One of the earliest models investigating attention was developed by Broadbent (1954, 1971 cited in Edgar 2007) who considered that incoming information on different sensory "channels" was selectively filtered and that only one stream could be semantically processed at a time. This model typified the "bottleneck" approach to selective attention. His work focused on filtering and the early stages of processing. The bottleneck operates by filtering out sensory information on the basis of physical characteristics so that most incoming sensory information receives no conscious processing at all. He examined this through the split-span procedure.
Another idea that the amount of information we can attend to and process is limited is embodied in a theory proposed by Kahneman (1973 needs citing, as above). He suggests that within the brain there needs to be some sort of limited-capacity central processor. He believes that the processor is responsible for analysing incoming information and integrating it with information already held in the memory. He has examined just how much information can be processed and if this remains the same at all times. He has suggested that increased arousal would lead to more information being ‘taken in’ and processed. Kahneman redefined attention as "mental effort", limited resources being allocated according to momentary and enduring dispositions. Furthermore, Kahneman believed that some tasks required little processing as they were overlearned, automatic skills. Thus, several activities might share limited cognitive resources.)
However, Treisman, (needs citing within chapter) described the "cocktail party" effect, i.e. that it was possible for other input to intrude if relevant information was detected. Tr...
... middle of paper ...
...nse they have to give as part of the other task, then interference will occur. Stroop found that people found it harder to name what colour ink a word was written in if the word was the name of a different colour than if the word was colour neutral. Thus, an apparently automatic process, reading in this case, interfered with a controlled process, naming the colour of the ink, and made completing the task at hand harder.
The experiment found that unconscious semantic processing of words on an unattended channel was intruding upon a task of naming ink colours. This was consistent with the Stroop effect. The extent of the effect was dependent on the neutrality of the control stimulus. Future research conducted in this area should attempt to manipulate task similarity in a more definite manner and be careful to ensure that the dual tasks are presented simultaneously.
The ultimate goal for a system of visual perception is representing visual scenes. It is generally assumed that this requires an initial ‘break-down’ of complex visual stimuli into some kind of “discrete subunits” (De Valois & De Valois, 1980, p.316) which can then be passed on and further processed by the brain. The task thus arises of identifying these subunits as well as the means by which the visual system interprets and processes sensory input. An approach to visual scene analysis that prevailed for many years was that of individual cortical cells being ‘feature detectors’ with particular response-criteria. Though not self-proclaimed, Hubel and Wiesel’s theory of a hierarchical visual system employs a form of such feature detectors. I will here discuss: the origins of the feature detection theory; Hubel and Wiesel’s hierarchical theory of visual perception; criticism of the hierarchical nature of the theory; an alternative theory of receptive-field cells as spatial frequency detectors; and the possibility of reconciling these two theories with reference to parallel processing.
Hubel and Wiesel defined the classic receptive field as a restricted region of the visual cortex. If a specific stimulus fell into this area, this may drive the cell to evoke action potential responses (Zipser, Lamme & Schiller, 1996). By shining orientated slits of light into the cat’s eye, they were able to discover that each cell had its own specific stimulus requirements (Barlow, 1982). Different cells differed from each other in many ways; some preferred a spe...
Due to its key in understanding attention, the study that lead to many other related investigations, originated by examining interference in reading automaticity. Stroop furthered his research by creating tasks involving color naming and reading. He first compared the time it took to read color names printed in incongruent ink colors to a base line reading of color words. For the second part of his study, Stroop compared the time it took to name the ink color when congruent with the color word (e.g., blue printed in blue ink) to the time it took to name the ink color.
Though the term “inattentional blindness” would not be conceived until 1998, the concept itself is not new. As cited by Simons and Chabris, Hungarian neurologist and psychiatrist Rezso Balint wrote in 1907 “It is a well-known phenomenon that we do not notice anything happening in our surroundings while being absorbed in the inspection of something…” (1999). Using the term “selective looking,” Ulric Neisser, an American psychologist, demonstrated this idea in 1979. In his study, he instructed subjects to count the number of times a group of participants threw a basketball to each other. While the subjects were focused on this attention demanding task, a woman with an umbrella walked in the middle of the participants. At th...
Processing capacity is a very broad and flexible category according to many researchers. In fact, the quote above mentioned suggests that we often fail to notice things that happen just in front of us (unexpected events that are often salient) either because we were completely absorbed by something else or because we had so many things to do at the same time that we couldn’t pay attention to it. We have all at least once failed to see a friend who was waving at us while eating in the cafeteria or walking in a crowded street. The primary question that we should ask ourselves is: how many things can we attend at the same time? The truth is that we didn’t perceive this friend because of a phenomenon called “inattentional blindness”. The problem is that the richness of our visual experience leads us to believe that our visual representation will include and preserve the same amount of detail (Levin et al 2000). In this paper we’ll see the different theories of inattentional blindness, and the classical theories demonstrating this paradigm.
