terms and models - TERM 2 Flashcards
iconic and echoic memory
sensory memory
iconic = visual info
echoic = acoustic info
working memory
storage and manipulation of information
flexibility
arbitrary connections between items
limited capacity
multicomponent model of WM
CE as homunculus
visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, phonological loop = subvocal rehearsal through articulatory loop
assumptions of multicomponent model
central executive = flexible allocation of attention
storage systems = domain specific STM
episodic buffer = binds information from different sources
problem = CE is homunculus (not explained)
word length effect exp
recall shorter words easier than longer words as refreshed quicker within 2 seconds
decay if not refreshed
phonological similarity effect
recall is worse when items sound similar
words that are semantically similar have no effect on WM - means that WM coding is phonological (only affected by sound of word not meaning)
articulatory suppression
asked to utter irrelevant word while presented with words to remember
stope subvocal rehearsal
word length effect doesn’t exist with visual presentation - only auditory (if someone reads the words aloud to you)
because words enter straight to phonological store
semantic relatedness
improves recall when related
interference can strengthen semantic link between items
deafness
have sign-based phonological store
use manual articulatory rehearsal mechanisms to refresh information in phonological store
visuospatial info
doesn’t integrate with phonological loop except in the episodic buffer
prediction that visual and spatial stores are separate supported
mental rotation task
presented with pairs of objects and asked to decide whether they are identical or mirror images of each other by mentally rotating one of the objects to align it with the other
blind participants generated spatial representations just as good
Klauer and Zhao
memorised dots on a grid (spatial) or Chinese characters (visual)
visual interference tasks affected visual task (dots)
spatial interference tasks affected spatial task (character)
= competition
domain specificity
complex span task
predicts lower recall for same-domain (overloading)
combination of verbal and visuospatial materials
Vergauwew - no effect
decay
info gets weaker over time = time-based decay
restoration mechanisms = rehearsal and refreshing
forgetting may be due to events rather than time
focus of attention
only representations in the focus of attention are consciously available
capacity = 4+/-1
cowans embedded process model
WM holds limited info - heightened state of availability
LTM has an activated portion holding relevant information for current cognitive task (small)
WM has narrow focus of attention - excludes irrelevant information
what limits working memory
decay
interference
limited resource
interference
types=
proactive = older impair new memory
retroactive = new impair old memory
confusion - similar info competes for retrieval
superposition - new information (that looks similar) encoded on top of existing info
overwriting -new info (that sounds similar) replaces stored info
limited resource
resourced flexibly allocated and in discrete (limited number of items)/continuous (equal spread of resource to all items) units
slot models
resources are distributed in discrete units
quality not perfect but high
flexible resource models
distributed flexibility
either SMALL number of `HIGH quality objects
or HIGH number of LOW quality objects
why does WM capacity vary?
executive attention hypothesis - differences in ability to control attention
binding hypothesis - encoding information simultaneously. Capacity relies on number of bindings maintained
more bindings = better WM
binding hypothesis - DETAIL
bindings are temporary links
WM capacity limit = number of bindings maintained, arises from interference
less interference = more complex structural representations
difficult to test against executive function hypothesis as bindings may be maintained by executive attention
executive attention hypothesis - DETAIL
2 systems in brain in which info us used, engaged with:
system1 = quick easy access
system2 = controlled, effortful (ATTENTION CONTROL SYSTEM
we have one executive function that underlies WM and reasoning through maintenance (keep relevant info) and disengagement (getting rid of old info)
transfer effects
improvement on practice task lead to improvements on unpracticed task.
