Transcript ME of dos. & context & INT

DVs in attention research
• Two most important are RT and accuracy
• Speed-Accuracy trade-off = usually, the faster
the response, the less accurate it is
• Slower responses tend to be more accurate
• Often, look at both to see what’s going on.
Theios (1975)
•
•
•
•
Subject named a visually presented digit
DVs were RT and accuracy
IV was stimulus probability (.2 to .8)
Eg, “6” occurs only 20% of the time, but “7”
occurs 40% and “9” occurs 80%
• Theios found no significant differences in RT
• But failed to take into account error rates on the
simple task of naming digits.
FIG: Kanto8e 8-7: Theios (1975)
Interactions: Lorig et al (1991)
•
•
•
•
•
DV was event related potentials (ERPs)
High tone on 75% of trials (frequent)
Low tone on 25% of trials (rare)
Observers counted low & ignored high tones
Also varied % musk: 0, 20, (unaware) and 88
(aware).
FIG: Kanto8e 8-12: Lorig et al
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 2X3 example 1
80
70
60
Good
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 2x3 e1: ME of dos. & context, no INT (On the
average, percent correct recall (PCR) increased
with increasing drug dosage. On the average,
PCR was higher for good than poor context.
However, the effect of varying context on
performance was identical at each level of
dosage.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 2X3 example 2
80
70
60
Good
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 2x3 e2: ME of dos. & context & INT (On the
average, PCR increased with increasing
dosage. On the average, PCR was higher for
good than poor context. Varying context had
no effect on PCR when 0 mg of the drug was
taken, but had an increasingly differential
effect on PCR as the dosage increased.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 2X3 example 3
70
60
Good
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 2x3 e3: ME of dos. & context & INT (On the
average, PCR was different when taking the
drug than when not taking the drug: Compared
to the no-drug condition, PCR was higher when
taking 100 mg and lower when taking 200 mg.
On the average, PCR was slightly higher for
poor than good context. There was a slight
advantage in PCR when subjects were given
poor context in all but the 200 mg dosage
condition.)
FIG: 3X3 example 1
Percent Correct Recall
80
70
60
Good
Medium
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 3x3 e1: ME of dos. & context & INT (On the
average, PCR increased with increasing
dosage. On the average, PCR increased with
improved context for remembering. The
advantage of medium context over poor
context was identical at all three dosages,
however the advantage of good context over
both of the other levels of context differed
across the levels of drug dosage. Specifically,
the advantage of having good context was
greater when taking the drug than when not
taking the drug.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 3X3 example 2
80
70
60
Good
Medium
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 3x3 e2: ME of dos. & context, no INT (On the
average, PCR increased with increasing
dosage. On the average, PCR was identical
with poor or medium context, but was higher
with good context. However, the advantage of
good context over the other two levels of
context was identical at each level of drug
dosage.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 3X3 example 3
80
70
60
Good
Medium
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 3x3 e3: ME of dos. & context & INT (On the average,
PCR increased with increasing dosage. On the
average, PCR was identical with poor or medium
context, but was higher with good context. The
advantage of good context over the other two levels
of context was identical when the drug was taken,
but was greater when no drug was taken.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 3X3 example 4
80
70
60
Good
Medium
Poor
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 3x3 e4: ME of dos. & context & INT (On the average,
PCR increased with increasing dosage. On the
average, PCR was lowest for medium context, slightly
higher for poor context, and highest for good context.
For the placebo group, medium context led to slightly
higher PCR than poor context, and good context led to
much better PCR than the other two levels of context.
This advantage of good context over the other two
levels of context was reduced for the 100 mg group,
and there was no difference in PCR between poor and
medium context. For the 200 mg group, there was an
advantage in PCR for good context over poor context,
and an even greater advantage over medium context.)
Percent Correct Recall
FIG: 3X3 example 5
Good
Medium
Poor
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0mg
100mg
Drug Dosage
200mg
ME’s and INT’s in above Figures:
• 3x3 e5: no ME of dos or context, but INT (On the
average, PCR was the same across all three drug
groups, and was the same for all three levels of
context. However, the lack of two significant main
effects was obscured by the presence of a complex
cross-over interaction, in which increasing the drug
dosage improved PCR for those with poor context,
harmed PCR for those with medium context, and
had no effect on PCR for those with good context.)