skills and expertise Flashcards
automaticity
refers to specific properties of performance
tasks that can be performed quickly, effortlessly, and relatively autonomously are thought to be automatic (tasks that cannot be are not automatic)
more specific properties of performance than skill (a more general ability to complete a task),
automaticity is an important component of skill
type of tasks used to measure automatic processing (4)
conflict tasks:
- stroop task
- flanker = respond to the central arrow
– e.g.»_space;<» = < - simon = push the named button
– e.g. word left is shown on the right, have to press left button - go/no-go task (tests the capacity not to respond) = press on go, do nothing on no-go
real life conflict task example
norman doors (Norman, 2013)
doors that have a pull handle but say push
stroop task
Paradigm: Stroop
Instruction: Colour-naming
Condition: Conflict
Measure: speed & accuracy
Conclusion: word-reading (automatic) interferes with colour-naming (controlled)
The interference is the difference between the RTs to congruent and incongruent conditions.
slower RT to incongruent when naming ink –> automaticity of word reading interferes
associations between stimulus and response formats - classic stroop vs translation
stroop = verbal response to stimuli (regardless of whether it is to name ink (visual sensory) or say word (visual verbal))
Durgin (2000)
- written word = verbal stimuli
- read word = verbal response
- these are matched
- therefore less processing than naming ink colour (mismatched stimulus-response)
naming the ink colour = target info of ink colour must be translated into verbal modality, whereas the non target (distractor) information of the actual word is already in the verbal modality = matched
Translation account of the Stroop Interference (Virzi &Egeth, 1985)
response –compatibility / response-competition model of Stroop Interference.
durgan (2000) - manipulation of stroop task - colour
changed the format of the response
participants needed to respond to Stroop stimuli by using a computer mouse to point to coloured patches
tasks:
- point to the ink patch that matched the meaning of the word (word reading)
– stimuli = verbal
– response = sensory-visual
– mismatched s-r - point to the ink patch that matched the colour of the ink the word was written in
– stimuli = sensory visual
– response = sensory visual
– matched s-r - only neutral (for the word task the colour word was in grey ink and for the ink naming task furniture words were presented in coloured ink) and incongruent conditions (no congruent conditions)
represents a perceptual motor task rather than a categorical task requiring translation from verbal information into categorical or visual information
results:
- word meaning condition (point to colour patch with word meaning) = colour interfered with word-naming/reading = longer RT, more errors than neutral
not observed on the point to the colour patch that matched the ink
a “reverse Stroop effect”
conclusion:
findings support the response –compatibility / response-competition model of Stroop Interference
against automaticity theory as an explanation for interference on the Stroop task as pointing to the ink is not automatic
assumes that automaticity is based on the act of word reading as being the fundamental aspect of automatic process
However, an alternative explanation for the findings is that stimulus response compatibility is actually key to automaticity - it is not just a sensory process, but about the associations
between stimulus and response
When the S_R formats are similar then this supports automaticity
attentional manipulations - stroop
traditional stroop = automaticity of word reading explains stroop effect (interference) –> based on participants paying attention to whole words
words activate semantic and lexical processing –> attention is paid across the whole word
therefore study effect when participants are asked to pay attention to a specific letter in the word
attentional manipulations study (stroop)
Besner et al (1997)
Study 1:
- directed attention to a single letter in the word as that letter was the only part of the word in a coloured ink
- results: Stroop effect eliminated when only one letter was coloured. Suggesting that paying attention to part of the word did not lead to automatic processing of the word at a semantic level
study 2:
- attention was directed to a single letter in the word by having an arrow point to the target letter
- whole word was in different colour
Results: The Stroop effect was reduced or eliminated by cueing one letter of a coloured word
conclusion:
- automaticity of word reading is not independent of all other cognitive processes
- where you pay attention and how you pay attention seems to affect whether word reading appears to be
automatic
stimulus onset asynchrony and speed of processing
alternative to automaticity as an explanation for the Stroop effect is the speed of processing account
words are processed more quickly than ink colour
traditional Stroop task = word is presented at the same time as the ink colour
Glaser and Glaser (1982) - SOA and speed of processing study
stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) manipulation
presented the colour and word components of Stroop stimuli at different times
Result:
- naming ink colour = stroop effect regardless of when word was presented - until word is presented at 300 and 400ms after ink
Note: At 300 and 400 ms the irrelevant stimulus (word) is presented too late to interfere with processing of ink naming
if reading word was automatic, then doing colour first gives it an advantage and you would expect interference
but there was no interference found
no amount of head start for colour information produced interference on word reading
conclusion:
speed of word processing being faster than ink processing cannot explain these findings- there is more to automaticity than just speed of processing
automaticity - all or nothing?
