Class Notes (834,265)
Canada (508,451)
Psychology (3,977)
PSYC 2650 (196)
Dan Meegan (73)

PSYC2650 Lecture notes 1.docx

9 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 2650
Dan Meegan

PSYC2650 – Lecture Notes Sept. 11, 2012 INTRO Cognitive psychology – scientific study of human mind; includes cognitive science (i.e. philosophy, computer science, linguistics, neuroscience/biology, developmental, social, and clinical and medicine) o cognitive neuropsychology = study of mind in brain damage o attempts to break complex behaviours into their component processes  i.e. what processes involved in taking notes during lecture?  Sensation (eyes and ears), perception and recognition, attention, memory (stored knowledged), memory (creating new memories), decision making, and action (writing) - Intelligent behaviour = artificial intelligence different than the way humans think o neural networks = new intelligence computations the way humans do - applications: engineering and industrial design human factors, human-computer interaction o law reliability of memory (eyewitness testimony, repressed memory)  how to mimic situation ethically? o Business/marketing/economics consumer behaviour HISTORY (of the study of the mind) Armchair philosophy – casual observations about human cognition o Greek philosophers o British Empiricism (nurture, i.e. Locke, Hume, Barkley) o Continental Nativism (nature, i.e. Liseness?, Spinoza?) o American Pragmatism (i.e. James – Principles of Psychology; first described what he did as psychology, even though used philosophical approach) - Making observations of minds using one’s mind (using no other tools) - Problem: how to observe the “mind” using scientific methodology (black box problem: stimuli box? response) o Solutions: Introspection – (Wundt, 1879) “look inside” and see what’s going on  Highly-trained observers report contents of consciousness under controlled conditions  Introspective observations, i.e. imagine Jimi Hendrix feeling of recognition, imagining (hearing) his music, flood of associations  Problems: contents of consciousness are difficult to describe o Individual differences in concreteness (vs. abstractness) of contents (imageless thought can’t concretely see image) o Difficult to verify (private events, not public; i.e. biases desirability) o End product, not the process description of what result is, can’t tell about process that led to result o Only conscious processes are accessible – what about unconscious processes? Sept. 13, 2012 Behaviourism – behaviours reaction; if you can’t see it, don’t bother talking about it  Ignore anything that cannot be controlled (stimuli) or directly observed (response)  Problem: can’t observe “mind” using scientific methodology temporary end of cognition as a subject of scientific inquiry o Black box problem: Stimuli no box?  response  Create situations where can change behaviour through conditioning no reference to mind Empiricism – mind is a “blank slate” (Locke; tabula rasa) at birth, develops through experience (learning) o Desire to be a respected science  Strict experimental control in lab  Animals as subjects (ethical reasons)  Problems: can’t account for diversity and complexity of behaviour (i.e. language – Chomsky, linguist) o Other sciences have not been limited to directly observable (i.e. electrons, quarks, genes) o Not helpful at addressing applied concerns during WWII (human failures in technology, bombs, advancement revolution)  Legacy: provided set of rigorous techniques for experimental study in psychology o verbal learning and memory (tradition) in cognitive psychology Cognitivism – origins: human factors researchers return to academe following WWII Broadbent (1958) Perception and Communication  Chomsky’s (1959) criticism of Skinner’s behaviourst account of language  Computer science and info theory (analogy between minds and computers)  Neisser (1967) Cognitive Psychology  Cognitive approach: infer what is going on inside the box (black box problem: stimuli no box?  response)  Computational view of mind: underlying assumptions = cognition is somehow like a computer program o cognitive psychologists need to figure out the program  information processing: info = sensory data; internal representations, knowledge, memories (past experiences) stored o processing = operations, procedures, transformations  criticisms: ecological validity lab oversimplification o neural plausibility model doesn’t correspond with what we know about the brain (i.e. brain damage patients)  Neuroscience METHODS - Methods: Behaviour (i.e. mental chronometry), functional neuro-imaging, cognitive neuropsychology (agnosia, amnesia, aphasia) Mental chronometry – using measurement of time (chronometry) to make inferences about mental events Reaction time (RT) – time that elapses between onset of stimulus and response  Assumption: more stuff to do (more processing stages) = more time it will take o Donders (1868) = Dutch ophthalmologist (diseases of eye) developed ideas for mental chronometry  Contributions: mental processes are measurable; experimental, reliable, allows to make inferences (i.e. about black box)  Important today: subtraction method still frequently used, especially in neuro- imaging research Functional neuro-imaging – PET, fMRI; increased brain activity during cognitive tasks  Problems: many regions active during cognitive performance  Solution: subtraction method can make inferences about separate parts  i.e. (experimental condition = activity associated with processes A, B, C) – (control condition = activity associated with processes A, C) = activity associated with