What were the results of the coin experiment conducted by Smith, Lamont, and Henderson (2012)?
People tend to fail to notice the change in the identity of a coin that was being used for a magic trick, even though they were told to watch it the entire time.
What were the results of the Dichotomous Listening Task Conducted by Cherry (1953) where participants listened to different sound streams in their left and right ears?
Participants could identify the unattended voice as male or female, but little else.
What were the results of the Dichotomous Listening Task Conducted by Moray in 1959 where where participants listened to different sound streams in their left and right ears?
A word could be repeated up to 30 times and still not be processed if unattended to.
Attention filters block information to prevent further processing.
In some cases, the meaning of an unattended stimulus breaks through, (ie: the participant’s name)
What model was proposed by Broadbent?
Input - Sensory memory - Filter - Detector - LTM
(Locus of attentional filtering)
What were the results of the Dichotomous Listening Task Conducted by Grey and Weddeburn in 1960 where where participants listened to different sound streams in their left and right ears?
If a meaningful narrative was played, such that a successive word alternated between ears, people would follow the narrative (back and forth - dear…2….jane/1…aunt….3)
Results only make sense if participants could perceive the MEANING of the words in their unattended ear
What is the attenuator model (Treisman, 1964/1969
(Attenuator) - (Dictionary Unit)
Attention doesn’t fully block unattended info - it weakens it. The attenuator attends strongly to the selected message, and reduces the strength of the unattended. The dictionary unit analyzes the meaning. EXPLAINS WHY IMPORTANT OR MEANINGFUL WORDS BREAK THROUGH ATTENTION.
Treisman’s Attenuator Model proposes that unattended stimuli are weakened rather than completely filtered out, allowing some semantic processing if the stimulus has a low activation threshold.
What were the results of the iteration Dichotomous Listening Task Conducted by McKay in 1973 where where participants focused on sentences wit ambiguous meanings while unattended channels played audio that would add context to the sentence.
Participants didn’t remember hearing the context, but their memory of the sentence often contained information from the context.
(Money - The boys threw rocks at the bank) - Participants assumed a monetary bank
What is the Eriksen Flanker Task? (1974)
A reaction-time task used to study selective attention, where participants respond to a target stimulus while ignoring surrounding distractors (flankers), showing how irrelevant information can interfere with processing.
Participant Responses vary in nature:
Fastest (F = T): hhh H hhh
Congruent: kkk H kkk
Slow - Incongruent: sss H sss
What were the results of the attentional load experiment conducted by Lavie (1995) where participants had to find the ‘O’ in 2 different contexts?
The incompatible flanker only caused an increase in RT in Low-load not high load conditions. This is because low load tasks result in left-over cognitive resources that end up processing flankers.
What were the results of the attentional load experiment conduced by Green and Balevier (2003) testing video gamers?
Gamers can better distribute their attention outside of the central task. They showed flanker distraction in high and low load conditions.
What were the results of the automatic processing experiment conducted by Balevier et al. (2012) studying how difference in attention in videogame players play out in the brain.
Gamers - used endogenous network to block out irrelevant info
Non-gamers - didn’t need to expand neural effort to block out distractors
- gamers were better able to filter out the irrelevant motion stimulus and focus on the task at hand -
What were the results of Drews et al. (2008) study looking at driving simulations?
Larger errors when talking on the cell phone versus talking to a passenger
What were the results of Strayer and Johnson’s (2001) study looking at driving simulations and traffic lights?
Nearly twice as likely to miss the light while using a phone regardless of hands-free capabilities.
What were the results of Posner’s (1980) experiment where participants looked at a fixation cross, that pointed to where a shape was likely to appear.
Valid Trials - Target and cue congruent
Invalid Trials - Target and cue incongruent
Participants responded faster to valid trails compared to invalid trails - attention allowed them to prepare for shape ID.
What is feature-integration theory?
Attention is needed to combine distinct features into coherent perceptual objects.
What were the results of the binding experiment, Treisman et al. (1980/1982), where participants were briefly presented with multi-feature objects. (feature integration theory)
Treisman’s Feature Integration Theory proposes that individual features are processed automatically, but attention is required to bind them into unified objects; without attention, conjunction errors (features are remembered correctly, but combined incorrectly) occur.
FIT APPLIES MOST STRONGLY WHEN PERCEPTION RELIES ON PUR VISUAL ATTENTION, NOT SEMANTIC KNOWLEDGE.
The more features you have to conjoin, the longer it takes. (Linear)
Conjuction searches: target definied by two or more features (red, rectangle) - must process each feature individually.
Search time also increases with distractors (more items, more visual checks)
What are the results of Shulman et al. (1999) experiment where participants were shown a screen with an arrow pointing in a certain direction. The cue was followed by moving dots.
Condition 1 - cue matched dot direction
Condition 2 - cue didn’t match dot direction
FMRI Results:
Medial temporal lobes and intraparietal sulcus showed activation during the cuing period. Parietal lobe modulates the activity of the MTL which controls which portions of the brain are paying attention.
What were the findings from Corbetta and Shulman (2002) study looking at goal and stimulus driven attention networks?
GD (top down) and SD (bottom up) attention are supported by different brain networks that have to interact.
Corbetta and Shulman (2002) proposed that attention arises from interacting goal-directed and stimulus-driven networks, with the frontal eye fields playing a key role in controlling spatial attention and eye movements through retinotopically organized maps. (Proof with Monkeys)
What were the findings from Durston et al (2003) study looking at go/no-go tasks in people with ADHD
ADHHD - more errors than control
-
Chapter One Vocab8
-
Chapter Two Vocab38
-
Chapter 2 - Studies7
-
Chapter Three Vocab66
-
Chapter 3 - Studies7
-
Chapter Four Vocab69
-
Chapter 4 - Studies12
-
Chapter Five Vocab32
-
Chapter 5 - Studies19
-
Chapter Six Vocab23
-
Chapter 6 - Studies14
-
Chapter Seven Vocab29
-
Chapter 7 - Studies13
-
Chapter Eight Vocab24
-
Chapter 8 - Studies16
-
Chapter Nine Vocab28
-
Chapter 9 - Studies17
-
Chapter Ten Vocab30
-
Chapter Eleven Vocab36
-
Chapter Twelve Vocab24
-
Chapter 12 - Studies12
-
Chapter Thirteen Vocab40
-
Chapter 13 - Studies19
