Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

35
Ψ Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

description

Ψ. Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-. Perception & Imagery. Perception. Imagery. Cognitive functions. Perception. Emotion Motivation Action. Attention. Memory. Imagery. Decision-making. Reasoning, problem-solving. Language. Perception. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Page 1: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

ΨΨCognitive Psychology

Winter 2004

-Discussion Section-

Page 2: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Perception

&

Imagery

Page 3: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Cognitive functions• Perception

• Memory• Attention

• Decision-making• Reasoning, problem-solving

• Imagery

• Language

Emotion

Motivation

Action

• Perception

• Imagery

Page 4: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

PerceptionPerception, Imagery, Shepard & Metzler and Review. There is no way that I can go in any detail in Perception.

So let´s just review the most important principle.

Page 5: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

PerceptionWhat we perceive is NOT a exact copy of the external world, it is a selective RECONSTRUCTION.

It is a MENTAL REPRESENTATION.

(of aspects of the external world)

Page 6: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Implications:

1) Things that we perceive might not be actually present in the environment.

2) Things that are actually present in the environment might not be perceived (see: Attention examples of last time).

3) Changes in the environment might not result in changes in perception.

4) Changes in perception might not result from changes in the environment.

4 fundamental non-correspondences

Page 7: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Perception

4) Shepards tables

1) Kanisza triangle

Page 9: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Perception

3) Color-constancy

Page 10: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

PerceptionFundamental Reason 1: Duham-Quine Paradox

time

I

Page 11: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

PerceptionReason: Limited Sampling. Inference with limited information. „Aliasing“. Needs assumptions to disambiguate.

0 10 0 7 6 1 9 0 0 10 0 7 6 1 9 0

Page 12: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Perception1 Physical Stimulus 2 Filter1 (Static) 3 Filter2 (Variable) 4 Filter3 (Variable) 5 Mental representation 6 Filter4 7 Mental representation 8 Filter5 9 Action.

1) e.g. Light

2) e.g. Photoreceptors

3) e.g. Eye movements

4) ATTENTION!

5) Commonly refered to as PERCEPTION!

6) ATTENTION!

7) MEMORY!

8) Action selection

9) e.g. Catching a ball

Page 13: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Perception

On the other hand, this allows us to study the assumptions, the PROCESSING by looking at illusions and how people perceive them.

Page 14: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

PerceptionA huge brain machinery is devoted to process visual information alone. 30% of the brain. At least. Together with other perceptual information: Easily 50%. To allow us to act efficiently on impoverished input.

Page 15: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Imagery

Some demos...

Page 16: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

The Problems:

•Too introspective•Too qualitative

•Too subjective, idiosyncratic

Page 17: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

High stakes...

Stephen Kosslyn, John Lindsley Professor of Psychology at Harvard University

Page 18: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Mental scanningKosslyn, Ball & Reiser (JExP, 1978)

Page 19: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

The imagery debate(s)„Do mental representations of images retain the depictive properties of the image itself?“

„Yes!“

Stephen Kosslyn Zenon Pylyshyn

„No!“

Page 20: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

The propositional perspective

!?

Pylyshyn:

Page 21: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

The argumentsMental images represented by

relations between symbols

(language-like)

•Distortions by labels, heuristics

•Demand characteristics

•Computer metaphor

Mental images represented in analogous form

(vision-like)

•Moot point 1: Anderson (PsycRev,1978): RT not diagnostic due to Representation/Process tradeoffs, emulating both.

•Moot point 2: Representation = Process. Need to look at neurophysiology for the CODE.

•„Spatial equivalence“

•„Perceptual equivalence“

•„Transformational equivalence“

Page 22: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Resolution 1 - Paradigm„Visual mental imagery activates the same areas as visual perception“

(Kosslyn, et al., JCogNeuro, 1993)

Page 23: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Resolution 1 – Paradigm

„Visual mental imagery activates the same areas

as visual perception“

(Kosslyn et al., JCogNeuro, 1993)

Page 24: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Resolution 2

„Visual mental imagery activates many visual areas, INCLUDING V1“

(Kosslyn et al., Nature 1995; Kosslyn et al., Science 1999)

Page 25: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Current state:

•Imagery: Top down!

•Basically the same systems:Frontal cortex ? … ? IT V4 V2 V1.

•Perception: Classically bottom up:Retina LGN (Thalamus) V1 V2 V4 IT ? … ? Frontal cortex

Page 26: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Shepard

The grand old man of psychology

Page 27: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Mental rotation•Shepard & Metzler (Science, 1971)

Page 28: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Mental rotation

•Issue?The nature of mental representations? Can they be manipulated like one would expect from the laws of physics? Does the internal world follow the principles of the external world (it doesn´t have to!)

Page 29: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Exam review

•Purpose?

To scare you into studying. You can´t wing it.

Page 30: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Exam review

•Ground rules:

No cheating. You WILL regret it!

Page 31: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

Exam review•Format:

•6 essay questions. One from each field (Intro, Reason, Attention, Perception1, Perception2, Imagery). Do 5 of them.

•10 Multiple Choice Questions.

•1 Bonus Question.

Page 32: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

•Attention:*Explains many things and nothing. A theoretical fudge factor. Equals “trophic factors”.

*There are many models, all of them fail to capture essentials of the phenomenon. Prominent: Treismans Attenuation theory, Broadbents early selection theory.

*Most useful to think of as a variable filter that generates mental representations for action selection.*There are processes that are automatic, others need attentional resources. They reflect a tradeoff.

*Attention involved in many phenomena: Visual Search, Popout, Change blindness, etc.

Page 33: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

•Perception:*Perception is the formation of a mental representation of the environment.

*This representation is NOT isomorphic, but subject to many correspondence errors. *To overcome the inherent ambiguity in sensory data, the brain makes assumptions about the world. (Learnt in phylogeny, ontogeny). Like Gestalt rules. * These assumptions can be uncovered by research with visual illusions.

Page 34: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

•Imagery:

*Activation of a mental representation from memory. In ABSENCE of a stimulus.

*Most brain areas active in perception are also active in imagery.

*Paradigmatic case of TOP-DOWN processing.

*Debate between Pylyshyn and Kosslyn whether mental representation in imagery analog or propositional. (Since 30+ years!)

Page 35: Cognitive Psychology Winter 2004 -Discussion Section-

•Reasoning:* There are two ways of reasoning, deductive (Rule Particular instance) and inductive reasoning (Data Rule). They both have advantages and disadvantages.

* People are subject to many biases in reasoning, most particularly the confirmation bias, which usually affects them in hypothesis testing. (Elicited by Wason selection task). Also common: Baserate neglect.

* People should try to falsify, not to verify their hypotheses.