によって Joerg Bauer 17年前.
912
もっと見る
"Last Traces"
Weights of stored knowledge of the system (genetics, salience, needs)
Location Based
Half Plate is eaten
Object Based
Half Clock drawn
Other Evidence
Flanker Effect (Shaffer and LaBerge)
Broadbent saves Treisman
Cat is not percieved - its primed, or it takes only minimal Att because of priming
It takes longer to decide ‘dog’ is an animal when surrounded by words of another category
Non attended words are processed - Att. not needed to join features
Re-Entrant Model of Processing
Evidence:
Observational
Masking effects
Enns& DiLollo: Masking: With four dots around -isn't expected
Attentional Blink
No awareness of secnd T if presented shortly after first
Neurological
Recurrent Processes are stopped
Top-Down: Hypothesis confirmation
Bottom-Up Parrallel: Generates highlevel Hyptothesis
Two-Stage Model
If the second customer chats to behind forgets what he came for (info overwritten)
RSVP: Epsiodic info morea easily overwritten
RSVP: If stim. replaced /decayed= nothing to attend to possible
While Stage 2 is engaged , made difficult later information cannot be processed, so has to remain at Stage 1
2. Serial (Attention) Processes to join Sem + Epi for concious report
1. Parallel processing of features (Identity (Semantic), Size. Location, Shape, Colour(Episodic)
Sperling (50ms)
Only Simple cues: not "attend to vowels "
3-4 letters from 12 when cued by after signal
If attended: Enter WM
->Iconic memory
Attention by simple cues: colour and position (tone cue)
Lamme
Phenomenal Conciousness
More complex stimulus pop out
Flanker-Effect should not be possible: Words need binding - However Attn only only on middle word
Duncan + Humphreys: L+T (L should still pop-out)
Today: "Efficient Search"
POP-Out Effect
Parallel Search (no Attn)
No. of distractors play no role
If only single feature no Attn required
Target pops out
Serial Search (Attn)
Conjunction Search (Featrue binding is neccessary)
No. of Distrators plays role
Distractors
Distractors need Attn
Target
Doesn't pop out
Paralell search when target and distractors discriminated by single feature
Patient with pariatal damage wrongly binds features
"Preattentive" Processes vs. Focal Attn.
Binding Features (Inital Perception as "Soup of features")
Unfocused
Devided
Sinlge
Zoom in / out
level of detail gets worse
Object / Location based / Semtincs based
Attention tying together different modalities
Ventriloquism Effect
Firure / Ground selection
Can follow story ear to ear
By changig neural acitvy (shrinking / enancing receptive field)
By Eye Movements
Visual Search
Orientation reaction
Lamme: Stimulus driven: size, contras, movement etc
Current Goals / needs
Salient Stuff
Allports Berries:
We cannot pick more than 2 berries
Attn. fits possible actions
To enable for concious report
Coltheart
Evidence: When pushed in Sperling they report letters but no colours or loc.
Dorsal and Ventrals (What, Where) streams in visual processing
Patient DF: It has been suggested (Goodale and Milner)ventral system recognizes objects. Object Related! The dorsal system more in driving some action in relation to an object. Viewer Related
--> Attn joining two parallel proceses
Consious generelly only when Combining Semantic (general) and Epsisodic (detail)
Cross modal Binding
ventriloquism effect: sound seems to come from lips in front although speakers on side
To combine features
We need attention to combine features into objects
Late Filtering: Deutsch and Deutsch were wrong: Not Everything is processed fully
Bottleneck to protect serial procssor
To overcome limited number of neurons
Lamme / DeLollo
receptive fields of neurons of higher visual areas seem to "shrink" around biased stiumuls
Early Filtering: Broadbent
Not Completely
Treisman
What about unattn. Stim?
Attn can follow simple cues to shift
dont need much attn to be recog
Reason=Priming
Masking Evidence
Evett & Humphreys: Invisible Lion Primes Tiger
Shadowing Evidence
Neurological Evicence
Meaning Cues Corteen and Wood: Response to unattended "Shocked words"
Cocktail Party Effect
Meaning Cues: Little red riding h continued on the other ear even when shadowed
We do process meaning!
Evidence: ERPs
Brain Stem: Normal Signal. Cortical: less magnitudeattending away from a stimulus actually reduces the intensity of the signal in the brain
Attention for Attentuation (Turning Down a Signal)
Completely
Broadbents Filter Theory
Evidence
but remember if voice m/f
but echoic store: If short messages: remember last words
Broadbent: Dichotic Listening: Dont remember anything from unattended ear
We can only attend to one thing ("gate") at a time
Need to protect a serial processor overflow