The ability to distinguish and memorise the items

Abstract The experiment seeks to measure the ability to distinguish and memorise the items one saw. There were sixty-seven participants all of them third year students who take the course Advance Topics in Cognition laboratory. Age and sex were not considered as variables and as such were ignored in the analysis of the results.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The ability to distinguish and memorise the items specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The experiment was to use simple objects that might confuse the participants and be tricky to remember (high in conceptual distinctiveness) and some that would be easier to remember (or low in conceptual distinctiveness). Participants would be presented with items and then they would be asked if they have seen the item before in the experiment (old item) or haven’t (new item). Introduction Human memory accesses or scans items in memory in a short-term old-new r ecognition memory task as proposed by Sternberg in the Sternberg paradigm. Different people scan their memory in different ways with different results with others being better than others in the scanning process (Sternberg, 1966). The participants were presented with list of items and they were to identify if the item presented was from a previously presented list or if it was a new item. This was to give a result and enable a probe on the habits of the human brain in analysis and scanning of items and memory of the same. The standard result having been declared by Stenberg, suggested that the mind scans all items in the mind to figure out whether the new item belongs to an old list of to a new list, hence, the more the items the more the response time needed to figure out. This is whether the target list is new or not. This leads to exhaustion of the brain a factor which further reduces the time needed to respond to the item. Limited capacity parallel access theory and familiarity- based decision making theory have similar results with Sternberg’s RT. The exhaustive search shows consistent results with the mean RT too. Limited capacity parallel access theory however differs in that it assumes that the items are accessed simultaneously but the memory comparison rate decreases as the set size increases. The simultaneous access causes the brain to reduce the effective time taken to compare the item with the items on the other lists.Advertising Looking for research paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More On the other hand, the familiarity-based decision making theory the participants compare the target item to a global composite of all the items in memory; if the familiarity or similarity of the target to this composite memory reaches some threshold then the participants will identify whether the item belongs to the old list or it belongs to the new list (Nosofsky, 2011). Should we obtain standard results in the experiment as of the above theories, it will indicate that the basic underlying architecture of memory access does not vary between the different item types (James, 2001). If the slope sizes are different then this means that accessing the different items has different â€Å"costs†, either in terms of the time necessary to scan each item (i.e., a serial exhaustive model account), the capacity limitation placed on the rate of processing (i.e., a parallel model account) or the rate at which memory for individual items decreases with an item’s lag or its position on the list (i.e., a familiarity-based account). Method Participants The total number of participants was 67, that is, all the 3rd year students enrolled in the Advanced Topics in Cognition Laboratory classes. Apparatus Participants were tested in groups on lab computers running a MATLAB-based experiment designed using the Psychophysics toolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1991). Stimuli Objects used included items which were low in conceptual distinctiveness [earrings, fish hooks, salt pepper shakers, child sip cups, computer keys, jack-o-lanterns, keyboards, microwaves) or high in conceptual distinctiveness [car fronts, juices, mp3 players, road signs, bill money, cigarette packs, coins, muffins] or ProcedureAdvertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The ability to distinguish and memorise the items specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The experiment started by displaying to the participants the various items of study. They were given 500ms to view the items and scan them in their memory. After that, they would be asked to present the items they had scanned (saw during the first procedure), for this they were given 1000ms with 200ms break after each presentation. The memory set was varying in a range of 1 to 5. After the final study item was presented to the participant, an asterisk was placed fo r 1000ms to signal that the next digit presented was the test probe . The item then had to remain on the screen until the participant made a response. This however was marked by as asterisk to indicate that more time was needed by the participant to identify the item. One was required to identify the item being presented to them if they had seen it before they would press the left button but if they think it was a new item then they would press the right button. Results There were 67 participants but only 53 tests were regarded for analysis. This is because 12 of the data files were lost due to the computer error and 2 of the participants results were cancelled after they were found to be less than the average accuracy of all participants 3 x the standard deviation minus. The major analysis was to focus on size 2 to 5 and as such we had trials which were had RT that were less that 200msec or greater than 3 x the std + the average of each of the investigated conditions. 