process B o Info-processing stages: stimulus processing more processing response  stimulus detection response (detection RT)  Stimulus detection decision response (choice RT) = longer than detection RT  Subtraction method = detection RT – choice RT = duration of decision stage  Problems: assumption of pure insertion addition of a stage (i.e. decision stage) leaves all other stages unaffected Sept. 18, 2012 Iconic memory – auditory stimulus presented + weren’t paying attention, have ability in moments to follow to hear it again (like echo) - If letter shown in a position as if in a word, should be more likely to see it word superiority effect Cognitive neuropsychology – what the damaged brain, and the resulting cognitive deficit, can tell us about normal cognitive function - Face recognition is uniquely important (non-damaged brain) faces distinguish us o Unique processing in brain localized brain damage helps show  In damaged brain, if shown face, wouldn’t be able to recognize, but able to recognize other objects; vice versa o Compare faces we see to other faces we’ve experienced o Store house for faces different from store house for other objects Prosopagnosia – inability to recognize familiar faces (with spared ability to recognize familiar non-face objects); several reports Visual agnosia – ability to know things using vision but inability to know what looking at o (John) Can make out individual letters but hard to hear whole word o Can start from stroke, operation o Can’t structure visual input appropriately o Damage could affect signals to both eyes   Process signal in visual association cortex  (Larry) Could also be damage to limbic system blockage between 2 vision areas  Can see flower but can’t enjoy it (at least it’s visual aspect) limbic system cuts of emotional connect  No emotional kick out of what he sees (more emotional kick from other senses)  Pattern recognition in tact can still read  Problems in retrieving knowledge can’t put meaning to structure o Handicap is very limited and specific personality, speech, common sense unaffected; vision impaired o Gets fragments of the world sees bits but unable to pick up whole picture Sept. 20, 2012 (missed lecture) - Double dissociation = study prosopagnosia without object agnosia; object agnosia without prosopagnosia o Reported cases of both object agnosia without prosopagnosia = rare, i.e. patient C.K. (27 yr old Canadian hit by motorcycle while jogging) Capgras syndrome – can recognize familiar people, but convinced that people are not who they appear to be o No emotional recognition (vs. prosopagnosia = no cognitive recognition) RECOGNITION - Visual agnosia = “stranger in the mirror” o Have cognitive recognition of parts and whole, but can’t tell you what whole is o i.e. John = no cognitive recognition (part or whole), but emotional recognition o i.e. Larry = no whole cognitive recognition but part recognition, and emotional recognition Theories of recognition: how we recognize familiar visual/auditory stimuli Visual pattern recognition – template matching vs. feature analysis Template matching – for any visual pattern, recognition requires a match with a stored template  problems: failure of template to match anything but specific pattern conflicts with our remarkable recognition abilities Feature analysis – patterns = combos of elemental features (i.e. T = | + -- )  evidence from neuropsychology patients who lose ability to recognize objects can sometimes describe individual features (i.e. John) o neurophysiology neurons in visual system are “feature detectors”, i.e. vertical line detectors  single-cell recording  determining cell’s feature preference one receptive field found, try different types of visual stimuli  i.e. cats stick electrode in brain and record particular properties of cell? What makes it fire? o i.e. cell responds vigorously to “L” measure response to _ and | response to _ > | = horizontal line preference  feasible/plausible just because it makes sense doesn’t mean we use it  recognition of 3D objects/features = GEONS Speech recognition – word-segmentation problem = what appears to be a burst of noise is actually a gap low (???) o feature analysis = features phonemes words  [voicing voiced, place of articulation bilabial] [b][ē][r] = beer  Evidence ??? = consonant confusion [b] voiced, bilabial sounds more like [p] voiceless, bilabial (vs. [t] voiceless, alveolar) - Context in which you place a stimulus influences how you perceive it (i.e. lab 1: word superiority effect refresh rate) Word superiority effect – letters presented very briefly in 1 of 2 contexts (alone or in word)  Recognition more accurate in word  Context improves performance  Top-down processing Sept. 25, 2012 - (Warren and Warren, 1971) found that *eel was on the axle, subjects hear “wheel” o *eel was on the orange = “peel” o Same auditory info, but hear word depending on context ATTENTION - “taking possession by mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what see several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalisation, concentration of consciousness are of its essence. Implies withdrawal from some things to deal effectively with others.” - Selective attention (James’ focus; where we devote our sources), divided attention (can’t truly do 2 things at one i.e. driving and texting), and vigilance (implies knowledge in advance) Selective attention – where most contemporary research on attention focuses visual attention o Classic/early research on auditory attention
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2650

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.