Psy504-first-assignment-solution
Enlist and explain any five example metaphors that can help
you think about the limited resource characteristic of attention. (1+1+1+1+1

Q2: Define the early selection approach and the experiment
done by two undergraduates on attention and meaning. How are the two approaches
different from each other? (3+2)
Early selection advocates argue that the locus of selection is at early stages of processing and
that therefore, unattended stimuli are not fully processed. In contrast, late selection theorists argue that attention operates only after stimuli have been fully
processed.
Explain any two early selection attention models/experiments.
(2.5+2.5)
Experiment 1: Implicit Memory
After the interview and screening
tests, each participant was trained on the task for ∼15 min in a quiet room before
the implicit memory test started. Participants completed 30 practice trials.
None of the practice trials were presented at test. The implicit classification
task lasted about 35 min and consisted of a study phase and a test phase as
described above.
Experimental Design
The experimental design consisted of
a 2 (group: young adults and older adults) × 3 (study condition: attended,
unattended, and non-studied pictures) mixed factorial design. Group was the
between-subjects factor and study condition was the within-subjects factor.
Encoding Phase
As described above, participants
performed the conceptual classification task on each of the 36 trials and were
asked to respond as fast and accurately as possible.
Test
Phase
After the study phase, and when the 3
min (distraction task) had elapsed, participants performed the speeded
natural/artificial classification task by pressing one of two keys. In this
phase, participants were presented with the 72 studied pictures that had been
displayed during the encoding phase (36 attended and 36 unattended), intermixed
with 48 new pictures. The order of presentation of the 120 stimuli (36
attended, 36 unattended and 48 non-studied) was randomized for each
participant.
The trial sequence started with a
central white fixation cross appearing for 20 s, followed by the picture
outline presented in the center of the screen. Participants categorized the
picture as fast as possible. Latency was measured from the time the picture
outline appeared on the screen until the participant’s response (see
Figure 2). Performance was assessed
by the response time at which the stimuli were correctly classified.
When the experiment ended,
participants were asked if they were aware of the repetition of the stimuli.
The results confirmed that none were aware that stimuli from the first phase of
the experiment had been presented again.
Results and Discussion
To investigate whether the young and
older adults were similarly accurate in the classification task at encoding, we
calculated the mean number of errors of the older adults and the young adults.
Four young adults were excluded from the analyses due to technical problems.
Three older participants were also excluded due to their low accuracy (below
75% correct). So, 20 young adults and 17 cognitively normal older adults
entered into the analyses. The mean number of errors of young adults and older
adults were 1 and 2, respectively. The univariate ANOVA performed on accuracy
using the number of errors as the dependent variable showed that the main
effect of group was marginally significant [F(1,35)
= 3.92, p = 0.05, MSE =
2.34, partial η2 = 0.10, 1-β error prob = 0,38].
To assess conceptual repetition
priming, separate ANOVAs were performed using the percentage of errors and RTs
as dependent measures. Trials with reaction times (RTs) faster than 200 ms or
slower than 2000 ms (3.5 and 4.6% for younger and older adults, respectively)
were excluded from the analyses. shows the average response time taken to
classify the attended, unattended, and non-studied stimuli as a function of
group and study condition.
Experiment 2: Explicit Memory
A new set of 120 picture outlines was
used in this explicit memory task. After completing the study phase in which
they were asked to attend to the stimuli of a prespecified color and to
remember them for a subsequent memory test, participants performed the old–new
picture recognition task inside the scanner to evaluate the influence of
attention at encoding on explicit memory. At test, the 72 pictures presented at
study plus 48 new pictures were displayed one by one. The procedure used was
similar to that of the implicit classification task. Only the test instructions
changed.
Encoding Phase
Participants were instructed to try
to remember the stimuli presented in a given color (green or blue) while they
performed the classification task. Half of the participants attended the blue
picture outlines and the other half to the pictures with green outlines.
Test Phase
At test, attended, unattended, and
new stimuli were presented in black in a different random order for each
participant. They indicated whether the picture was “old” or “new” by pressing
one of two response buttons.
Results and Discussion
In the encoding phase, two young
participants were eliminated due to technical problems and two older adults due
to their low accuracy (below 75% correct). Twenty-two young adults and 18
cognitively normal older adults entered into the analyses. The mean number of
errors for older adults during the encoding phase was 2.1 and for younger
adults 1.4 (out of a maximum of 36). The univariate ANOVA conducted on errors
as the dependent variable for group (young and older adults) showed that the
main effect of group was not statistically significant [F(1,38) = 2.38, p >
0.05, MSE = 2.10, partial η2 = 0.05, 1-β error prob = 0.32].
The analysis showed that the two age groups were similarly accurate at
encoding.
illustrates the recognition
performance of young and older adults expressed in terms of the correct
recognition memory of hits – false alarms using frequencies as a function of
study condition. The results clearly show that there was recognition memory for
those picture outlines that were attended at encoding but not for unattended
stimuli.
Q4: Evaluation of demands on capacity generates a feedback
loop and brings about changes in the attention allocation policy. Give any five
examples from your daily life (with reference to Kahneman’s capacity model) in
which you had to change your attention allocation policy due to different
demands of the task. (1+1+1+1+1)
I remember when I have to perform two
tasks at same time I have to make proper attention for both tasks so I have to
maintain a certain level on which I can concentrate on both tasks for example
mostly I wash dishes and make tea at same time so my main attain area is air my
air start working on specific type of noise which milk make while boiling. So
whenever I listen that noise I know milk is going to boil so I quickly stop the
tap and turn and medium the flame. .
The end
Comments
Post a Comment