Transcript Extra Credit Opportunity

Extra Credit Opportunity
• On-line study:
• www.usd.edu/~mschrist/diss/consent.html
• Print out and give Dr. Carrier copy of email reply that you get from doing the
study
Chambers & Reisberg (1985)
• people memorized figure similar to one
below
procedure
• Next, from memory, people recall the
image, and say what it is
– People either say duck or rabbit
• Next, people asked to reinterpret image
from memory
– Predictions: analog theory  people should
have no problem reinterpreting
– Propositional theory  people shoud not be
able to reinterpret
results
• None of the Ss able to reinterpret the
image from memory
• Next, had Ss look at the figure
– Then, Ss able to reinterpret ambiguous figure
(figure that has two or more interpretations)
• Supports propositional approach
Brooks (1968)
• P. 201 in textbook
• First, Ss shown an outline figure (e.g., the
letter F in textbook)
• Then, Ss mentally imagine going around
the figure, visiting every corner, deciding
whether it is an outside corner (Yes or No)
2 response conditions
• Manual response: point to a YES or a NO
on a sheet of paper for each corner
• Verbal response: say out loud YES or NO
• If we have a true visual image, then expect
manual response to interfere with doing
the task (i.e., the Brooks task)
– Further, expect manual responses to be
slower than the verbal responses
Results
• Found manual response to interfere with
the task  supports use of visual images
(visual code)
• Supports analog theory
Shepard & Metzler (1971)
• Sometimes referred to as “mental rotation”
experiment
• P. 197 in book
• 3-d block figures – 2 shown at a time, side
by side
• As quickly as possible, S decides if two
figures represent different views of the
same object (speeded task) (yes-no)
more
• In book, p. 197
– Figure 7.10 (A) : same object so YES
– (B): YES, same object
– (C): NO, different objects
• Original hypothesis: that people use visual
images to do task – mentally rotate one
picture to see if it lines up with the other
results
• Prediction: if people use visual images and
rotate one image to line it up with the
other, then
– The larger the difference in angle between
two views of same object, then the longer it
should take to respond YES
• Results: RTs supported the prediction,
thus analog theory
summary
• Some experiments support analog theory;
others support propositional theory
Organization of memories
• Categorization – forming or having
categories of memories
– Category = related set of memories/items
– Members/exemplars/examples = actual items
in category
Example category
• Category of Furniture
• Rosch & Mervis (1975): Ss asked to say
typical items of furniture; then Es
combined Ss response to see average
categories (Table 8.5, p. 233)
• Furniture: 1. Chair; 2. Sofa; 3. Table; 4.
Dresser; 5. Desk
• 16. Clock; 17. Picture; 18. Closet; 19.
Vase; 20. Telephone
What constitutes typicality?
• Family resemblance: some members of a
category look more like the rest of the
examples than other members do
• An “attribute”: a feature of an item
– E.g., attribute of a chair is that you sit on it
– E.g., sofa has cushions
• Ss were asked to list all of the attributes of
all of the members of the category
More from Rosch & Mervis
• Then, Es add up all of the attributes that
each member shares with the other
members of the category
– E.g., how many attributes of a chair are
shared with the other furniture category
members?
• Higher numbers  high family
resemblance; lower numbers  low family
resemblance
Results & interpretation
• Results: family resemblance scores were
significantly correlated with typicality
ratings
• Interpretation = categories are organized
based on the number of shared features
amongst members (family resemblance)
Hierarchical organization of
categories
• Rosch and colleagues
• “natural” categories: categories that occur
in everyday life
• 3 levels: (Table 8.4, p. 230)
– Superordinate (highest level) (e.g., furniture)
– Basic (middle level) (e.g., chair)
– Subordinate (lowest level) (e.g., easy chair)
• Typicality reflects family resemblance at all
levels