Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
82 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Define Knowledge
|
The Mental representation used for a variety of cognitive functions
|
|
define categorization
|
the process by which bits of information are placed into categories
|
|
why do we categorize information?
|
categories allow us to quickly glean information about new inputs
|
|
describe the “puppy” the first time you see a horse
|
it’s not that we cannot discern any difference
rather, we have not yet created a new category |
|
Definitional approach to categories
|
determine membership in category by whether the object meets the definition of the category
doesn’t work well says we need separate categories for dogs and three-legged dogs a papisan is defintely a chair, but doesn’t look like our definition at all... |
|
Prototype approach to categories
|
uses the “typical definition” for the category
which is abstract allows for deviation without distroying the usefulness of the category |
|
Rosch’s ranking by category
|
“sparrow” is very birdlike indeed
penguins less so bats even less so a chair, way less |
|
high v. low prototypicality
|
Rosch
a sparrow is more typical and thus better represents the prototypical bird while a penguin represents it less well speed of processing depends on prototypicality |
|
Prototypical approach and priming
|
Rosch
things that are definitely green but farther from the prototype take longer to positively or negatively identify |
|
Exemplar approach to categories
|
concept is represented by multiple actual examples
(not abstractions) so you compare the item to stored examples works great with variables |
|
How do we use the exemplar approach?
|
similar to prototype, we rank based on family resemblance
but as more cases are atypical, we can account for them works great with variables |
|
when might we switch between proto and exemplar approaches?
|
exemps might be better for small categories
protoyp for larger |
|
Specificity and categorizatoin
|
Global features
basic features specific features note that basic features may be the most informative, becuse specifics add little information |
|
Semantic network approach
|
the big, upside-down tree
branched items share characteristics |
|
cognitive economy
|
major benefit of a semantic network
similar items share properties, so we needn’t classify each item with all of its own charateristics laid out |
|
semantic network:
spreading activation |
activation of the network spreads from node to node
this allows for a priming effect |
|
Lexical Decision Task
|
read two words quickly, ask if both are words
closely related words showed faster reaction time perhaps because of spreading activation |
|
Criticism of semantic network model
|
cannot explain typicality effects
some sentence-verification results show variance based on personal experience, suggesting a more-tangled network |
|
collins and loftus:
revision of semantic network model |
allowed for more freedom in network connections
with shorter links for more closely related concepts no hierarchy: based on personal experience works better to describe results of lexical decision task but lacked falsifiability |
|
Connectionist approach
|
neuron-like units
inputs, then some hidden unit does filtering and directing, then outputs ”parallel distributed processing” knowledge is the represented in the distributed activity of many units explains: generalization of learning, graceful degradation (gradual performance loss as parts are damaged, instead of simply breaking the chain) |
|
parallel distributed processing
|
feature of the the Connectionist Approach
knowledge represented in the distributed activity of many units |
|
Categories and brain anatomy
|
different areas may be specialized to process different categories
categories are reperesented by distributed activity (including similar patterns for similar features) |
|
Mental Imagery
|
experiencing sensory impression in the absence of sensory input
provides another way to access info, beyond purely verbal techniques such as “what is the captitol of France?” |
|
why do we recall lists of items better if they’re nouns?
|
we can mentally image objects better than concepts
conceptual peg hypothesis |
|
conceptual peg hypothesis
|
we create mental pictures that let us access the memory of the item
boat-hat |
|
manipulation of mental imagery
|
with age, we get better at mentally manipulating the images in our minds
(turn the hat upside down) when rotating images, further rotation results in longer response times |
|
how accurate are we at perceiving distance, etc, in our mental images?
|
we do have some representation of distance in our minds -- remember activity where we visualized the walk to starbucks, then to manley -- just picturing it actually took longer
then arrows pointing at dots -- the farther away the arrow, the longer the response time, because we’re recreating the image in order to make the judgement |
|
distance and detail in mental imagery
|
remember the rabbit and elephant, and rabbit and fly?
you have to mentally zoom to see details on the rabbit, thus losing info on the elephant but for the fly, RT is must lower, even though it’s the same scale ratio the concept of distances changes our ability to imagine traversing that distance |
|
Perception v. Imagery
|
a difference there, but an overlap in brain function
some of the same neurons fire when asked to imagine a baseball as when shown a baseball so, these are category-specific neurons... but there’s a differnece in visual cortex activation |
|
visual cortex activation:
perception v. imagery |
similar neurons light up, but there are differences
|
|
regions that light up during both perception and imagery
|
frontal lobe
visual cortex |
|
TMS
|
transcranial magnetic stimulation
disrupts brain function in very specific areas for short periods of time so if behavior is disrupted, the deactivated part of the brain is what is causing the behavior |
|
results of TMS testing on perception and imagery
|
theoretically, zapping occipital lobe should only affect perception, frontal lobe only imagery
but there is overlap: both tasks are slowed in both circumstances perhaps we perceive items, but use th the frontal lobes to name and categorize them... |
|
Unilateral neglect
|
when patient ignores one half of the visual field
when asked to draw an image, the affected patient will only draw half of the object |
|
brain damage and dissociations between imagery and perception
|
one guy could look at and reproduce a drawing of a cat, but not from his imagination
the other guy, with different brain damage, couldn’t name a picture of a cat, but could draw a cat from memory |
|
Synesthesia represents?
|
evidence for separate but shared mechanisms in imagery and perception
|
|
flipping mental images of ambiguous figures
|
difficult!
perception can be quickly accessed, but one mental image may be stronger than the other... |
|
ways to use imagery to improve memory
|
visually interacting images (hat-boat)
method of loci (items in a house) pegword technique (one-bun, two-shoe) |
|
peg word
|
associate mental images with each peg item
one-bun, two-shoe, three-tree |
|
define language
|
hierarchical system
governed by rules that uses a system of sounds or symbols to express ideas |
|
Universal traits of language
|
hierarchical -- sounds make words, words make sentences, sentences make novels
governed by rules regarding arrangement of components (although the rules themselves differ by culture) |
|
language development across cultures
|
even cats have learned some language rules
all cultures use mimicking, etc like the kids at the fridge all have nouns, verbs, questions, tenses, etc and don’t forget baby language |
|
Dunstan
|
baby language!
universal language comprised of five sounds which occur naturally as a result of the bodily functions they represent |
|
Skinner v. Chomsky
|
Skinner says we learn language through reinforcement
Chomsky says language is in our genes, because of the universaility of traits, and the fact that children create sentences they’ve never heard before |
|
define psycholinguistics
|
studying the psychological process by which humans attain and use language
|
|
Lexicon
|
all the words a person understands
what they mean, how they sound, how they’re used |
|
Phoneme
|
shortest segment of speech that, if changed, changes the meaning of the word
and it’s phonics -- the sound, not the spelling |
|
Morphemes
|
smallest unit of language that has meaning or grammatical function
so friendliest has friend, li, and est, all of which add meaning ”doed” or “funner” show inappropriate combinations of morphemes |
|
Phonemic restoration effect
|
we can fill in missing phonemes bsed on context
because of our familiarity with the language |
|
Speech segmentation
|
the component pieces of speech: Context
understanding of meaning understanding of sound and syntax statistical learning |
|
Word frequency effect
|
we respond more rapidly to high-freq words
measured in a lexical decision task |
|
eye movement measurements and text
|
we jump over some words without looking at them at all, and are still able to grasp meaning
we’ll look at low-freq words longer and maybe every single letter if we need to interpret something we’ve nver seen before |
|
context effects and text
|
we attempt to figure out what a sentence means as we read it
|
|
lexical ambiguity
|
words and syntax have more than one meaning
”the rabbi married my sister” we need to find context within the situation to determine meaning including waiting for further words to be added to switch meaning... |
|
Lexical priming
|
1. stimulus activates a representation of the stimulus
2. and we can respond more rapidly if activation is still present when stimulus is presented again remember bug and spy and all that ... same category played in background makes response time faster, same word in different category (like bug) doesn’t have the same effect |
|
bug + insect/spy
|
example of lexical priming...
|
|
define semantics
|
the meanings of words and sentences
(So things can be gramatically correct but still semantically wrong) |
|
define syntax
|
rules for combining words into sentences
|
|
brain regions and semantics/syntax
|
different areas light up when understanding meaning v. producing grammatically correct words
so you can have difficulty grasping meaning, or you can have troulbe producing correct words but you don’t necessarily have both |
|
Parsing language
|
mentally grouping words in a sentence into phrases
the central process for determining the meaning of a sentence cast iron sink |
|
Parsing: syntax first approach
|
grammatical structure of the sentence determines parsing
Late Closure Garden Path not everyone agrees |
|
Late Closure Parsing
|
syntax first approach to parsing
parser assumes a new word is part of current phrase (so the sink in cast iron sink, until we added the s to make it a verb) |
|
Garden Path Parsing
|
syntax first approach to parsing
reader follows wherever you take her, including making the wrong decision until there’s enough information to clarify your meaning |
|
Parsing: Interactionist approach
|
Semantics has a greater influence over interpretation than syntax
which allows for lexical ambiguities to be resolved the spy saw the man with the binoculars... |
|
Tannenhouse apple towel thing
|
eye movements change when information suggests a revision of our interpretation
suggesting that syntactic and semantic info is used simultaneously |
|
what has the primary role in interpreting sentences: semantics or syntax
|
tannehouse and his apple towel thing say both are used simultaneously
|
|
Understanding stories:
coherence |
we form a representation that makes one part of the text relate to another part of the text
we assume that the first and last paragraphs are connected we assume the story is coherent |
|
Understanding stories:
inference |
readers create information that is not explicitly stated
maybe this is why the book is better than the movie... reader will claim that things were written or said that werent, based on inference |
|
Why do we claim things were written or said that werent?
|
inference!
|
|
Anaphoric inference
|
this is how pronouns work...
we don’t have to repeat the name, because we’ve already estabilished a connection between it and a known set of pronouns |
|
Instrumental Inference
|
we can infer that shakespeare was using a quill pen to do his work...
|
|
Causal Inference
|
we can determine that events in one clause affected the events in another
|
|
Types of Inference
|
anaphoric
instrumental causal |
|
Situation Model
|
we create mental imags to go along with a story
and thus represent events as if experiencing them from the protag’s POV so, reaction times were faster for a horizontal nail than a vertical nail when presented with “he hammered the nail into the wall” |
|
Physiology of simulations
|
approximately the same areas light up as when actually doing the task
but less so so if you read the word “legs” you get the same activation, though less intense, as when you move your leg |
|
Semantic coordination (conversation)
|
conversations go quickly and smoothly if participants have shared knowledge
like when we talk in half thoughts, etc... |
|
Given-new contract
|
the speaker constructs sentences so they include given info and new info, which allows the new info to become given, and so on...
|
|
example of given-new contract
|
Ed was given an alligator for his birthday
given here is that he had a birthday, new is the alligator info then: the alligator was his favorite present: given is he got the alligator for his birthday, new is that it was his favorite present |
|
Syntactic priming
|
how one mimicks slang and accents
the production of a grammatical construction by one person increases the chance that the other person will use the same construction and this reduces the computational load (speaking similarly requires less cognitive resources) |
|
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
|
language influences thought
like the spectrum of blues... we have special names to further differentiate the blues |
|
categorical perception
|
stimuli in same categories are more difficult to discriminate than stimuli in two different categories
“Are these colors different (light blue and sky blue)” v. red and green |
|
language and color perception
|
different languages can affect color perception (russian description of the blue chips was different)
but different languages have a similar “best” example of a color |