Psychology 100:12 Chapter 5 Sensation & Perception Part V

1. Psychology 100:12 Chapter 5 Sensation & Perception Part V

2. Outline • Pattern recognition • Attention • Bottleneck theories • Capacity theories • Cells phones and driving Study Question: • Why might a proponent of Kahneman’s attention theory feel that driving a car while talking on a cell phone is a bad idea?

3. Perception Perception Feature detectors • Visual Illusions, attempt II. • Fraser Illusion • Lines • Perspective • Stereokinetic object • Auditory Illusions • Never ending auditory staircase • Shepard Illusion

4. Perception Other evidence for feature theory: Stabilized retinal images. Physiological nystagmus Perception Perception Feature detectors B H

5. a b d c Perception Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors • Problems with Feature theory • How features go together are as important as the features themselves.

6. Perception Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors • Structural Theories • Like feature theories, except that they also consider the structure of the features (i.e., How they go together. • Biederman’s Theory of 3-d object recognition. • Geons: 3-D ‘volume’ features

7. Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors -> Eliminating information about the relationship between geons should be detrimental to pattern recognition. E.g.,

8. 100 % 50 % 70 % Recognition accuracy Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors -> What are these objects?

9. Perception Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors • The word superiority effect

10. R A I D

11. X X X X

13. D

14. W O R D D R U E D X X X X X X X X X X X X _ _ _ D _ _ _ D _ _ _ D Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors Perception • The word superiority effect -> It is easier to identify a letter in the context of a word than by itself.

15. Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors • The interactive - activation model: Bottom-up

16. Perception Perception Perception Feature detectors • The interactive - activation model: Top-down

17. Perception Pattern Recognition Perception This xentexce is xasy tx read xven txough xvery xifth xettex is goxe Hxw xbxux txix oxe, xhxcx hxs xvxrx oxhxr xextxr xixsxnx? Thxs oxe ix haxdex bexauxe exerx thxrd xetxer xs mxssxng. Herx evexy foxrth xettxr hxs bexn rexlacxd.

18. Work Dieting Romantic movies Literature Opera Ballet Doughnuts TV Pork rinds Football Cheap meat Beer Attention Perception Perception Feature detectors • Dichotic listening § Shadowing Doughnuts ,TV, Pork rinds, Football, Cheap meat, Beer ...

19. Attention • Bottleneck theories: Early selection • The bottleneck metaphor • Cherry (1953): What do we perceive in the unattended ear? • Physical characteristics • Not meaning • Where’s the unattended message? • Broadbent’s all-or-nothing filter 1 7 4 6 8 3 6 8 3 1 7 4

20. Tree Rock Homer Barn Street Table Horse Chair Desk Paper House Attention • Problems with the all-or-nothing filter • Moray’s (1959) experiment Table, horse, chair, .. Homer...

21. Hand me that bird jumping in the street I saw the girl song was wishing Attention • Treisman’s experiment I saw the girl jumping in the...

22. Attention Capacity theories of attention • Different tasks require different amounts of mental effort § i.e., Automatic vs. Controlled processing e.g.1, Attentional resources and Driving e.g.2, Automaticity and word recognition The Stroop Effect

23. PURPLE BLUE YELLOW PURPLE GREEN BLACK ORANGE GREEN RED YELLOW BLUE GREEN

24. BLUE YELLOW PURPLE GREEN BLACK ORANGE GREEN RED YELLOW BLUE GREEN PURPLE

25. Attention Capacity theories of attention • Kahneman’s Model § Limited resources to allocate to different tasks § Spreading attention out over multiple tasks results in performance decrements e.g., Mowbray’s (1953) experiment - Trying to copy notes and listening to a lecture

26. Attention Resolving the locus of the bottleneck • Johnston & Heinz’s (1978) multimode theory - Measured the amount of resources required to shadow using a dual task procedure. - Participants shadowed on either the basis of pitch (early) or semantic category (late) - Viewed a computer monitor and had to hit a button quickly whenever a dot appeared on the screen (detection). •Results No list 1 list 2 lists 2 lists (pitch) (semantic) Detection time 310 ms 370 ms 433 ms 482 ms Shadowing errors n/a 1.4% 5.3% 20.5%

27. Attention • Johnston & Heinz’s (1978) multimode theory - Measured the amount of resources required to shadow using a dual task procedure. - Participants shadowed on either the basis of pitch (early) or semantic category (late) - Viewed a computer monitor and had to hit a button quickly whenever a dot appeared on the screen (detection). •Results No list 1 list 2 lists 2 lists (pitch) (semantic) Detection time 310 ms 370 ms 433 ms 482 ms Shadowing errors n/a 1.4% 5.3% 20.5%

28. Attention Attention • The cell phone diversion • Strayer’s Research • Used a driving simulator • Single vs. dual task • Hands free vs. hand held • No difference • Can drivers recognize objects that they have fixated on? • Recognition accuracy for fixated objects about half when conversing • Even when fixation duration is equated performance was far worse • The inattentional blindness hypothesis • Cell-phone conversation disrupts performance by diverting attention from the external environment associated with the driving task to the cellphone converstation. • Demo

29. Attention Attention • The cell phone diversion • Strayer’s Research • What about strategic reallocation? • There are important and unimportant objects • Two-Alternative forced choice recognition • Drivers rated the importance of the items. • Performance was significantly poorer in the dual task. • even when fixation duration is controlled. • Absolutely no effect of the importance of the object on the inattentional blindness effect.

30. Attention Attention • The cell phone diversion • Strayer’s Research • Conversing on the phone vs. with a passenger • Instructed to drive 8 miles down a freeway and exit at a truck stop. • Only 12% of drivers with a passenger missed the exit. • About 50% talking on a cell phone missed the exit • The passengers assisted the drivers

31. Attention Attention • The cell phone diversion • Strayer’s Research • Conversing and driving vs. drinking and driving • Car-tailing paradigm • Compared .08% alcohol intoxication with hands held and hands free. • No differences were observed between the cell phone conditions • Both Alcohol and phone groups showed impaired driving • 4 of the cell phones talkers rear-ended the pace car (none of the drinkers had a collision)