...ce for increased activity in visual areas or the fusiform gyrus, which is connected with color perception. These results have shown that spoken words result in co-activation of color processing areas, but not visual areas connected with the perceptual process of color. Sadly, the conclusions don’t reveal which perceptual or cognitive processes might cause the difference with people with synaesthesia and the controls.
Ratey, John J., and Albert M. Galaburda. A User's Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and
...dering had an impact on performance while reading aloud and during a version of the Stroop task. During both experiments the researchers found mind wandering rates to be high and negatively associated with inaccurate responses across both conditions. In Stroop trials the researchers observed the slowest response times and highest error rates with incongruent trials (read word ‘red’ in green ink), however this was also the condition with the lowest amount of reported mind wandering. Increased mind wandering rates also forecasted slower reaction times; the findings suggest that processes associated with reading may correspond to those related to mind wandering.
This umbrella term compromises ‘various complex cognitive processes and sub-processes (Elliott, 2003). It refers to ‘the set of abilities that allows an individual to select an action that is appr...
The way that our brain processes information and responds to the awareness of things is a very complex system with in the brain. One study mentioned talks about the integration of senses in the brain and how we process the information. “Another study better illustrates the integrative nature of this synchrony. Words were presented in various locations on a screen; whether the subject became aware of the word’s color or if its location-indicated by being able to recall is later-depended on whether a frontal or temporal area was activated during the presentation. But if the individual registered both the color and the location, additional activity occurred in a part of the parietal cortex (Uncapher, Otten, & Rugg, 2006).” (Garrett, pg.501) This research demonstrates how different people react differently to stimuli and different levels of their cognition and awareness. It is important for people to develop a sense of awareness in order to function fully in the world. The book argues “that one apparent advantage is that it enables consistency and a playfulness in our behavior that would not be possible otherwise. (Garrett, pg. 502) It is human nature to rely on a consistency and the ability to plan ahead which is why the function of awareness is so important to the human
Craik and Tulving did a series of experiments on the depth of processing model. They had participants use a series of processing methods to encode words at different levels; shallow, moderate, and deep. The subjects were shown a series of words and ask questions about the words that would provide a "yes" or "no" response. At the shallow level they were asked questions about whether or not the word was written in capital letters. At the moderate level of processing, the subject was asked questions as to whether or not two words rhymed. Finally, the subjects were asked about words in sentences and whether or not they fit. This was the deep level of processing. After participants had completed the task they were then given a surprise recognition test with the words that they were just asked questions on (target words) and then words that they have never seen before (distraction words). The results of the experiment showed that people remembered the words better that were at deeper level of processing (Craik and Tulving 1975).
Well, let's take a look at the brain. From being in class, my awareness about what I'm doing, what I'm seeing, what I'm hearing, what I'm thinking has come to reflect upon not just what, but how is it all being done by my brain. This morning I woke up, my eyes opened, I looked out my window, I saw the sun rising, it was this beautifully deep yellow/orange color. I thought, "How beautiful" and I smiled with a sense and feeling of wonderment. It could be said that I experienced nothing out of the ordinary this morning. Yet, if I could narrate these few activities in terms of the networking of neurons resulting in my eyes opening, my sight of the sun, my ability to perceive its color, my inner acknowledgment of its beauty and the emotions that sight evoked in me, you would be reading for a very long time and what I did this morning would indeed present itself in quite an extraordinary light. It is in recognition of this, with respect to the brain's aptitudes, that Howard Hughes in his paper, "Seeing, Hearing and Smelling the World" quoted May Pines in expressing, "We can recognize a friend instantly-full face, in profile, or even by the back of his head. We can distinguish hundreds of colors and possibly as many as 10,000 smells. We can feel a feather as it brushes our skin, hear the faint rustle of a leaf. It all seems so effortless: we open our eyes or ears and let the world stream in. Yet anything we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste requires billions of nerve cells to flash urgent messages along linked pathways and feedback loops in our brains, performing intricate calculations that scientists have only begun to decipher"(1).
This phenomenon of memory has been tested many times using the Wadsworth CogLab false memory experiment. In the Wadsworth experiment, participants are presented with a list of words each of which is shown for one and half seconds. These experiments usually entail six trial lists. After each list is shown, the participants are given a set of response buttons labeled with the words from the list. The buttons also include normal distractor words (a word that is unrelated to the list but was not shown), and special distractor words (a word that is related
Khaneman (1973) devised model of attention as he believed a limited amount of attention is allocated to tasks by a central processor. Many factors determine how much attentional capacity can be allocated and how much is needed to carry out a task, as the central processor has variable but limited capacity which is dependent on motivation and arousal. The central processor engages a variety of tasks such as motor, visual, auditory, memory and so on. The central processor evaluates the amount of concentration necessary to meet task demands, which forms the basis of allocation of capacity.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological review, 88(5), 375.