1.24% of the trials were removed using this method. Within each set size, we then compute the median RT for each set size x condition (high v/s low conceptual distinctiveness) x probe (present v/s absent) condition. Set size 1 was excluded from further analysis due to a lack of meaningful RT differences between the probe present and probe absent trials. Advertising Looking for research paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The High CD condition replicates the standard observed lag functions (e.g., Monsell, 1978) The Low CD condition does the same but there is a slight increase in RT for long lists at lags 2 and 3. Note that because the probe’s lag position was not controlled but was just randomly allocated from trial to trial, there are markedly fewer trials at this point (N ~= 85) than at other points (e.g., lag 1, set size 1, N ~= 400). Consequently, the observed lag effect is not significant. Presentation The questions in the questioner were open ended and difficult terms were defined to enhance the understanding of the questions. Simple and easy to conceptualize language was used in designing the questions. This was in a bid to enhance a clear understanding on the side of the respondent regardless of their literacy level. Data obtained from the report was presented in form of tables and graphs. This was done to enhance ease in understanding as well as conceptualization of the results obtain ed. Tables and graphs aided in the summarization of information since they presented them in the simplest form possible (Little, 2011). The briefing of results widened the scope of individuals able to access as well as understands the results. The complexity and tediousness that come with reading large volumes of text is thus reduced. A lot of information can hence be obtained by only a glance at the tables and graphs. Discussion If the experiment gets results that are not concordant with the Stenberg result then this would provide a strong evidence against the above three mentioned theories. The standard Sternberg result is unable to adjudicate between these theories. The slope of the set size function can still provide insight into how different types of stimuli are accessed or into how different clinical populations access items in memory (e.g., people with mental retardation have steeper set size slopes than people without mental retardation, Harris Fleer, 1974). This lab exper iment will focus on the former by comparing lists of items which are conceptually similar and lists of items which are conceptually distinct. In the present experiment, we compare old-new recognition performance for conceptually similar and conceptually distinctive items by using the Sternberg paradigm and varying a) the set size presented on each trial, b) whether the probe is present or absent on each trial and c) the category of items presented on each trial (i.e., either conceptually distinctive or conceptually similar items will be presented on each trial). We are specifically interested in whether a) both types of items result in the standard Sternberg result and b) whether the slope of the set size function is equivalent between both types of items. References Baym, V. (2008). Accurate forced-choice recognition without awareness of memory retrieval. Learning and memory , 454-459. Beins, B. (2004). Research Methods: a tool for life. Michigan: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Brandon, K. (2011). Electron Nursing Documentation as a Strategy to Improve Quality Care. Journal of Nursing scholarship , 154-162. Bruke, J. (2009). Report writing. New York: Cengage. Course, O. U. (2008). Thinking Critically. New York: Open University Worldwide. Covey, S. R. (2003). 7 Habits of Highly Influential People. New York: Hay House Incorporated. Daniel, P. (1991). Videotoolbox Software for visual psychophysics. Transforming numbers into movies , 437-442. Government, A. (2000, June 3). Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 . Retrieved from Comlaw: https://www.legislation.gov.au/ James, W. (2001). Psychology: The briefer Course. New York: Courier Dover Publications. James, W. (2007). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Cosimo. Johnson, T. (1971). A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial precessess. Perception Psychophysics , 161-163. Little, N. (2012). Activation in the nueral network responsible for categorization and reflection parameter. Procee dings of the national Assembly , 333-338. Little, N. (2011). Short-Term memory Scanning Viewed as Exemplar-Based Categorization. Psychological Review , 280-315. Myers, D. G. (2009). Psychology In Modules. New York: Worth Publishers. Nairnei, J. S. (2010). Psychology. Chicago: Cengage Learning. Nevid, J. S. (2007). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Chicago: Cengage. Patrick Mcneill, S. C. (2009). Research Methods: Third Edition. Chicago: Cengage Learning. Phil, R. (2010). Experiment in Psychology. Chicago: Prentice Hall. Ruth, R. (1978). A theory of Memory Retrieval. Psychological Review , 50-108. Susan, S. (1966, August). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science , 652-654. Weiten, W. (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Chicago: Cengage Learning. White, L. (2008). Foundations of Nursing. Chicago: Cengage Learning. William m., J. P. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Chicago: Cengage. This research paper on The ability to distinguish and memorise the items was written and submitted by user Weston Greene to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Audience Analysis Essay Example

