Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Cognitive Psychology > perception > Flashcards

perception Flashcards

(69 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

what is a local level of processing

A

details and parts of the whole

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

what is the global level of processing

A

the whole picture

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

what is viewpoint invariant

A

object recognition does not depend on viewpoint

doesn’t matter what angle looked at from, processes the same

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

what is viewpoint dependent

A

object recognition does depend on viewpoint

within category discrimination

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

what are the 3 different types of pattern recognition theories

A

template
prototype
feature

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

template theories

A

selfridge and neisser 1960

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

selfridge and neisser 1960

A

template theories

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

template theories

explanation

A

patterns in real world recognised but matching those stored in templates

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

prototype theories

A

rosch 1975

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

rosch 1975

A

prototype theories

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

prototype theories

explanation

A

we store prototypes instead of templates

the most typical member of a category

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

feature theories

A

jaun and duin 2004

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

jaun and duin 2004

A

feature theories

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

feature theories

explanation

A

patterns consist of set of features of attributes

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

feature theories

neisser 1964

A

find the letter z in 2 lists
list 1 was more difficult to identify the letter z because it shares more features with the other letters e.g. straight lines

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

navon 1977

A

global and local

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

global and local

A

navon 1977

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

navon 1977

study

A

performance speed was slowed when asked what the small letters was when the large letter differed
however
decision speed with the large letter was not influenced by the small letter
i.e. when the small letters differed, decision speed for the large letter was not slowed
global affects local but not visa versa

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

dalrymple, kingstone and handy 2009

A

replicated navon

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

replicated navon

A

dalrymple, kingstone, handy 2009

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

replicated navon

study

A

when the small letters were densely packed, it replicated Navon but when the spacing between the letters were bigger, processing was faster at the local level than the global letter

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

biederman 1987

A

recognition of components

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

recognition of components

A

biederman 1987

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

recognition of components

explanation

A

we can construct everything in our world form a set of 36 shapes called geons
geons are view-invariant
they are easily discriminable from each other
complex shapes are more than one geon connected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
4 steps pf object recognition
edge extraction detection of non-accidental properties/parsing of regions by concavity determination of components matching components to object representations
26
convex vs concave
the invariant properties can still be detected even why only parts of edges are visible provided the concavities are preserved, the object can still be identified
27
what is apperceptive agnosia
a failure in recognition due to a failure of perception | cannot copy shapes when asked to do so
28
what is associative agnosia
perception occurs but recognition does not occur | can copy shapes but cannot identify the objects
29
why are faces important in cognition
recognising faces requires 'within-category' discrimination | we are very good and fast at this discrimination
30
what is configural processing | in relation to faces
whole/holistic processing position of features in relation to each other doesnt matter what you do to a face e.g. blur, we still recognise it
31
what is featural processing | in relation to faces
parts/piecemeal | using the features of the face e.g. nose
32
key findings in face processing | yin 1969
face inversion effect
33
key findings in face processing | face inversion effect
yin 1969
34
key findings in face processing face inversion effect study
performance for upright is always better than for inverted but inversion disrupts processing for faces more so than for other types of stimuli e.g. stickmen inversion affects configural processing but not featural
35
key findings in face processing | whole over part effect
tanaka and farah 1993
36
key findings in face processing | tanaka and farah 1993
whole over part processing
37
key findings in face processing whole over part processing study
p's are significantly more accurate at recognising features when they are embedded in a face suggests that processing of faces is holistic not simply a series of features/parts supports global/top down processing
38
key findings in face processing | distinctiveness effect
bruce et al 1994
39
key findings in face processing | bruce et al 1994
distinctiveness effect
40
key findings in face processing distinctiveness effect study
distinctive faces are recognised better than less distinctive faces
41
key findings in face processing | the thatcher effect
thomson 1980
42
key findings in face processing | thomson 1980
the thatcher effect
43
key findings in face processing the thacther effect study
subtle rational changes between features are harder to identify in inverted faces
44
own effects?
people are better at recognising faces of their own race, the same age as them, the same gender as them and the same species as them
45
is face recognition innate?
according to johnson 2005, newborns visual ability is different to that of an adults adults see more detail and need less contrast to do so when we see a familiar face we use face memory when we see an unfamilar face we need information on emotion and gender in order to know how to interact
46
is face recognition innate? | johnson et al. 1991
infants tested one hour after birth found that they orient towards face-like stimuli compared to scrambled faces
47
is face recognition innate? | simion et al 2002
babies fixated longer on patterns with most elements in their top half
48
free space model
valentine 1991, 2016
49
valentine 1991 2016
free space model
50
free space model | explain
we compare any face to an average face and put on this model depending on features explains why it is more difficult to remember average looking faces faces are easy to recognise when difference from mean is exaggerated
51
what is prosapagnosia
inability to recognise faces
52
prosopagnosia can be developmental or aquired
developmental- present from birth and is a developmental disorder never develop the face recognition system tends to run in families aquired-from a brain injury had typical system before
53
prosopagnosia 3 inclusionary criteria
difficulty with faces in every day life impairment on at least 2 measures of face familiarity lesions confirmed by CR or MRI scans
54
what is anomia
can recognise face but cannot remember name
55
patient PG
young et al 1988
56
young et al 1988
patient PG
57
patient PG | explain
damage to RH impaired in structural encoding of faces
58
patient est
flude et al 1989
59
flude et al. 1989
patient est
60
patient est | explain
can perceive and encode faces but cannot retrieve name
61
4 stages in face processing
structural encodoing face recognition person identification name generation
62
face inversion effect for damaged brains
yin 1970
63
face inversion effect for damaged brains | explain
when shown upright faces-rh damaged patients perform worse than lh and control rh damage may disrupt configural processing when shown inverted faces-lh damage patients perform worse suggesting damage interrupts featural processing people with prosopagnosia cannot demonstrate face inversion effect as they cannot apply configural processing and this cannot applied when the face us upside down
64
inversion superiority effect
gelder et al 1998
65
gelder et al 1998
inversion superiority effect
66
inversion superiority effect | explain
in inverted faces, people with prosopagnosia can process featural information without interference from disrupted configural system meaning that they have improved performance for the face inversion effect
67
so, are faces special? | yes
can recognise faces from birth configural and featural conditions face/object dissociation
68
so, are faces special? | no
high exposure to faces faces are stimuli we have got good at visual expertise hypothesis
69
what is the visual expertise hypothesis
gauther and tarr 2002 | face-selective mechanisms are also involved in recognising members of any category for which we possess expertise

Cognitive Psychology (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions