Week 8 Flashcards
1
Q
What is Knowledge?
A
- Connections to truth, facts or principles
- Gained from study, inspection or experience
- Perception & Discovery
2
Q
Conceptual Knowledge
A
Enables u to recognise objects & events
Helps us make inferences about things
Mental representation of objects events and abstract ideas (Kiefer & Pulvermuller 2012)
3
Q
Category and Categorisation
A
- Category - all possible features of a concept; pointers to knowledge
- Categorisation - Assigning objects and events into a category
- Allows us to understand what we experience in the environment
- Enables us to use objects to achieve our goals
4
Q
Categories
A
- Allow us to apply knowledge to new situations
- Ususally an automatic process
- Can be complicated process
5
Q
Definitional Approach
A
- Placing Objects into Categories
- Definition of category determines which category it belongs to
- Most natural objects are not easy to define
e.g. how to define a cat?
6
Q
Categories - Family Resemblance
A
- Wittgenstein 1953
- Items in a category resemble each other somehow
- This allows some variation within a category
7
Q
Prototype Approach to Categorisation
A
- Belonging to a category is determined by comparison to an ideal image that represents it
- Generated using an average style that is common for it.
- Rosch 1973
- Close resemblance creates the category
8
Q
Quantifying Typicality
A
- Presented participants with a Category
- Rate Items based on the category from 1-7
- Shows that sometimes objects are considered better or worse examples of categories
- Rosch & Mervis 1975 found that high resemblance categories can overlap in features
9
Q
Sentence Verification Technique
A
Smith et al 1974
Subjects ask to respond yes/no quickly to a statement
Responses were faster for common objects
10
Q
Prototype Approach to Categorisation
A
- Rosch 1975b
- Primed subjects with a words then asked to decide if samples matched
- These included similar and non similar stimuli
- Subjects faster to respond to the stimuli when they were good examples of the primer
- Priming helps identification of highly typical objects
11
Q
Exemplar Approach to Categorisation
A
- Rather than taking a simple “average” Exemplar takes into account many samples
- Object is compared to every sample to determine belonging
- Used to support prototypical approach
- Sparrows are more birdlike than penguins so they are categorised faster.
12
Q
Exemplars or Prototype Approach
A
- May allow better performance with highly atypical objects.
- Deals better with categories that are highly variable like games
e.g. penguins and birds
13
Q
How are categories organised
A
- We break down categories into sub categories
- Rosch 1976
- Basic level category that is more psychologically important than other levels?
- Global (Superordinate)
- Basic
- Specific (Subordinate)
14
Q
Categories Organised
A
- Subjects listed more items for the categories were more specific
- Rosch 1976 argued that basic category is special
- Because provides large increase of information over global level
- But does not lose much information ad the specific level
15
Q
Basic Categories
A
- Subjects respond faster when using basic level categories
- Basic Level categories prime subjects better than global level categorise
e.g. cars is faster that vehicles
16
Q
Knowledge can influence Categorisation
A
- Tanaka & Taylor
- Asked bird experts and non experts to name objects from lots of categories
- Also had 4 bird pictures
- Experts identified Bird Species and non experts said bird
- Experts pay attention to features of the birds; non experts were not aware of them
- The Level for special is different for each person depending on their expertise
17
Q
Conceptual Knowledge is . . .
A
Enables us to recognise objects and make inferences about objects
18
Q
Categorisation Allows . . .
A
- Understand what is happening in the environment
- Draw large amount of knowledge from a stimulus
- Use objects in the environment to achieve our goals
- Definitional approach limits us because most natural objects don’t conform perfectly with their definitions
19
Q
Family Resemblance Allows . . .
A
Variation in a category by using shared features
20
Q
Prototype Approach does
A
Compares the object to an average prototype of the category
21
Q
Exemplar Approach does
A
Compare an object to every other instance of a category
22
Q
Exemplar or Prototype Approach to Categorisation
A
- Both approaches may be required
- Rosch 1976
- Basic level of category is psychologically special
- Provides a large increase of information over the global level
- Does not lose much information from the specific level.