improvements due to strategy based training (task specific e.g mnemonics) or process-based training (transfer to other contexts, complex span tasks)
functional overlap
improvement expected if practice and no practice tasks share underlying processes
measuring training effects
performance at pre-test compared to performance at post-tests
put against active control group (help with placebo)
e.g
n back task
complex span task
Klingberg training study - WM
children with ADHD
training programme with WM tasks
used ravens progressive matrices - test reasoning
big pre-post difference in intensive training for reasoning compared to active control
-uncorrected differences in change are only small (small sample)
Klineberg study - repeated
larger sample
training was adaptive (changes as you improve) rather than high v low dose
larger benefit in adaptive training
limitation - experimental baseline was higher before exp
near transfer v far transfer
near = transfer of skills to a task closely related (same underlying process)
far = transfer of skills to a task not closely related
Redick et al
no significant near or far transfer effects in spatial and verbal reasoning tasks
limitations of WM training
insufficient evidence
lack of active controls
small sample sizes
lack of active controls
lack of theoretical frameworks
multiple sources of variances framework
training affected by intervention specific factors, individual differences
mechanisms of transfer:
enhanced capacity - training increase info held in WM (training leads to broad transfer effects)
enhanced efficiency - more efficient use of training = selective transfer effects
de simoni - mechanisms of transfer study
binding task
updating task
visual search task
no evidence for near or far transfer effects
differences in training benefits
magnification - people with higher ability gain more - larger improvement seen in younger adults in initial task
compensation - people with lower ability gain more - use different strategies for same outcome in older adults
cogmed
WM training programme
study:
larger improvements in verbal near transfer tasks
n-back yields larger for far transfer
lexical characteristic that affect speed of access
word length
frequency of words
neighbourhood density - lots of neighbours= slower processing
spreading activation
facilitates predictions of words next appearing via activation of items that are related to acoustic input
challenges for lexical access
accents
speech is a continuous stream
co-articulation
homonyms (same sound, different meaning)
ambiguous word boundaries (only fools and horses - four candles/fork handles)
categorical perception
ability to distinguish between sounds on a continuum based on voice onset times
Ericcson study
increase in memory span from 7 to 79 digits with 230 hours of brain training
bottom up processing
process by which speech sounds initially analysed and recognised based on acoustic features
top down processing
use of linguistic knowledge and contextual clues to facilitate recognition of speech sounds
mechanics of lexical access
- Gradual activation of the word that matched the sound
- Activate all words that match same start sound of a word and gradually de-activate words that no longer match sounds
- Gradually activate the matching word that relates more than other words
cohort model
bottom up processing
we access words in lexicon via activation of words sharing initial features and gradually de-activate words that stop matching = uniqueness point
= neighbourhood effects (similar words compete), frequency effects
gating experiments
shown fragment of words that gradually reveal whole word
asked to guess what the word is
- aligns with assumptions of cohort model
architecture of cohort model
speech input > lexical item
facilitatory signals are sent to words that match
inhibitory signals are sent to words that do not match
phoneme restoration effect
don’t need to hear all the phonemes to understand word
doesn’t align with bottom up processing
cohort model - 3 stages to word recognition
access - acoustic phonetic info mapped
selection - candidate words that mismatch are deselected
integration - semantic, syntactic properties of word are checked against the sentence
cross modal priming
prime word is auditory
target word is visual
shorter RT when words are related
then do the same but with fragments not full words
biasing the sentence had no difference in priming effect - only when given the full word not fragments
context in the cohort model
Sentence context doesn’t influence the process of lexical access – integration is affected by sentence context
items that match acoustic input but not sentence context are activated - context only relevant when reached uniqueness point
priming paradigm
what we did in RM
prime word then target word
unrelated/related
uses spreading activation
TRACE model vs cohort model
TRACE emphasises top down processing while cohort minimises its impact
cohort predicts lexical accès is bias to activation of words with shared onsets
TRACE accommodates activation of rhyming competitors
TRACE provides no account on context
uniqueness point
point at which other candidates have become deactivated
TRACE model
Features activate phonemes that activate words
more matching features = more activation = correct word
radical activation model
architecture of TRACE
hierarchical network of nodes (facilitatory connections): features, phonemes and words = dominant bottom up processing
opposite direction = top down
top down processing increases activation of phonemes and features
