Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Psych 200
Object ID
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Object Identification | Simple models of patter recognition. Used with letters and word examples, Template matching, interactive activation models, and Geon Models |
| Interactive Activation Model | What you compare to is a prototypical representation. Good for expanding the idea to objects rather than just words. |
| Template Model | Template stored in your head for each possible input, match the input to the template to identify an object. Problems: Too many possible templates; predicts no learning transfer to novel views of objects |
| Solso & McCarthy | Studied morphed Faces. Then rate faces as new or old and confidence. Prototype models consistent with interactive activation models. |
| Biderman's Geon theory | View invariance Geons can be identified even when viewed from different angles because they have certain invant properties. Discriminablity Geons can be discriminated from each other from almost all viewpoints |
| Pro's and Con's of Geon Theory | Small set of geons can be put together in lots of different ways to make a vast array of objects. Consistent with idea that basic features give rise to object recognition. It has no neurophysiological support for Geon detectors. |
| Geon Theory and Prototype Models | Can all be integrated into a interactive activation model |
| Problems extending object recognition to multiple object scenarios | Distributed coding predicts limitations. The blinding problem, how does information from specialize brain areas get integrated. FIT |
| Tresman's Feature Integration Theory | Sensory features coding in parallel by specialized models. From two kinds of map: feature maps, implicit spatial info, and a master map of locations. |
| Role of Attention in FIT | Moves with in the location map. Selects whatever features are linked to that location. Other locations are excluded. Evidence: visual research, adaption effects |
| FIT | Attention is necessary for object recognition. But attentional capacity is limited. Demos of capacity limits |
| Inattentional Blindness | Gorilla Video |
| Attention Blink | CogLab |
| Change Blindness | CogLab Picture changes |
| Attention | Only aware of a subject of stimuli capacity limits ability to handle different task or stimuli at once |
| Colin Cherry's Experiment | Ear listening and recalling experiments. Findings: cant comprehend both, shadowing is better with pitch difference. Conclusion: non attended ear is processed only to the point of basic perceptual features. |
| Moray's Experiment | would say something 35 repetitions, however would still not remember it, recognition tests |
| Broadbent's | Found that with short lists would report items from one ear than the other... suggested his early attentional selection bottle-neck model. |
| Wood & Cowan | shadow: name appears in "off" channel, people notice name 35% of the time replication. But made errors shadowing at time name +1 and name +2 |
| Corteen & Wood | Shock people to city names. Found: same names that we trained 38% GSR response. Other city names 23%. Report: didn't hear, cant repeat from an unwanted channel |
| Stroop Effect | A word that can be in a different color, Very Robust |
| Flanker Effects | Only attend to the central item. Processed to the point of recognition |
| Deutsch & Deutsch | Laste selective attention: 1/3 notice name in cocktail party effect. GSR response in Corteen & Wood smaller when cities appear in unattended channel than attended channel |
| Difference between Early vs. Late Selection | Tasks where memory is involved. The other one has no delay. Implication: Active meaning when items are present but it is not remembered. |
Created by:
1248150307
Popular Science sets