terms and models - TERM 2 Flashcards
(148 cards)
1
Q
iconic and echoic memory
A
sensory memory
iconic = visual info
echoic = acoustic info
2
Q
working memory
A
storage and manipulation of information
3
Q
flexibility
A
arbitrary connections between items
limited capacity
4
Q
multicomponent model of WM
A
CE as homunculus
visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, phonological loop = subvocal rehearsal through articulatory loop
5
Q
assumptions of multicomponent model
A
central executive = flexible allocation of attention
storage systems = domain specific STM
episodic buffer = binds information from different sources
problem = CE is homunculus (not explained)
6
Q
word length effect exp
A
recall shorter words easier than longer words as refreshed quicker within 2 seconds
decay if not refreshed
7
Q
phonological similarity effect
A
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)
8
Q
articulatory suppression
A
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
9
Q
semantic relatedness
A
improves recall when related
interference can strengthen semantic link between items
10
Q
deafness
A
have sign-based phonological store
use manual articulatory rehearsal mechanisms to refresh information in phonological store
11
Q
visuospatial info
A
doesn’t integrate with phonological loop except in the episodic buffer
prediction that visual and spatial stores are separate supported
12
Q
mental rotation task
A
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
13
Q
Klauer and Zhao
A
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
14
Q
domain specificity
A
complex span task
predicts lower recall for same-domain (overloading)
combination of verbal and visuospatial materials
Vergauwew - no effect
15
Q
decay
A
info gets weaker over time = time-based decay
restoration mechanisms = rehearsal and refreshing
forgetting may be due to events rather than time
16
Q
focus of attention
A
only representations in the focus of attention are consciously available
capacity = 4+/-1
17
Q
cowans embedded process model
A
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
18
Q
what limits working memory
A
decay
interference
limited resource
19
Q
interference
A
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
20
Q
limited resource
A
resourced flexibly allocated and in discrete (limited number of items)/continuous (equal spread of resource to all items) units
21
Q
slot models
A
resources are distributed in discrete units
quality not perfect but high
22
Q
flexible resource models
A
distributed flexibility
either SMALL number of `HIGH quality objects
or HIGH number of LOW quality objects
23
Q
why does WM capacity vary?
A
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
24
Q
binding hypothesis - DETAIL
A
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
25
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)
26
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)
27
functional overlap
improvement expected if practice and no practice tasks share underlying processes
28
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
29
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)
30
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
31
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
32
Redick et al
no significant near or far transfer effects in spatial and verbal reasoning tasks
33
limitations of WM training
insufficient evidence
lack of active controls
small sample sizes
lack of active controls
lack of theoretical frameworks
34
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
35
de simoni - mechanisms of transfer study
binding task
updating task
visual search task
no evidence for near or far transfer effects
36
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
37
cogmed
WM training programme
study:
larger improvements in verbal near transfer tasks
n-back yields larger for far transfer
38
lexical characteristic that affect speed of access
word length
frequency of words
neighbourhood density - lots of neighbours= slower processing
39
spreading activation
facilitates predictions of words next appearing via activation of items that are related to acoustic input
40
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)
41
categorical perception
ability to distinguish between sounds on a continuum based on voice onset times
42
Ericcson study
increase in memory span from 7 to 79 digits with 230 hours of brain training
43
bottom up processing
process by which speech sounds initially analysed and recognised based on acoustic features
44
top down processing
use of linguistic knowledge and contextual clues to facilitate recognition of speech sounds
45
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
46
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
47
gating experiments
shown fragment of words that gradually reveal whole word
asked to guess what the word is
- aligns with assumptions of cohort model
48
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
49
phoneme restoration effect
don't need to hear all the phonemes to understand word
doesn't align with bottom up processing
50
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
51
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
52
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
53
priming paradigm
what we did in RM
prime word then target word
unrelated/related
uses spreading activation
54
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
55
uniqueness point
point at which other candidates have become deactivated
56
TRACE model
Features activate phonemes that activate words
more matching features = more activation = correct word
radical activation model
57
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
58
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)
59
TRACE - top down
faster identification of letters in words rather than nonwords
other evidence:
could detect phonemes in nonword that were word like
60
orthography
the written word
61
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
62
dual route cascade model
Excitatory and inhibitory connections
Motivate process or stop a process
Adjusts strengths of connections, provides input and assess output
63
dual cascade lexical route
Orthographic lexicon > semantics > phonological lexicon
used for irregular words as need semantics to understand meanings
64
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
65
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
66
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
67
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)
68
self-teaching hypothesis
children de-code words
using existing phonological representations - then develop orthographic representation
69
what is needed to develop orthographic lexicon
phonological representations
good verbal language
exposure to printed word
70
learning to read: DRC
contextual cues (spoken words) and exposure to print (lots of reading on regular basis)
71
why may some people have difficulty reading?