debate as to whether a process is either automatic or not (all or nothing)
or whether automaticity can gradually develop (dimensional)
automaticity - can anything become automatic study
Stroop Effect is often explained by the fact that word reading is automatic so interferes with naming the ink
MacLeod and Dunbar (1988)
trained participants to name novel shapes with colour words e.g. name a random shape “green”
4 phases:
- baseline naming of the four familiar colours
- train in naming the four novel shapes by using the names of the same four colours
- name the colours when they appeared as shapes
- name the shapes when they appeared in colour
3 experiments –> each experiment differed in the amount of training given: after 2 , 5 or 20 hours
results:
- initial (2 hours) = colours interfere with naming shapes (naming the colour is the more dominant, automatic process)
- intermediate (5 hours) = colours interfere with naming shapes and vice versa (mixture of both)
- extensive training (20 hours) = shapes interfere with naming colours (naming the shape is now the more dominant, automatic process)
conclusion:
- process is not either (completely) automatic or controlled
- you can make something automatic with practice
- automaticity is dimensional
– “continuum of automaticity” - most things may have the potential to become automatic with enough practice
are habits and skills the same
debated whether they are the same or different
Du et al. (2022)
- habits = not a singular behaviour, formed at intermediate computations, from S-R associations, equivalent automaticity to skill –> leads to increased speed at the expense of flexibility
- example = driving home from work is the habit, driving is a skill
- stimulus can also prompt skilled behaviour - a fast response to selecting the correct response - therefore the response is not exactly the same –> selected based on other things e.g. environmental factors
- habits does NOT mean skill –> unskilled behaviour can become habits
components of habits (6)
- over learnt stimulus-response pairs
- triggered by the environment
- rapid
- stereotyped
- inflexible
- ballistic
juggling study of skills
Bebko et al (2005)
- Jugglers and Novices
- Juggling under different conditions (weight of balls, trajectory of balls)
results:
- jugglers always better than non-jugglers (novices).
- skill is maintained
conclusion:
- means that skill has flexibility
skills as flexible and goal driven
skill = interplay between automatic and cognitive control processes and this is in contrast to habit
habitual actions as automatic, inflexible, and stimulus-driven
although there are elements of automaticity in skill, skilled actions remain goal-directed and highly flexible
components of skills that are more/less habit like
components of skills
more habit like:
- highly practiced
- fast
- low attention demands
less habit like
- sequenced
- flexible
- intended
theory of hierarchical control - typing
typing = complex skill
- typing = learnt process
- skilled = accurate and fast
- both automatic and controlled processing
- words are interpreted from info and matched to the output – measured via detection of error through mismatch between intended output and actual output
- skilled copy typing depends on translation of words into motor commands for keystrokes –> relatively automatic timing and execution of keystrokes
- Logan (1985) errors may be observed through kinesthetic feedback from keystrokes
Logan and crump (2010) - typing study - method
participants copy-typed individual words and received feedback on their action
4 conditions:
- correct condition = wrote it correctly and told so
- error condition = incorrectly type violin - told it was wrong
- inserted error condition = told they made an error when they did not
- corrected error condition = told they were correct when they were wrong
performance assessed by 2 measures:
- self-report (subjective perception of performance) –>
aware of actual performance or influenced by feedback - false reports of errors or corrected errors ? - inter-key interval (typing speed as a measure of motor response) –> typing is automatic so motor response is unlikely to be conscious - is the speed of typing influenced by errors?
