This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Cognitive Psyc


undefined, object
copy deck
Alternative Names for Short-term memory
-Short term store
-Immediate memory
-Primary memory
Three Things Associated with Free Recall
1. Serial-position curve
2. Primacy effect
3. Recency effect
Serial-Position Curve Trends
-Contains Primacy and Recency effect
-Rehearse each early item until list becomes too long then shift to rehearse new items
-Usually, recent (last) items recalled first, then beginning and middle items
How is a serial-position curve evidence for 2 seperate memory systems?
-STM dumps last items out (recency effect)
-LTM for rehearsed items in first part of list
Primacy Effect
-Better memory for first few items on serial-position curve
-beginning items are rehearsed so higher probability of being encoded
Single Dissociation
-One cognitive system is dependent upon the other, but the other is not
-Damage to one, see if other works
-Example: (Radio's dependent upon car electrical system, but electrical system isn't dependent upon radio)
Example of Double Dissociation
-Selectively damage one and leave other intact
-Example: damage radio but windsheld wipers still work
What evidence is there for double dissociation with STM and LTM?
-Serial recall
-List-length effects
-Distractor Tasks
-Presentation rate (item spacing)
-STM as rehearsal buffer
Tests for Double Dissociation
-Have a variable that affects STM but not LTM
-Bring in a 3rd variable that affects LTM but not STM
-Used to show STM and LTM are seperate
What does serial recall affect?
-Affects STM but not LTM
List-Length Effects
-Always have recency effect
-Affects LTM but not STM
-Affects the probability of middle items in list going to LTM
Distractor Task
-Erase STM in a way so there is no recency effect
-Affects STM but not LTM
-Primacy portion is unaffected
Presentation Rate (item-spacing effect)
-Difference in items from middle of list
-Higher probability of moving middle list items from STM to LTM
-Affects LTM not STM
-Affect primacy portion but not recency portion of curve
STM as Rehearsal Buffer
-Limited capacity
-Keep info in active state by rehearsal:
Maintenance Rehearsal: STM->STM
Transfer: STM->LTM
Miller: "Magic Number"
-7 +/- 2 recall of items (average capacity)
-Grouping items together into meaningful chunks
-7 +/- 2 is number of chunks that can be held in STM
-Enables breaking of informational "bottleneck" in STM
Brown, Peterson, & Peterson
-STM duration of non-rehearsed info
-Infamous Brown-Peterson task
Brown-Peterson Task
-Stimulus: simple three-letter triplet
-Distractor task: count backwards by three from number they'd been shown (variable length of counting)
-Task: report back the three-letter stimulus
Brown, Peterson, & Peterson: Results
-STM duration is short
-Increasing period of time, less and less info remained in STM
-Decay in STM (passive process)
-Distractor task prevents rehearsal of stimulus
Waugh and Norman
-Decay vs Interference
-Believed distractor task might be source of interference
-Longer counting intervals would provide more opportunity for interference
Waugh and Norman: Method
-List of 16 digits
-Read at rate of either 1 or 4 digits per second
-Final item in list was a repeat and served as probe or cue
-Task: write digit that followed the first presentation of repeated item
What was the important part of Waugh and Norman's experiment for the issue of decay vs interference?
-Time it took to present 16 digits btw groups
-Presenting entire list took 16 s for one group but only 4 s for the other group
Waugh and Norman: Results
-No difference in recall accuracy bwt 2 groups
-Suggesting forgetting was influenced by number of intervening items bwt critical digit and recall test
What results would Waugh and Norman have seen if decay theory was right?
-Worse performance when list presentation took 16 s
-More time intervenes during 16 s presentation so have more passive decay
What were the criticisms of Waugh and Norman's experiment?
-Failure to reject null hypothesis
-No difference bwt 2 conditions (rate doesn't matter)
-Poorly conducted experiment which is also support for the null hypothesis
-Brown-Peterson task with two different distractors
-One condition: count backward by 3's
-Second condition: read #'s from screen
Talland: Results & Conclusions
-Support for alternative hypothesis
-Group that used mental effort (counting backward by 3's) had worse recall
-Mental effort counting is causing interference
Peterson, Peterson, & Miller
-Brown-Peterson task with different kinds of stimulus material
-Stimulus: either nonsense syllables e.g.(MEQ) or meaningful syllables e.g.(NFL)
-NFL is single chunk whereas MEQ is 3 seperate chunks
Peterson, Peterson, & Miller: Results
-Higher recall for meaningful syllable condition vs. nonsense syllable condition after 6 s of backward counting
-Disagrees with decay theory
-Forgetting in STM is thus due to interference
-Noticed that with subsequent trials on Brown-Peterson task, subjects did worse
-4 trials, each trial had 3 words (stimulus)
Wickens: Method
-2 conditions: control and experimental
-Control group: words in all trials were similiar (similiar stimuli)
-Experimental group: words in trial 4 were different (change stimuli in trial 4)
Wickens: Results
-Both groups did same on first 3 trials
-Build up of PI w/ first 3 trials
-Experimental group had 90% accuracy on trial 4
-Release from PI
How do we retrieve (locate) information from STM?
-Recognition: stimulus in front of you
-Recall: generate stimulus from LTM
Subtractive Method
-Measure RT1 for task involving mental processes A, B, and C
-Measure RT2 for comparision task only involving processes A and C
-Find duration of process B by subtracting RT2 from RT1
Problems with subtractive method
-Difficult to find 2 task that differ in only one mental process
-Assumption of "pure assertion" that by subtracting out B, processes A and C are affected (all have to be independent)
Additive Factors Method
-Repeat mental process for some number of times during a single trial
-Still do same processes, but one process is done more than once
-Determine how long it takes to do that process by determining how much time was added to people's RT
Additive Factors Method Equation
B = RT2 - RT1 / n-1