- People tend to identify objects using basic level categories.
- However, experts tend to use more specific levels
23
Q
Perceptual Categorisation
A
- Decisions experts make can be conceptualised
- This is called Categorisation Judgement
- Skin cancer: Is the mole cancer or not?
- X-rays: Is the bone broken or not?
- Radiologists: Is that scan cancer or not?
- Fingerprints: Do these prints match or not?
24
Q
Perceptual Categorisation – Fingerprints
A
- Could categories on single features like loops & whirls
- Do experts do this?
- Thompson & Tangen
- Yes they can distinguish print under pressure
25
Q
Perceptual Categorisation – Global Approach
A
- Focus on individual features like in prototype approach
- May be relying on global information shared between instances
- Radiologists presented with scans of tumours may do this
- Evans et al 2013 –
- Exemplar Approach sufficient exposure to scans examples they can identify the ‘gist’ of the category
26
Q
How much info do we need to categorise
A
- Searston et al 2014 say not much
- Subjects required to report if two examples are from the same or different subcategory
- Subjects able to distinguish above chance levels down to 2x2 resolution
- Global style/redundant inforation is sufficient to distinguish between categories
27
Q
Perceptual Categorisation – Bees
A
- Humans can perceive a lot with little information
- Apparently so can Bees
- We et al 2013
- Trained honey bees to distinguish between paintings by Picasso and Monet
28
Q
A
- Wu et al 2013
- Bees trained on 5 paintings
- Could distinguish pairs in colour and black & White after 5 days
- Also could distinguish novel paintings based on style
36
Q
Embodied Approach
A
- Hauk et al 2004
- Measured brain activity under fMRI
- Subjects asked to:
- Move their left foot, left/right index finger, or tongue.
- Read “action words” such as kick, pick, lick.
- Areas of cortex activated by actual movement similar to those caused by reading
38
Q
The Hub & Spoke Model
A
- Some people with damaged anterior temporal lobes (ATL) suffer from Semantic Dementia
- This model proposes that areas of the brain associated with specific functions are connected to the ATL
- ATL Serves as a hub that integrates information from these areas
39
Q
A
- Purple: ATL
- Yellow: Valence (Strong/Weak)
- Red: Auditory
- Dark Blue: Praxis (Manipulability)
- Light Blue: Functionality
- Green: Visual
- Pink: Speech
40
Q
Probic et al 2010 - Hub & Spoke Model
A
- Presented pictures of living things and objects
- Measured time for naming pictures using TMS applied to ATL
- ATL usually activated when using an object
- Parietal inactivation slowed reaction times for man mad objects but not living things
- Specifically reaction time slowed for objects with high manipulability
- ATL inactivation slowed for both man made and living things
51
Q
Connectionist Approach
A
- McClelland & Rogers 2003
- Properties represent as individual Units
- Activated by the pattern of activity in representation in the hidden network
- When the Canary concept and can relations are activated the spread of activation creates a pattern of hidden units which will activate related words
55
Q
Mueller-Lyer Illusion 1889
A
- Culture can affect Perception
- Even though perception is believed to be universal across cultures as it is based in physiology
- Cultures that do not focus on right angled geometry don’t perceive this illusion
60
Q
Background Influenced Recognition
A
- Masuda & Nisbett 2003
- Original background:
- Japanese > Americans
- Novel Background
- Japanese < Americans
- Collectivist Japanese Culture - focus on relationship between objects & background
- Individualist US Culture - focus mainly on salient objects
61
Q
Culture and Dialectical Thinking
A
- Peng & Nisbett 1999
- Studied Chinese people and American people
-
Dialectical Thinking
- Addresses issues from both sides
- Attempt to reconcile contradictions
-
Non-Dialectical Thinking
- One side is more right that the other
- argues strongly from one viewpoint
- Collectivist responses more dialectical
- Individualist responses more nondialectical
