> hipposcampus region/ medial temoral lobe

31
Q

Ogden Reading:
Patient H.M
Anterograde amnesia
Retrograde amnesia (temporally graded)
Dissociation between immediate (working) memory and long term memory
Dissociation between remote and anterograde memory
Dissociation between implicit memory and explicit memory
No dissociation between verbal and non-verbal memory
No dissociation between semantic and episodic memory

A
32
Q

Semantic vs. Episode

A

Semantic: facts
Episodic: personal episodes

33
Q

Explicit vs implicit

A

Explicit: working memory
Implicit: long-term memory

34
Q

Categorization
Use by pigeons
Experiment on physical similarly vs conceptual knowledge

A

Pigeons pecked one of four keys depending on stimulus (trained for 30 days)
pigeons were able to abstract category from examples, learned to categorize but could’ve been conditioned to know what to do

35
Q

Classical view:
Defining properties
Problem: what defines “game”
Moder probabilistic view:
Characteristics properties
Similarity

A

Defining properties; necessary and sufficent
- clearly defined and mutually exclusive
Modern view: psychologically, properties/features are charactersitsic, not defining
- usually grouped together if they are similar

36
Q

Typicality evidence
Ratings
Sentence verification
Hedges

A
37
Q

Categorization on the basis of similarity
To exemplars
To prototype
Geometric approach
Similarity-rating task
3 metric axioms
Minimality
Symmetry
Triangle inequality
Examples of violation of metric axioms

A
38
Q

Feature based measure
Tversky’s feature comparison (contrast) model:
Similarity as weighted function of feathers common to I&J
How violations are accounted for

A
39
Q

Smith Article:
Coding experience by category
Categories allow inferences
Greater similarly among items within category than between categories
Measurement of similarity:
Geometric approach
Metric axioms
Violations of metrica axioms
Featural approach to measuring similarly
Tversky’s contrast model
Contrast model’s account of metric violations
Similarity and categorization
Typicality effects
Typicality as similarity
Reasoning-based categorization vs. similarity-based categorization

A
40
Q

Teachable language comprehender (TLC- Collins and Quillian semantic network model)

A
41
Q

Hierarchical network structure

A

things we inherit
- similar to family tree

42
Q

Feature storages (highest node)

A
43
Q

Sentence verification task

A
43
Q

Problems
Reverse distance
Typicality
Basic level effects

A
44
Q

Distance effects (more links, more time)

A

The farther the links the longer it is supposed to take people to associate the two things

45
Q

Revised model with spreading activation

A
46
Q

Structure
Not hierarchical
Links vary in strength
Explicit information about relations

A
46
Q

Connectionist model (nodes and connections)

A
47
Q

Intersection search
Spreading activation
How it accounts for
Reverse distance
Priming

A
48
Q

McClelland reading:
Hierarchical structure
Privileged categories
Category prototypes
Quillian’s Model (TLC)
Taxonomic hierarchy
Predictions shown to be incorrect
Semantic dementia and language development as evidence for hierarchical structure
Basic level
Maximizes informativeness and distinctiveness, supporting findings
Expertise effects on basic level
Evidence that conceptual information is stored in prototypes

A
49
Q

Verbatim vs gist information

A

Verbatim: knowing all details of situation
Gist: getting the main idea of the situation

50
Q

In class demonstration of sentence memory and data

A

thanking the mole and the mole was thanked

51
Q

Semantic vs. Syntactic information

A

Semantic: meaning of the sentence
Syntactic: way the sentence was formed

52
Q

Saches (Galileo paragraph) study

A
53
Q

Central vs. peripheral information
Rating importance
Children extract central info implicit

A
53
Q

Remembering wording

A
54
Q

Prior knowledge facilitating comprehension and retrieval (laundry and balloons)
Prior knowledge hindering comprehension and retrieval (War of the ghosts)

A
55
Q

Schema:
Event scheme (script) and evidence
Scene schema and evidence
Story (narrative schema)

A

Schema: general knowledge, meaningful way or organizing information, helps navigate what to expect and what to infer
Event Schema and evidence: people agree to what is on script, ability to recall things in script order, faster reading, recall script items not in story
- Steps for eating at a restaurant
Scene Schema: people correctly remembered things consistent w/schema and spend less time remembering things you would expect, memory not as good, false memory for things that we do expect but are not there
- office example
Story: we find things more interesting if it is out of order and are better able to remember

56
Q

Schacter article:
Transience: gradual (long term) and rapid (short term)
Absent-mindedness:
Lapses of attention
Depth of processing effect
Change blindness
Blocking:
Tip of the tongue
Interference at retrieval
Pronounced in old age
Non Retrieved items inhibited by retrieved related items
Misattribution:
Source confusion
Cryptomnesia
False fame effect
Roediger and McDermott experiment
Frontal lobe important for monitoring and damage leads to error and false recognition
Suggestibility:
Know that it is one of the sins
Bias, consistency
Persistence directed forgetting and PTSD

A
57
Q

Using prior knowledge to make inferences

A

helps up sort information and makes sense of the world around us

58
Q

Logical inferences: Spatial relations example

A

People make inferences consistent with spatial reorganization
- Chair on top of box box it on the right side of the tree–> infering that the chair is also on the right side because it is on top of the box

59
Q

When are inferences made
Encoding
Storage
Retrieval
Helen Keller Experiment

A

Encoding: giving context affects what is encoded and later recalled
- ballon story/washing clothes story
Storage: longer you wait less details you would remember and there would be distortion
- memory changed during storage and changed to fit the schema
Retrieval: What was seen first and how it was remembered are different
- Make inferences with basic information or previous information; Helen Keller and Carol Harris

60
Q

Pragmatic inferences: in comprehension (fixing the bird house)
In advertising:
Assertion vs implication
Hedges
Comparisons

A

Pragmatic inferences: not all inferences follow information you are given
Assertion vs. implication: words that are inserted into ad or the ad is implying product does something
Hedges: if you do this then you prevent against this without thinking of other side or other outcome
comparisons: comparing to something not as good or just to something unrelated

61
Q

Interviewing techniques
Cognitive interview:
let eyewitness tel story uninterrupted
ask questions about events in reverse order
Use multiple interviews rather than one long one
Encoding specificity:
Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups
Hypnosis

A

let eyewitness tell story uninterrupted
ask questions about events in reverse order
Use multiple interviews rather than one long one

Sequential vs simultaneous line-ups:
- Simultaneous: more likely to give false positive if pics are all shown together
- Sequential: more likely to say no to all pics

Hypnosis is not useful and is not good
- causes anxiety
- false responses

62
Q

Pathologies:
Misinformation experiments (loftus):
Hit vs smashes
Yield sign vs stop sign
Overwriting hypothesis:
Hammer experiment
Misinformation acceptance

A
  • Car was more likely to be going faster for those who read “smashes” than those who read “hit”
  • Stopped at yield sign vs. stopped at stop sign
  • more likely to say that the nail was hammered vs. other things even if it was not in the story
  • Accept misinformation because we are unclear of which memory is real or the new information is stronger than the old
63
Q

Loftus reading:
Problems illustrated by Brewster case
Planting false childhood memories (lost-in-mall study)
Effects of imagining fictitious events
General impairment vs suspect bias variables in eyewitness identification
Problem of relative judgements in line ups
Solving the problem with sequential presentation

A

Psych 240 Exam 2 (1 decks)

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