B: process repeated
n: number of times process was repeated
-STM scanning task
-Get memory set (1-6 items)
-Single letter probe
-Respond "yes" or "no" depending upon whether probe item was in memory set
-Each trial memory set and probe varied
Why did Sternberg manipulate size of memory set?
-He wanted to influence the # of cycles through the search or scan process
-And by examing the slope of RT's, he could determine the additional time needed for each cycle in that process
3 Possibilities for Sternberg's Results
-Serial self-terminating search
-Parallel search
-Serial exhaustive search
Serial Self-Terminating Search
-Search memory set items one-by-one and when find match is found
(how we look for car keys)
Parallel Search
-Scan each position in memory set simultaneously
-Equally fast with all set sizes (size doesn't matter)
-No increase in RT
Serial Exhaustive Search
-Compare probe to each item in memory set, even if find match still continue(exhaustive)
-Comparison is one at a time (serial)
Sternberg's Results
-Linear increases in RT's as set size increases
-Increase was nearly same for both "yes" and "no"
-Serial exhaustive search
-Scan contents of STM at a rate of about 38ms per item
Early Research on kinds of info held in STM
-Info was though to be based on verbal/acoustic cues or codes
-Conrad: verbal codes
-Subject's studied list of words, recall in any order
-Specific errors based on acoustic errors ("E" say "G", "T" say "C")
-Even though letters were presented visually, they were stored in STM in an acoustic, sound-based fashion
Semantic Code
-Wickens found that release from PI due to semantic interference
-Info in STM is based on semantic code
-Evidence was switching categores resulted in release from PI
Shepard and Metzler
-Visual Codes
-See complex pattern in two forms
-Task: determine if same pattern just rotated or if it's rotated with mirror reversal (enantomers or diastereomers) :)
Shepard and Metzler Findings
-RT increased as angular rotation for second drawing increased
-Form a visual image that can rotate in mind, but further rotation takes more time
What in the world did Shand do?
-Congentially deaf subjects fluent ASL
-2 conditions
-Five item lists for serial recall
And what in the hell did Shand find...?
-More errors in 2nd condition than 1st condition
-Have kinesthetic code (STM can hold info in any format that can be sensed)
2 Conditions in Shand's Experiment
1. sequence of ASL signs that were phonologically similiar in English
2. ASL signs that were cherologically related (similiar hand movements to form sign)
What were some theoretical problems w/ STM?
-Limited capacity (magic number)
-Largely based on verbal/acoustic codes
-Both wrong SO people began to change conception of STM
-Burden/load on STM and switching bwt processing and remembering aren't addressed by simplie approached that emphasize 7 +/- 2 "slots"
-We instead have working memory
Brooks: Method
-See block letter; take away
-Primary Task: mentally draw letter and point thumb either up or down when come to certain corners
-Then combined with secondary tasks: counting and then laser pointer
Brooks: Results
-Counting (verbal task) while scanning visual image yield few errors
-Laser pointer task while scanning visual image was more difficult
Explaination for Brook's results
-Tracing letter: visuo-spatial
-Counting: phonological resource (doesn't overlap with visuo-spatial so can do simultaneously)
-Laser pointer: visuo-spatial (same as tracing letter so both consume resources from same visuo-spatial resource)
Baddeley's Model of Working Memory
-Instead of single buffer w/ limited capacity and verbal/acoustic codes, have working memory with 3 systems
-Central executive and slave systems
Slave Systems
-Articulatory (phonological) loop
-Visuo-spatial sketchpad
