LECTURE 04
THEORIES OF ATTENTION AND STUDIES OF CONTROLLED ATTENTION VISUOSPATIAL NEGLECT
PSYB57: INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY | UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, SCARBOROUGH | PROF. MICHAEL SOUZA
Lecture objectives
Copyright By PowCoder代写加微信 assignmentchef
To describe the difference between early selection and late selection models of attention, and to provide support for each idea;
To identify the way(s) in which controlled attention affects processing through the spatial cueing paradigm variants, the SAS, the Stroop task and complex visual search;
To explain how feature integration theory (FIT) explains feature binding and how (and why) feature binding can fail;
To describe the attentional blink is, and the way in which we are able to identify it;
To identify the role of the frontal lobes in “stimulus gating;”
To deconstruct simple task switching to unpack the cognitive elements
that contribute to a switch cost;
To understand what visuospatial neglect is (and isn’t), and to evaluate evidence demonstrating that it is indeed an impairment of attention.
The breadth of attention
“Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others…”
(1842-1910)
How/when does attention influence cognitive processing?
A common sense approach to thinking about the bottleneck of attention Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
The dichotic listening task
Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
Filter theory (Broadbent, 1958)
Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
Early-selection model
Limitations of Filter theory
Gray and Wedderburn (1960) Treisman (1960)
Picture: Anderson’s Cog Psych (7th ed) http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/11/23/cocktail-e761d5bf0b90b45e54653010e5226bd2eacda25d-s300-c85.jpg
Attenuation theory (Treisman, 1964)
Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
Late-selection model Early-selection model
Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
Reconciling early and late selection models
Controlled attention to space:
Posner’s Spatial Cueing paradigm
CUE DELAY PROBE
Cues are valid most of the time (80%) Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed)
NEUTRAL VALID INVALID
Controlled attention to space:
Posner’s Spatial Cueing paradigm with faces
CUE DELAY PROBE
Cues are valid most of the time (80%) Senju & Hasegawa (2005), Vis Cog, 12(1), 127-44
Reflexive attention to space:
Peripheral Cueing Paradigm
Figure from Klein (2000), Trends in Cog Sci, 4(4), 138-47.
Cued targets Un-cued targets
DELAY period length
Cueing effect
Inhibition of return (IoR)
NEUTRAL VALID INVALID
Controlled vs. automatic attention: the Supervisory Attentional System (SAS)
Norman & Shallice’s (1980) model
Controlled vs. automatic attention: the Stroop task
Controlled vs. automatic attention: the Stroop task
Response options
Mental representations
Stimulus input
“Blue” “Orange”
BLUE ORANGE
“Blue” “Orange”
BLUE ORANGE
Automatic processing, attentional control not required (correct responses)
Controlled vs. automatic attention: the Stroop task
Response options
Mental representations
Stimulus input
“Blue” “Orange”
BLUE ORANGE
Automatic processing, attentional control required but not used (“classic Stroop error”)
Controlled vs. automatic attention: the Stroop task
Response options
Mental representations
Stimulus input
BLUE ORANGE
excitatory inhibitory
Goal- influenced controlled attention
Overriding automatic processing with attentional control (correct response given)
Controlled vs. automatic processing:
Pop-out and conjunction searches
Picture: Gazzaniga’s Cog Neuro (4th ed) and Anderson’s Cog Psych (7th ed)
Why are conjunction searches more difficult?
Feature Integration Theory (Treisman, 1980) Treisman & Schmidt (1982), Cog Psych, 14, 107-41.
Balint’s syndrome and illusory conjunctions
GK OXOX “Name letter and color “Where is “X” relative to
of first object you see” the “O” on the screen?”
Friedman-Hill, Robertson & Treisman (1995), Science, 269, 853-5.
Exposing a hole in our attention: the attentional blink
Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) Task for participants:
First target:
Odd or even number?
Related to context word or not?
Probe *location* manipulated:
Lag 1, Lag 3 (shown right) and Lag 7
Luck, Vogel & Shapiro (1996), Nature, 383, 616-8.
Exposing a hole in our attention: the attentional blink
Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) Task for participants:
First target:
Odd or even number?
Related to context word or not?
Probe location manipulated: Lag 1, Lag 3, and Lag 7
Also: EEG evidence of accessing attentional blink’s word meaning Luck, Vogel & Shapiro (1996), Nature, 383, 616-8.
Probe accuracy (%) correct
Controlled attention and increased distractions: effects of frontal lobe injury
Increased processing demands caused by deficient sensory input gating Knight, Scabini & Woods (1989), Brain Res, 504, 338-42
Task switching and switch costs
Task switches between letter/digit every two trials
What could switch cost reflect from a cognitive standpoint? Monsell (2003), Trends in Cog Sci, 7(3), 134-140
程序代写 CS代考加微信: assignmentchef QQ: 1823890830 Email: [email protected]
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.