Logan and crump (2010) - typing study - results from 2 measures
results
self-report results:
- correct condition
– correctly able to state that they had made a correct entry - error condition
– most were aware they had made an error - inserted error condition
– most didn’t notice the error was inserted – believed they made an error when feedback falsely stated it
– “illusion of authorship” - corrected error condition
– most didn’t notice the error correction - think they didn’t make an error when they did
– “illusion of authorship”
majority of responses in all conditions matched the feedback rather than necessarily the reality
inter key interval results:
- participants slowed when they made a real error (even if they weren’t told about it - corrected error condition)
- didn’t slow when they were told - incorrectly - that they had made an error (inserted error)
Logan and crump (2010) - typing study - conclusions
typing skills are controlled by hierarcichal loops
outer loop = language comprehension + generation - decides on the words to type
inner loop = translates words into finger movements
loops sensitive to different forms of feedback:
Outer loop: visual feedback from screen
Inner loop: finger/keyboard interactions
why have hierarchical control
frees attention to regulate hard parts
complex behaviours are neither entirely automatic or controlled
from inner and outer loops of the skill
3 explanations for barriers to performance of a skill
arousal
choking
levels of attention
yerkes-dodson law
curve of performance against arousal - optimal level of arousal for performance –> too high = do worse
practice = makes curve higher (better performance) and shifted to the right (higher arousal = better performance)
choking as a barrier to performance
pressure to perform at high level prompts attention to step by step elements of a well learned skill - leads to errors and slowing
choking study - football dribbling
Beilock et al., (2002b)
conditions:
- skill-focused (told to focus on dribbling)
- dual-task condition (listen to words whilst dribbling - had to say a target word if they heard it)
- right foot dribbling
- left foot dribbling
Experts:
- best under dual-task conditions
- but only right footed (their dominant foot)
- in right foot condition:
– attentional focus on dribbling hinders performance
– distraction improves performance
Novices:
- always best under ‘skill focussed’ conditions
- distraction hinders performance
GRAPH IS ON SLIDES IF UNCLEAR (66)
hierarchical control - attention focus and typing
where you focus attention is important: Misallocation of attention can disrupt performance (Logan & Crump, 2009)
type words that you normally type with just one hand - meant focus was on inner loop - performance declines
ironic processing
thinking hard interferes with the process of doing it - hinders performance
reduced mental capacity (stress, cognitive load, distraction) can lead to opposite to intended goal
harder you try the more errors you make
ironic processing - elephant
trying not to think of an elephant makes you think of an elephant
improvement over time
idea that improvement slows but doesn’t stop
study with rolling cigars - still can get faster at it but this speed improvement slows with time
ten thousand hours rule
Gladwell - book “Outliers” (2008) –> magic number of true expertise = 10,000hrs
Ericsson’s theory of deliberate practice
- effortful, extensive practice
- breaks skill into components
- focus on reducing errors
- use of targets (which evolve as skill increases)
- individually tailored training (i.e. coaching)
idea of practicing the difficult stuff with coaching
skaters who went on to win gold made more training errors than those who went on to win silver or bronze –> because they practiced beyond their current limit
is expertise all down to practice
Ericsson never claimed practice alone was enough (conceded that innate height and environmental factors such as support e.g., means to travel to practice are influential)
he claimed deliberate practice is the main influence on the development of expertise
video games practice and expertise
those who become experts start at a higher level of performance - therefore follow a different curve
therefore it is not just practice
Macnamara and Maitra (2019) - practice and violin playing
Practice alone does not make an expert
Replication of Ericsson’s study but was was double blind assessment not observational
results:
practice alone more important than coaching
“best” students did less practice than “good”
“less accomplished” students practiced the least