-Proceed w/o disrupting activities elsewhere in working memory if task isn't that demanding
-If task is demanding, drains resources from central executive
Characterisitcs of Slave Systems
-Responsible for low-level processing
-Domain specific
-Have own pool of attentional resources (pools are very limited)
-Don't overlap
Working Memory: Paired Central Executive task with secondary task that tapped one of the slave systems
When slave system drains off attentional resources from central executive, the executive can no longer maintain its speed or accuracy
Language comprehension in a dual-task setting
-Hold 6 digits in memory while doing comphrehension task
-Both comprehension scores and memory span performance disrupted
Physiological evidence of areas of heightened activity in brain during verbal working memory tasks
(i.e Sternberg's task)
Left hemisphere regions:
-Broca's area
-3 frontal sites
-Left supplementary motor area (SMA)
-Premotor areas
Physiological evidence of task emphasizing executive control
(i.e. switching from one task to another)
Heightened activity in:
-Brodmann's area 46
-Dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex
Physiological evidence of regions of heightened brain activity durning visual and spatial working memory task
Right hemisphere regions:
-Extrastriate occipital cortex
-Posterior parietal lobe
-Premotor area
-Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)
Why is LTM important?
-Stores everthing we know
-Fundamental to nearly every mental process and almost every act of cognition
Squire: Taxomony of LTM
-Distinction between declarative (explicit memory) and nondeclarative (implicit)
Declarative Memory
-Explicit and with awareness
-Talk about these memories
-Can be episodic or semantic memories
Epsiodic Memory
-Personal experiences
-Context specific
Semantic Memory
-Context free
Procedural Memory
-Implicit and w/o awareness
-How to do things
-Primings, conditioning, and other types of (non-associative) learning i.e. task-aversion learning
What is the debate about declarative memory and its sub-units?
Debate about if episodic and semantic are distinct and seperate or a continum where some memories are more episodic or semantic but still part of same system
Tulving: Memory and Consciousness
-Anoetic Consciousness
-Noetic Consciousness
-Auto-Noetic Consciousness
Anoetic Consciousness
-Procedural memory
-"Not aware"
-Animals with just procedural memory can do these things but aren't aware of themselves doing it
-Insects, fish, invertabrates
Noetic Consciousness
-Semantic memory
-Awareness about external world
-Mammals, birds, octopus
Auto-Noetic Consciousness
-Episodic memory
-"Self awareness"
-Humans, some apes, cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
-"To help memory"
-Method of loci, Peg-word mnemonic, and acronyms
Formal mnemonics
Rely on preestablished set of memory aids and considerable practice on the to-be-remembered information in connection with the preestablished set
Informal mnemonics
-Less elaborate
-Suited for smaller amounts of info
-More idiosyncratic and personalized
What principles are important to the strength of mnemonics?
-Practice to-be-remembered material repeatedly
-Integrate material into existing framework
-Device provides excellent means of retrieving information to be remembered
Method of Loci
-First memorize physical locations you're familiar with
-Form mental image of first thing you want to memorize and mentally place it into first location
-Continue with second item, third, etc.
Recall Performance with method of loci
-38 out of 40 items in correct order
-One day later, averaged 34 correct, again in order
Mnemonic Devices facilitate
-Encoding (structure for learning)
-Retention (organization &/or imagery)
-Retrieval (cues)
Atkinson & Shiffrin: Two Effects of Rehearsal
-Maintenance: actively maintain info in STM