Audience Analysis Essay Example Audience Analysis Essay Audience Analysis Essay Running Head: AUDIENCE ANALYSIS Audience Analysis COMM 285 University of Phoenix 7 August 2010 Audience analysis is the first step in any communication process: it gives you the tools you need to shape your product and your message. In order to communicate effectively with your audience, you need to understand who they are, what groups they belong to, and what values they hold.(Locker, Kienzler, 2008) The vice president of Ann Taylor Clothing Stores had a successful approach to dealing with and learning her target audience. She researched her target audience and then divided them into groups and developed a fashion line for each target. Creating information in this manner is not unheard of in the office environment. If a company followed Ms. Krillâ„ ¢s pattern they would see an increase in production and effectiveness, because the workers would have intimate knowledge of the targets. There are many decisions to take into affect when developing information for a target audience. Throughout the remainder of this paper we will discuss audience levels, individual analysis versu s group analysis, and channels of communication. These basic items will assist any individual or company with developing quality information that will be retained by the employees while yielding maximum effectiveness. AUDIENCE LEVELS The first step in audience analysis is to know or discover who your audience is. As explained in chapter two of Business and Administrative Communications, most organizations have multiple levels, so it is only right that there be varied levels of organizational messages. The first level of organizational messages is the gatekeeper. A gatekeeper has the power to stop your message instead of sending it on to other audiences. A gatekeeper is typically a supervisor or section director/head. The next level is the primary audience. The primary audience will decide whether to accept your recommendations or will act on the basis of your message. You must reach the primary audience to fulfill your purposes in any message. (Locker, Kienzler, 2008) The primary audience is normally a board or committee brought together for a specific project. The next audience level is the secondary audience will either comment or make plans based of the information received. Secondary audiences can be legal te ams, inspection teams, or sales representatives. The last two audience levels are the auxiliary audience and the watchdog audience. The auxiliary audience may read and review the message but have nothing to do with the information. An example of an auxiliary audience member would be a person from the logistics department reading a report from the training and development department. The last audience, the watchdog audience, has a political or social responsibility and monitors company business for integrity and trustworthiness. Once you decided the different audience levels one has to determine how they will address them, as individuals or as a group. Each will have a different set of challenges which will be discussed below. INDIVIUAL ANALYSIS vs. GROUP ANALYSIS As a speaker it is important to have background information on the people you will be addressing. Each individual being addressed will receive the information differently; it is impossible to please all listeners when presenting. Knowing a person age and skill level will often give a person a foundation to begin planning what format will be suit the listener. Also knowing a personal job requirement can be an asset when developing information. Though all parts of the information we are sharing is important and may play into one another, each member or section may only need a portion of the entire product to move to the next step. In our age of information technology supervisors have their preferred method of receiving information. Some may choose to receive information on spreadsheets and other my want power point slides. Knowing the main receiver will ensure information is set up to maximize their understanding. When dealing with a group demographics play a major role in disseminatio n of information. Knowing pay information is irrelevant when giving a briefing, but know the companyâ„ ¢s target demographics will be a huge help. Another aspect to take into consideration is dominant figures of a group. Not all members of a group have the same input or knowledge on all the information being discussed. All members should be aware of the all situation, but reality is that most are not set up to be that functional. COMMUNICATION CHANNELS A communication channel is the means by which you convey your message. Communication channels vary in speed, accuracy of transmission, cost, number of messages carried, number of people reached, efficiency, and ability to promote goodwill. (Locker, Kienzler, 2008) There are many types of communication channels that are used to disseminate information in a group setting. The most often used in an informal meeting, this type of setting is more relaxed. Minutes are not taken and attendance is not normally required. Informal meetings are rarely publicized and are mainly known by those attending. Informal meetings can be held by teleconference or by small group. There is normally one person guiding the meeting along but participants are allowed to comment at any point without introduction or permission. Informal meetings may also be held away from the office setting. Many decisions are made over lunch, breakfast, coffee, or tea. Formal meetings on the other hand, are preplanned and the to pics are normally predetermined. Formal meetings also have objectives that the mediator would like to achieve prior to the end of the meeting. Official correspondence is sent out well in advance to remind and request attendance to a formal meeting. This type of meeting are held by senior company executives and attended by department supervisors or directors. The ultimate goal of communication is to pass information from one medium to another. In business this theory has been narrowed from one individual, department, or company to another. The items mentioned above are not the total answer to effective communication but will lay a solid foundation for business communication. In summary, it is important to understand what audience levels will be attending a company meeting; of the five discussed our target will be within one of them. Once the audience levels have been determined the next step is to determine the individuals of meeting or the group as a whole. Group meeting in more general and will take less time. Having a basic understanding of each individual, if feasible, will better assist with information dissemination and product development. Lastly, having a good channel of communication is key to passing along a clear, simple to follow, accurate message. REFERENCES Locker, K, Kienzler, D. (2008). Business and administrative communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin