Cognitive Flashcards
(21 cards)
What was the background to Moray’s study?
Dichotic listening task (2 messages are played simultaneously.
Shadowing task- ps repeats aloud the message listened to on the headphones.
Cherry found doing a dichotic task ps were ignorant of what was in the ignored ear, Cocktail party effect- Cherry identified affective cues eg saying name can break the inattentional barrier.
Attentional barrier- attentions capacity is limited so stimulus has to penetrate a cognitive barrier.
What was the aim?
1st experiment- to test Cherry’s findings more rigoursly
2nd + 3rd- investigate other factors that can affect attention in dichotic listening.
M What was the method?
Lab exp
Exp 1 + 2 Repeated measures
Exp 3 Independent group design
Exp 1-
IV- shadowed message, rejected message, control
DV- recall and recognition
Exp 2-
IV- instructions proceeded by name or not
DV- frequency instruction heard
Exp 3-
IV- ps instructed will be asked qs on shadowed message, ps instructed will be asked to recall all the numbers they recall
DV- no of digits correctly recalled
M What was the sample?
Undergrads and research workers at Oxford University.
Exp 1- unknown
Exp2- 12ps
Exp3- 28ps
M Overall procedure?
Apparatus- Brennell Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder modified with 2 amplifiers to give 2 independent outputs.
Ps were asked to match the headphones for loudness approximately.
Ps were given 4 passages of prose to shadow for practice.
All passages recorded by one male speaker.
Procedure of exp1?
- Short list of simple words was repeatedly presented to one of the ps ear whilst they shadowed a prose message in the other ear.
- The word list was faded in after shadowing had begun, equal in intensity to the shadowed message, at the end of the prose message it was faded out so became inaudible.
- Word list repeated 35 times
- Ps was all they could from the content of the rejected message.
- Then given a recognition task of 21 words, 7 from the shadowed message, 7 from the rejected message and 7 that were in neither as a control.
- The gap between the end of shadowing and the beginning of the recognition test was about 30 seconds.
Procedure of exp2?
- Ps shadowed 10 short passages of light fiction, each a diff condition with a diff set of instructions, either at start, within or both.
- They were told their responses would be recorded and the object of the experiment was for them try to score as few mistakes as possible in shadowing.
- In 3/6 conditions with instructions within the passage, in some of the passages instructions were interpolated, but in 2 instances ps were not warned.
- In 1/2 of the cases with instructions these prefixed by the ps own name.
- Eg passage 1- Listen to your right ear (start), all right you may stop now (within) or 3- Listen to your right ear (start), John Smith you may stop now (within)
- The passages were read in steady monotone voices at 130 words per minute.
- Ps responses were tape-recorded and later analysed.
What was the procedure of exp3?
- 2 groups of 14ps shadowed 1 of 2 simultaneous dichotic messages.
- in some messages (experimental condition) digits were interpolated towards the end of the message. Either in both messages, or one message. Number positions were varied, and controls with no numbers were used randomly inserted.
- one group of ps was told that it would be asked qs about the content of the shadowed message at the end of each message, the other group was specifically instructed to remember all the numbers that it could.
- The mean number of digits in the message and the mean number of digits reported were calculated.
Exp 1 results?
No evidence of words from the rejected message recognised.
1.9 vs 4.9 mean rate was lower for the shadowed message
Exp 2 results?
The diff between affective and non-affective was highly significant- number of times heard 20 vs 4
Instructions ‘heard’ ps followed
The presence of a name can cause the instruction to be heard.
Exp 3 results?
No sig difference between the number of digits recalled between group 1 (told they would be asked general qs), and group 2 (told specifically to remember as many digits as possible)
M Main conclusions?
In a situation where the pts direct attention to the reception of the message from one ear, and rejects a message from the other, almost none of the verbal content of the rejected message is able to penetrate the block set up.
A short list of simple words presented as the rejected message show no trace of being remembered even when presented many times.
‘important messages’ eg name can penetrate the block thus a person will hear instructions if they are presented with their own name as part of the rejected message.
Main evaluation points?
Ethnocentrism-
+ other research found in dichotic listening
to be true, eg English-Chinese speakers
have a right ear advantage
- Assumes basic cognitive processes are
universal
Validity
+ population, both genders used
+ internal, highly standardised,
demonstrates cause and effect
+ ecological, hearing own name is realistic,
natural experience managing lots of
voices at once.
- population, only students, small sample,
oxford may have a higher cognitive ability,
narrow age ranges and socioeconomic
backgrounds
- internal- EV variables may not be
controlled
- Ecological, not realistic to listen to
dichotic headphones
Reliability
+ highly standardised, high control levels
What was the background to Simon and Chabris’ study?
Change blindness (a change in visual stimulus is introduced where the observer doesn’t notice)
Inattentional blindness (we don’t notice something fully visual within our visual stimulus because our attention isn’t focused on it.
Neisser- ps count passes in video of two superimposed teams playing ball game- women walk through with umbrella walks through middle, 6/28 spotted, ps all noticed when did not have to count.
Mack and Rock- ps asked to judge whether vertical or horizontal
What was the aim of S+C?
To examine the influence of 3 factors on inattentional blindness 1) superimposition compared to live events within a video recording 2) impact of a task difficulty 3) unusualness of unexpected events
S+C Method?
Lab exp, IMD
IVs- colour of team (white/black), unexpected object (umbrella/gorilla), difficulty of task (total passes or separate ariel + bounce pass totals), type of video (opaque/transparent), 16 conditions in total
DVs-number of ps in each condition who noticed the unexpected event.
S+C Sample?
228 ps (192 after 36 removed)
Harvard uni students
Volunteer sample, given nothing, chocolate, or single payment
S+C Brief summary?
21 experimenters used with a standardised procedure
1. All ps tested individually, given informed consent, informed to watch white or black
2. Told to keep a silent mental count of passes by attended team (easy) or number of bounce passes and aerial passes (hard)
3. Played either opaque or transparent
4. Unexpected event entered left to right, either gorilla or women in black with an umbrella between 44-48 sec
5. Ps asked to write down counts, then asked if they saw anything unusual other than the 6 players, if they answered yes they were told to expand.
S+ C Results?
54% noticed the unexpected event, 46% failed to
IV1- gorilla noticed more by those watched the black team
IV2- umbrella woman noticed more than gorilla
IV3- more ps noticed the unexpected event in the easy vs hard condition
IV4- more ps noticed in unexpected condition in opaque condition than transparent 67% vs 42%
S+C Main conclusions?
Individuals fail to notice an ongoing and highly salient unexpected event if they are engaged in a primary monitoring task.
The level of inattentional blindness depends on the difficulty of the primary task.
S+C Main evaluation points?
Ethnocentrism-
+ May only reflect how well-educated University students cognitive processes work.
- Assumed cognitive processes are universal
Validity-
+Population- large sample
-Population- Young students, possibly more attentive, higher than normal cognitive ability, narrow backgrounds
+Internal- IM design, carefully standardised, concurrent validity
- Ps may have seen the study similarly carried out previously
+ Ecological- opaque condition to be designed to be more realistic, unusual events do happen in real life
- Not real event, lab setting, no distractions, unusual task