-Transfer: actively take info from STM and put into LTM
Hellyer: Frequency of Rehearsal
-Brown-Peterson task
-Modification: rehearse items before given an arithmetic distractor task
-Varied how many times one could rehearse
-Believe accuracy is a function of retention interval
Hellyer: Results
-The more frequently the items were rehearsed, the better retention across the distracting period

More rehearsal = Greater chance of getting into LTM
Rundus: Rehearsal and Serial Position Effects
-Subjects learned 20-item lists of unrelated words
-Presentation rate of 5 s per word
-Subjects rehearsed out loud whatever word from list they wanted during 5 s presentation
How did Rundus compute his results?
Tabulated number of times each of the words had been rehearsed and compared this tally to the likelihood of recalling the word correctly in free recall (serial-position curve)
Rundus' results
-Items at beginning of list are rehearsed frequently
-Middle items not really rehearsed
-End items not rehearsed at all
From Rundus' results what do primacy and recency effects depend on?
-Primacy effect was viewed entirely dependent on rehearsal
-Earlier items can be rehearsed more frequently and so are recalled better
-Recency effect was viewed as simply recall from STM
Craik & Lockhart: Depth (levels) of Processing
-Single memory system: sensory, STM, & LTM (not seperate systems)
-Perceived stimulus receives some amount of mental processing
-Processing can be shallow or deep and more meaningful
-Two types of rehearsal
Type I (maintaince)
-Low level, repetitive info recycling at same level
-Once stop cycling information, it's lost (no permanent record in memory)
Type II (elaborative)
-Complex rehearsal that uses the meaning of the info to help store and remember it
-Move info to deeper level in memory system
Craik & Watkins: Depth of processing and repetition priming (1975)
-Running sequence of words
-3 conditions
-Manipulate subject's depth of processing
-Free recall
What were the 3 conditions in Craik & Watkins experiment?
-Case decision: surface features of letters (shallow processing)
-Rhyme judgements: (medium processing)
-Pleasantness: (deeper processing)
Craik & Watkins: Results
-Processed words to different depths
-Case judgement was shallow
-Rhyme -> STM
-Pleasantness -> LTM
-Increase recognition accuracy w/ deeper level processing
Craik & Watson: Depth of processing (1973)
-Hypothesized that amount of time word is kept in Type I rehearsal will not help recall
-Heard long list of words
-Task: remember most recent word starting w/ "G"
Craik & Watson (1973): Results
-Hypothesis confirmed
-No recall difference for "G-words" held a long time in STM vs those maintained only briefly
-No benefit
Baddeley's Criticisms on levels of processing
-Circular definition of Type I and II rehearsal
-Task effects: different results with recall vs recognition
-Useful heuristic but not a real alternative today
Circular Definition of Type I & II rehearsal
-Have premise that's used to draw conclusion, then use conclusion to support premise

-Items that are processed deeply are remembered better (premise)
-Items that are better remembered are processed deeply (conclusion)
Task Effects: Recognition
-Generally a higher accuracy found with recognition
-Influenced by recollection and familiarity
-Less retrieval effort than recall tasks
-Type I rehearsal had effect on LTM when recognition tasks were used
***not true with recall tasks
Glenberg, Smith, and Green: Against depth of processing position
-Brown-Peterson Task
-Remember 4 digit number as (supposed) primary task
-Distractor task: repeat 1 or 3 words out loud (assumed they only used Type I processing)
Glenberg, Smith, and Green: Results
-Replicated Craik/Watson: amount of rehearsal didn't help recall of 4 digit number


-recognition of 4 digit number was influenced by the amount of rehearsal
What is the significance of Glenberg, Smith, and Green's results?
-Disconfirmed levels of processing theory
-Mere repetition and time in STM did affect retention (better performance with recognition task)
-Shallow processing (i.e. repeating words) can result in equal or superior perfomance
Bower: Organization of Information