visual word paradigm
eye tracking study
showed words overlapping phonology that don’t start with same onset as speech input, are activated in speech perception
results:
rhyming competitor receives activation (looked at)
TRACE - top down
faster identification of letters in words rather than nonwords
other evidence:
could detect phonemes in nonword that were word like
orthography
the written word
3 different routes to understanding words
Written word > activate letters > activate phonemes > activate phonological form > semantics
Written word > active letters > activate orthographic form > activate phonological form > semantics
Written word > active letters >activate orthographic form > semantics
dual route cascade model
Excitatory and inhibitory connections
Motivate process or stop a process
Adjusts strengths of connections, provides input and assess output
dual cascade lexical route
Orthographic lexicon > semantics > phonological lexicon
used for irregular words as need semantics to understand meanings
dual cascade non lexical route
Spelling to sound > phonological lexicon
relationship between letters and sounds = grapheme phoneme correspondence = REGULAR WORDS
dyslexia - deficit in non-lexical route so issues reading non-words
graphemes
single grapheme = single phoneme
a single phoneme (sound) can be represented by more than one grapheme (letter)
leads to regular (mint) and irregular words (pint)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATION OF PHONEME
shallow and deep orthography
shallow - transparent language, spelling of words map directly on to its pronunciation
deep - opaque language, spelling of words don’t map directly on to its pronunciation
advantages of dual route cascade
accounts for orthographic and phonological lexicon
accounts for regular and irregular words
accounts for new or novel words (grapheme-phoneme correspondence)
self-teaching hypothesis
children de-code words
using existing phonological representations - then develop orthographic representation
what is needed to develop orthographic lexicon
phonological representations
good verbal language
exposure to printed word
learning to read: DRC
contextual cues (spoken words) and exposure to print (lots of reading on regular basis)
why may some people have difficulty reading?
struggle to link graphemes and phonemes
what is dyslexia
difficulties in accuracy or fluency of reading that are not consistent with persons age, educational level or intellectual abilities
difficulty decoding (phonological processing)
test using phoneme deletion/substituion task
lexical retrieval
recognising whole words
tested using rapid automatic naming of regular and irregular words
verbal STM
retaining information
tested using word and digit span
phonological awareness
being able to drop phonemes from word (e.g. say school without ‘s’)
difficulty appears 1st yr of school but goes away by 6th year
learning how to read separates groups more
dyslexic pp can do the task, just slower with less fluency
phonological deficit
less robust orthographic lexicon and less fluidity reading
difficult decoding
knock on effects - less motivation to read so limited orthographic lexicon
surface dyslexia
typical decoding but difficult spelling
phonological awareness unimpaired
irregular word reading impaired
unable to distinguish between homophones
LEXICAL ROUTE IMAPIRED
phonological dyselxia
deficits in non-lexical route
problems reading non-words
helping dyslexia
uses contextual cues
e.g. lets go for a … PINT
helps with irregular words
studied by Frith and Snowling - found dyslexia readers use context more for regular words
require stronger semantic processing to compensate for weaker phonological processing
bilingualism
ability of communicating in two languages and the linguistic knowledge base the enables this ability
types of bilingual
simultaneous bilingual = more than 1 language from birth
early sequential bilingual = learning second language after first
late sequential bilingual = learning second language after first later in life
how we learn bilingualism
learning in a natural environment
learning at school
balanced (uses both languages equally)/unbalanced bilingualism
commonalities of bilingualism
effects of languages on perception (e.g. colour)
mental representation of timelines
expression
theory of mind
executive functions
lexicon in bilingualism
separate lexicons with separate semantics
or one lexicon (compound system = all representations link to one semantic store subordinative system = second language linked to semantic store of first language)
evidence for shared and separate stores
1 group who learnt languages in separate context and other in fused context
fused showed less difference in semantic ratings
separate group had separate semantic stores, fused had shared
lexicosemantic representation
representation differs depending on monolingual or bilingual, context acquired, word type, learning strategy
revised hierarchical model
L2 (language 2) strongly links to L1 as it is a reference - translating this way is quicker
suggests L1 is linked to semantics more than L2
overtime we build conceptual links
Kolers language switch costs
pp slower to name images when switching between languages (delay)
languages can be switched on or off and effort is needed to switch = separate lexicons
language interdependent lexicon
1 lexicon
competition for selection from both languages
naming pictures for L2
beginners: find semantics and find relevant phonological and orthographic representations from L1
translating from L1 to L2 is slower e.g.
