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. |