struggle to link graphemes and phonemes
72
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
73
lexical retrieval
recognising whole words
tested using rapid automatic naming of regular and irregular words
74
verbal STM
retaining information
tested using word and digit span
75
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
76
phonological deficit
less robust orthographic lexicon and less fluidity reading
difficult decoding
knock on effects - less motivation to read so limited orthographic lexicon
77
surface dyslexia
typical decoding but difficult spelling
phonological awareness unimpaired
irregular word reading impaired
unable to distinguish between homophones
LEXICAL ROUTE IMAPIRED
78
phonological dyselxia
deficits in non-lexical route
problems reading non-words
79
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
80
bilingualism
ability of communicating in two languages and the linguistic knowledge base the enables this ability
81
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
82
how we learn bilingualism
learning in a natural environment
learning at school
balanced (uses both languages equally)/unbalanced bilingualism
83
commonalities of bilingualism
effects of languages on perception (e.g. colour)
mental representation of timelines
expression
theory of mind
executive functions
84
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)
85
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
86
lexicosemantic representation
representation differs depending on monolingual or bilingual, context acquired, word type, learning strategy
87
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
88
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
89
language interdependent lexicon
1 lexicon
competition for selection from both languages
90
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
91
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
92
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
93
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
94
switch costs
cross language lexical decision task
pp slower to recognise words in mixed lists because one language is inhibited
95
consequence of having more than one language
inhibitory feature of language node (domain general) in BIA model = competition between languages and stronger inhibitory control
96
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
97
automaticity
tasks performed to be automatic
more specific than skill
98
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
99
stroop task results
slower RT to incongruent information suggests automaticity of word interrupts processing of colour
(meant to say colour not word)
100
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
101
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
102
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
103
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
104
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
105
comparing skils and habits
skill is the interplay between automatic and cognitive control processes
habit are automatic and inflexible
106
juggling study
juggling under different conditions
skill was maintained
demonstrates skills rather than habits
107
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
108
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
109
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
110
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
111
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
112
attention and performance
where u focus attention is important - misallocation of attention can disrupt performance
113
ironic processing
thinking hard interferes with the process of doing it
when mental capacity is reduced, it can lead to the opposite intended goal
114
theory of deliberate practice
underpinning expertise
focus on reducing errors
effortful and extensive practice
= expert
115
against deliberate practice
higher performers have head start
116
two types of bias
availability bias - over-estimating frequency of rare events
framing bias - switching decisions based on framing of question
117
rationality
set of norms
correspond to reality
118
rationality -probability based on value
rational choice is to invest to maximise expected value (what it will have in future)
119
value and utility - decision making
future uncertain
asses risks and benefit
increase chance of positive outcome
knowledge to estimate probability of future events
120
risk aversion
tendency of people to accept a sure outcome over a riskier outcome
121
expected utility theory
we choose option that maximises utility (satisfaction)
value is not utility - utility is how much u enjoy it, value is cost
122
marginal utility
as money increases, each addition to ones fortune becomes less important
123
calculating expected utility
E = p*U
e= expected utility (change to decimal)
p= probability
u= utility
multiple options =
E = p1*U1 + p2*U2
124
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
125
ecological rationality
how you should behave in the environment to survive rather than simply by norms
correspondance more important than coherence
126
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
127
adaptive value
value of an action across time
maximises long term expected value - avoid costly mistakes
128
heuristics v rational thinking - dual process theory
heuristics = quicker, automatic, effortless, unconscious
129
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
130
biases are not mere errors
bias = systematic deviations from right choice
131
testing small group decision making
3-6 people
short tasks - decision tasks (wagons - 80% correct in group but 80% wrong individually)
common aims
132
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)
133
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
134
standards of comparison
synergy in group
135
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
136
evidence for different coordination methods
best improvement in dictator, then Delphi, then dialectic
least improvement in consensus
137
individual differences
access to cues
ability - memory capacity
willingness to coordinate
138
achieving group consensus
by revision (within individual) and weighting (multiple judgements)
139
Gigone and Hastie - lens model
framework showing diff factors affecting group cognition
difficult to study as limited access to internal thoughts
140
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)
141
groupthink
polarisation in group decision making
high cohesive groups exhibit premature consensus seeking = poor decision making
142
criticisms of groupthink
not a distinct phenomenon
lack of evidence for all constructs
143
helping wisdom of crowds
diversity in group - longer in complex discussion
144
argumentative theory of reasoning
reasoning is aimed to persuade not find the truth
able to refine beliefs through debates
145
collective intelligence
ability of a group to perform a wide variety of tasks
not limited to specific tasks
146
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)
147
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
148
WM v LTM
WM =
active
relevant to goal
immediate use
limited capacity
LTM =
remote
everything learned
permanent (ish)
unlimited