dog > chien SLOWER than chien > dog
prolific: developed semantic links
bilingual stroop task
incongruent (colour and name is different) and congruent conditions + neutral (*)
significantly slower to respond to colour words compared to * regardless of language of the word or language response
= don’t switch off language and have one lexicon
priming effects - bilingualism
prime (first word) - L2
target - L1
= quicker RT BECAUSE LINK IS STRONGER L2 > L1
asymmetrical semantic priming = only L2>L1 not L1>L2
counter evidence however
bilingual Interactive activation model
ONE LEXICON -
activation is bottom up from features to words
- recognition of a word inhibits activation of other words
activation of letters is not language selective
all words that match input are activated
at word level, semantic representations linked to words are activated
high frequency words have higher resting activating level
switch costs
cross language lexical decision task
pp slower to recognise words in mixed lists because one language is inhibited
consequence of having more than one language
inhibitory feature of language node (domain general) in BIA model = competition between languages and stronger inhibitory control
blumenfield and marian
pp with high proficiency more likely to look at cross language competitor then pp with lower proficiency = more lexical connections
- better inhibition
negative correlation between Simon effects and cross language competitors = high levels were able to inhibit inappropriate responses more easily
automaticity
tasks performed to be automatic
more specific than skill
tasks used to measure automaticity
stroop - colour of ink
flanker - respond to central arrow
Simon - push named button
go/ no-go - capacity to not respond
stroop task results
slower RT to incongruent information suggests automaticity of word interrupts processing of colour
(meant to say colour not word)
Durgin arguement
when asked to read word aloud, response is quicker as less processing
conflict when visual stimuli (written word) needs to translate into verbal responses (naming colour) = slower
stroop task manipulation
point to ink that matched word (slower) or ink colour in word (quicker)
longer RT and more errors when. pointing to colour patch = reverse stroop effect
goes against automaticity
attentional manipulations
directed attention to single letter in stroop task
when asked to name colour of ink, there was no effect/interference = easier
automaticity depends on where and how you pay attention
stimulus onset asynchrony, speed of processing
words are processed more quickly than ink colour
staggered presentation of word and ink colour =
when word presentation too late, it doesn’t interfere with processing of ink name
MacLeod and Dunbar - stroop
pp named colours
assigned these colours to shapes
pp asked to name colours when shapes appeared
pp asked to name shapes when appeared in colour
after 2 hrs - colour interfere with naming shapes
after 5 hrs - colours interfere with naming shapes
20 hrs - shapes interfere with naming colours
SUGGESTED AUTOMATICITY CAN BE PRACTICED
comparing skils and habits
skill is the interplay between automatic and cognitive control processes
habit are automatic and inflexible
juggling study
juggling under different conditions
skill was maintained
demonstrates skills rather than habits
typing as a skill
controlled and automatic processing
Logan and crump -
1st condition = asked to type violin and were correct
2nd = showed error
3rd = typed correct but told was incorrect
4th = the opposite
measured using self report and typing speed
Logan crump results
correct condition = typists correctly stated they were correct
error condition = most were aware they made error
inserted error condition = illusion of authorship (pp believed they made error when they didn’t)
corrected error = pp believed they had not made errors when in fact they had
pp were slower when made real error
hierarchical loops - typing skills
outer loop - language comrephensions and generation - sensitive to visual feedback
inner loop - translated words into finger movements - motor skills - sensitive to Finger/keyboard interactions
YERKES DODSON law - arousal
arousal and performance
right level = peak performance
too much arousal = decline
practice = shifts graph to right so need more arousal to decline performance
choking under pressure - football
experts - best under dual-task conditions but for right foot
right foot condition - attentional focus hinders performance = distraction improves performance
novices - distraction hinders performance
attention and performance
where u focus attention is important - misallocation of attention can disrupt performance
ironic processing
thinking hard interferes with the process of doing it
when mental capacity is reduced, it can lead to the opposite intended goal
theory of deliberate practice