Why should I care?
-He proposed organizational schemas for improving storage of info into LTM
-Presented 112 words; 4 trials
-Words fit under categories (hierarchy)
-Control group: words were randomly assisgned to position
-Experimental group: organized in hierarchy
Bower: Results
-Hierarchical organization led to 100% accuracy on 3rd and 4th trial
-Control only got 62% accuracy by 4th trial
Visual Imagery and Storage of Info in LTM
-Paired-associate learning encoded by imagery were recalled at better than 80% accuracy
-Dual coding hypothesis
Tulving & Thompson: Encoding Specificity
-Recognition failure of recallable words
-Wierd pairing: Glue-Chair (learn chair)
-2 tests to see if can recognize chair
Tulving & Thompson: 2 Tests
Test 1: table, top, chair
-not able to recognize chair as target
Test 2: Glue-?
-able to recall chair
Tulving & Thompson: results
Original context cues will give you the best access to the information during a recall attempt, whether those cues are based on verbal, visual, or other info
Godden & Baddeley: Context Effects
-Had deep sea divers learn list of words underwater
-Couldn't recall words out of water, but were able to recall when back underwater
Eich: State-Dependent Learning
-Study high, take test high -> get higher scores vs. if one takes test sober
-Same with alcohol

-Increase access to information in memory by reinstating original learning context
Patient KC: Declarative Dissociation
-Frontal brain damage
-Retrograde and anterograde amnesia for episodic memory
-Intact semantic memory though
-Evidence of a dissociation bwt episodic and semantic systems
Patient HM: Hippocampus lesioned
-Almost complete anterograde amnesia (no new memories)
-Normal memory for motor learning
-Episodic and semantic memory may eventually be compromised since ability to encode new connections to existing knowledge was lost
What region of the brain is important for time-related aspects of memories?
Frontal Lobes
What region of the brain is important for semantic retrieval?
Posterior regions (i.e. hippocampal regions)
HM's and motor skill tasks
-Intact skill learning
-Normal learning curve for mirror drawing task w/ few errors by day 3
-However, HM has no memory of doing the repeated task before (no explicit memory record)
Role of Hippocampus in memory
Critical pathway for successful transfer to LTM
Typical Implicit Memory Results
-Measure with perceptual or word stem completion task
-Show significant priming or facilitation regardless of how info was studied
***Even with no conscious recollection of orginal event, there's facilitation when stimulus is repeated
Typical Explicit Memory Results
-Measure with a recall or yes/no recognition task
-Generally show strong effects depending on how the info was studied
-More elaborative processing leads to better explicit memory performance
Roedigor & McDermont: False Memory
-List of words in which they were all similiar (i.e. dream, night, nap, etc.)
-Reported false memory of hearing word "sleep" which wasn't on list
-Episodic and semanitc memory interacted b/c they said "sleep"
Aristotle: Classical View of Concept
-Concept is a set of neccessary and sufficient features
-Classical view works well with artificial concepts but not with natural concepts
-Doesn't tell much about how semantic memory works (i.e. organization of it)
Example of Artificial Concept
-Not married

Two neccessary, sufficient features
Example of Natural Concept
-Fuzzier category
-Many different features
Collins & Quillian: Semantic Network Model

Two fundamental assumptions are?
- Structure of semantic memory

- Process of retrieving info from structure
What is the structure of semantic memory?
*Semantic Network Model*
-It is a network structure
-Each concept in the network is a node
-Concept nodes are linked by pathways
-Every concept is related to every other concept b/c some sets of pathway (however indirect and long) can be eventually traced bwt 2 nodes
What is the major process that operates on this is structure?
-Spreading activation
-Activation spreads through the network along stored pathways
-Once a concept is activated, the concept spreads activation to other concepts it is linked with
Two types of Propositions
-Property Statements
-Category-Membersip Statements
Property Statements
-Inherit properties from concept above "A robin has wings"
(i.e. has wings b/c bird)

-Can have specific property
"Robin has a red breast"
Category-Membership Statements
"A robin is a bird"
-Is a relationship
-Indicates category membership
-Reverse direction is not true: "All birds are robins"
What are the two orginzational principles of the semantic network model?
1. Cognitive economy
2. Inheritance
Cognitive Economy
-No redundance
-Economize number of concepts stored
-Store properties at highest level of generality as possible to save space
What do the mechanisms of inheritance and cognitive economy allow to happen?
The mechanism allows inferences about higher-level properities rather than forcing the system to store each of them directly and repeatedly
Collins & Quillian: Sentence Verification Task
-Decidide if sentence is T or F
-Used both category relationship and property statements
-Varied semantic distance bwt S and P (distance in hierarchial structure)
-DV was RT
Colling & Quillian: Results
-Longer to retrieve relationship bwt two concepts at more distant levels in the hierarchy vs, those stored closer together
-Fast at category relationships (is a)
-False statements were slowest
How did the subject access the information to make a "yes" decision?
-Spreading activiation
-Find intersection between two concepts
-Decision stage operates to make sure retrieved pathway is valid and repsonse of "true" can be given
What were the con's of Collins and Quillians experiment?
-Spreading activation doesn't explain for the "no" responses
-No explanation of how network is learning
-Silent on ad hoc categories
-Faster with typicality
Ad Hoc Categories
-Categories you come up with on the fly
-Example is "good things to take out of a burning builing"
Why does typicality matter in Collins and Quillians experiment?
-Faster with "yes" response to "A robin is a [bird]"

-Slower with "A penguin is a [bird]"

-Should be equally fast b/c both are one link apart from the concept of [bird]
-No explanation provided for this
Rosch: Typicallity Effects
Collected category membership norms and found some items listed as members of category more frequently than others
Rosch: Typicallity Effects Results
Exemplars listed very frequently as category members yielded significantly faster judgements than those lose of lower frequency
What did Rosch's results suggest?
-Pathways were not all equal in length
-Pathways to less frequent category members were longer,
-Those members were farther away in semantic network than frequent category members
Smith et al.: Feature List
-Most basic structural element was feature list
-Semantic memory is a collection of lists
-Each concept in semantic memory would be represented as a list of semantic features
How does feature list compare to Collin and Quillian's network model
-Simpler than Collins and Quillians network model
-More elaborate in assumptions about the process of retrieval
How are feature lists ordered?
-Defining features
-Characteristic features
-Feature lists are ordered in a priority ranking with defining features at top of list and least defining features at the bottoom
Defining Features
-Necessary features for concept
-Essential feature
-Placed at top of feature list
Characteristic Features
-Not necessary but generally true
-Common but not essential
-Lower features at the bottom of the feature list
How is information retrieved in the Smith model?
-Through feature comparison
-Two types of comparison:
1. Stage I
2. Stage II
What is Stage I Comparison?
-Some randomly selected subset of features on each of the two lists is compared to "compute" the similiarity btw the two concepts
-Comparison process yields a feature overlap score
Characteristics of Stage I Comparison
-Rapid, global comparison of the features
-High overlap score produces a rapid "yes"
-Little or no feature overlap produces a rapid "no"
-No need to continue search when overlap scores are very high or low
What is Stage II Comparison?
-Look at defining features of two concepts being compared
-Careful and slow comparison
-Respond with slow "yes" or "no"

-When overlap score is moderate, a second comparison is necessary
What are the pro's and con's of the feature list?
Pro: it handles what semantic network theory could not (i.e. slower comparison processing when have lower feature overlap)

Con: it is not clear what defining features exactly are
What three characteristics would a modified network representation have?
1. No rigid cognitive economy
2. Properties listed for a concept would be linked directly to concept rather than indirectly via pathways
3. Pathways would be different length reflecting semantic relatedness (which applies to both category and property statements)
How is the amount of one's knowledge connected to semantic relatedness?
-More knowledge and greater semantic relatedness go together
-More you know about something, the easier it is to integrate new related knowledge into memory
-Greater knowledge leads to more activation in memory and enhanced retrieval
What was Roch's argument about artificial concepts that led to the prototype theory?
Roch argued that artificial categories bear little relationship to natural categories
How did Roch view natural categories or real-world categories?
-Real-world category members do not belong to their categories in simple
yes/no, all-or-one fashion
-3 principles of natural categories
Three Principles of Natural Categories
1. Fuzzy definition
2. Family Resemblance
3. Prototypes
Fuzzy Definition
-Ill defined or uncertain membership for many categories
-No single feature seems absolutely necessary as a criterion of membership or classification
-Has most characteristic feature of concept
-Central, core instance of a category
-Average or best example of a concept
Family Resemblance
-Degree of variation from prototype
-Typical members are stored close to prototype and peripheral members are stored farther away
Rosch-Heider: Reasons for studying Dani Tribe
-Dani language has two color terms, one for "dark" and one for "light"
-Used different colored chips as stimuli
Rosch-Heider: Recognition Experiment with Dani
-Administered short and long term memory tasks
-Task was to recognize the chips they had seen before
-Better recognition with prototypical colors even though they don't have words for specific color conepts
Rosch-Heider: Paired-Association Learning with Dani
-Paired chip with clan name
-Use chip as a cue to recall clan name
-Prototypical colored chips were most useful cues
What conclusions did Rosch-Heider draw from the results of the experiment?
-There are structured, mental categories of colors in the subjects' semantic memories
-Categories do not rely on spoken language
-Natural concepts have an internal structure corresponding the the idea of typical and atypical (semantic relatedness)
Rosch: Prototype Theory (Three Levels)
1. Basic level
2. Superordinate level
3. Subordinate level
Basic Level
-Highest level in category at which you can remember what generic concept looks like
-Level best able to use to think and talk about concepts
-Set of features that define concept at this level are specific
What does the Basic Level depend upon?
-Concepts at this level depend on your expertise with the area
-The more knowledge you have in an area, the more specific and distinct your basic level will be
Subordinate Level - How many features does it differ from others?
-Differs by only one or a few features
Priming is a.... (two things)
How is Priming a phenonmenon?
-Mental activation when think about or see concept
-Spreading activation
Why do we study Priming as a method?
We study how things are mentally represented
Key terms associated with priming
-Task (lexical decision, naming)
-Facilitation vs cost
-Stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA)
What is priming across trials?
-One trial is the prime for target trial
-Example: trial such as "fruit-P" is followed by another "fruit" trial
-The first was the prime and the second was the task
Lexical Decision Task
-Present targets consisting of words or nonwords
-Task is to decide if target is word or nonword
-Look at RT
How does semantic relatedness affect lexical decision task?
-Two related words are judged more quickly as words than two unrelated words
-Influence of the meanings of the words
-Words semantically related prime
Priming is Automatic
-Automatic spreading activation (ASA)
-Facilitation is rapid and w/o intent
Neely: Priming Summary
-Lexical decision task
-Each letter string was preceded by a prime, either a related word, an unrelated word, or a neutral prime (baseline condition)
-2 sources of priming: automatic spreading activation and expectancy
Expectancy Priming
-Controlled, deliberate, slower
-Neely told subjects that when see prime word "building" to expect target to be a member of the body part category
Neely: Results for semantic pairing
-Faciliation for prime-target trails such as "Bird-robin"
-Not dependent on SOA
*so semantic priming is automatic
Neely: Results for unrelated prime
-Inhibition effect grew stronger across longer and longer SOA
Neely: Results for "building" prime and body part target
-Should expect switch to body part category: "building-leg"
-At short SOA there was no priming
-At long SOA there was significant priming b/c formed expectancy set due to instructions
Neely: Results for "building" prime when didn't switch to body part target
-"building-door" had faciliation at short SOA (tapped into normal semantic priming) BUT cost at long SOA
-"building-shark" had baseline at short SOA and cost at long SOA
Priming Experiment
-See prime, time passes, see targe
-Task is to name target as fast as you can
-Fastest at naming target when prime and target are semantically related (i.e. prime nurse, target doctor)
Marcel: Priming is implicit process
-Prime was immediately followed by visual mask (scrambled visual pattern)
-Purpose was to present mask soon after the prime so subjects were not consciously aware of the prime
Marcel's Results with Priming
RT's still faster at target when prime was semantically related even though they didn't consciously register prime
Implicit vs Explicit memory priming effect
-Implicit memory priming effect is rapid suggesting priming can operate automatically
-Explicit memory priming effect is deliberate (like in Neely experiment with "building" as expectancy prime)

Deck Info