underpinning expertise
focus on reducing errors
effortful and extensive practice
= expert
against deliberate practice
higher performers have head start
two types of bias
availability bias - over-estimating frequency of rare events
framing bias - switching decisions based on framing of question
rationality
set of norms
correspond to reality
rationality -probability based on value
rational choice is to invest to maximise expected value (what it will have in future)
value and utility - decision making
future uncertain
asses risks and benefit
increase chance of positive outcome
knowledge to estimate probability of future events
risk aversion
tendency of people to accept a sure outcome over a riskier outcome
expected utility theory
we choose option that maximises utility (satisfaction)
value is not utility - utility is how much u enjoy it, value is cost
marginal utility
as money increases, each addition to ones fortune becomes less important
calculating expected utility
E = p*U
e= expected utility (change to decimal)
p= probability
u= utility
multiple options =
E = p1U1 + p2U2
loss aversion and prospect theory
when guaranteed loss, ppl choose option where loss may or may not happen rather than optimal utility
innate motive to avoid loss
ecological rationality
how you should behave in the environment to survive rather than simply by norms
correspondance more important than coherence
heuristics
mental shortcuts
can have biases
recognition heuristic = when one option is recognised, it will be given higher value than the one not recognised
works when some knowledge
adaptive value
value of an action across time
maximises long term expected value - avoid costly mistakes
heuristics v rational thinking - dual process theory
heuristics = quicker, automatic, effortless, unconscious
Wasons 2-4-6 task
given sequence of numbers
pp asked to guess rule
pp usually give a rule more abstract than the actual rule
= confirmation bias
positive or negative test strategies
biases are not mere errors
bias = systematic deviations from right choice
testing small group decision making
3-6 people
short tasks - decision tasks (wagons - 80% correct in group but 80% wrong individually)
common aims
are groups better than individuals?
groups performed at the accuracy of second best member of group
process loss = group decisions are worse than individual (madness of crowd)
process gain = group decisions are better than individual (wisdom of crowd)
task types - comparing groups
intellective v judgement tasks
well-defined (intellective) v ill-defined (judgment)
intellective - time means groups performed as well as best individual on intellective tasks
judgement - best member outperforms groups
when no Clear answer, groups perform at average level of members
standards of comparison
synergy in group
coordination methods
how group functions
no discussion = average individual
anonymous, no discussion = Delphi method
best individual chose to answer in group = dictator method
group agreement = consensus method
discuss and revise = dialectic methods
evidence for different coordination methods
best improvement in dictator, then Delphi, then dialectic
least improvement in consensus
individual differences
access to cues
ability - memory capacity
willingness to coordinate
achieving group consensus
by revision (within individual) and weighting (multiple judgements)
Gigone and Hastie - lens model
framework showing diff factors affecting group cognition
difficult to study as limited access to internal thoughts
wisdom crowds
influences: uncorrelated errors and no systematic bias (mean closer to true value)
correlated errors - due to limited information, shared biases and group conformity (REDUCES wisdom)
groupthink
polarisation in group decision making
high cohesive groups exhibit premature consensus seeking = poor decision making
criticisms of groupthink
not a distinct phenomenon
lack of evidence for all constructs
helping wisdom of crowds
diversity in group - longer in complex discussion
argumentative theory of reasoning
reasoning is aimed to persuade not find the truth
able to refine beliefs through debates
collective intelligence
ability of a group to perform a wide variety of tasks
not limited to specific tasks
correlations of c factor in intelligence
not correlated with individual intelligence
correlated with:
average social sensitivity
equality in distribution of turn-taking
females in group
diversity (cognitive too)
study for collective intelligence
272 pp
34 groups in each condition (online or face-to-face)
say emotion related to pair of eyes
intelligence measured (ravens advanced progressive matrices test)
found predictors of group intelligence:
social sensitivity
amount and distribution of communication
WM v LTM
WM =
active
relevant to goal
immediate use
limited capacity
LTM =
remote
everything learned
permanent (ish)
unlimited
