Info for PSYC231 Lab report Please note that to do this lab report you need (a)TO THINK. One goal of the lab report is to help foster your thinking skills

Info for PSYC231 Lab report

Please note that to do this lab report you need

(a)TO THINK. One goal of the lab report is to help foster your thinking skills.

(b) to WORK ON YOUR OWN (this is NOT a group project). Collaborative efforts will be regarded as academic fraud (cheating).


Steps (1 - 7) to the lab report:

1) Obtain the four critical readings (listed below) from Closed Reserve or office EA611.

Bartlett, J. C., Hurry, S., & Thorley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces. Memory & Cognition, 12, 219-228.

Jones, T. C., & Atchley, P. (2002). Conjunction error rates on a continuous recognition memory test: Little evidence for recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 374-379.

Rakover, S. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1-30.

Reinitz, M. T., Morrisey, J., & Demb, J. (1994). Role of attention in face encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 161-168.


2) Read the papers

A. Key aspects of the papers

a) The Bartlett et al. (1984) paper may be the most difficult one to read. Just do your best. The bottom line: They suggest that familiarity is a process that underlies face processing/memory.

b) Jones and Atchley (2002) consider familiarity and recollection as memory processes underlying word performance. They used a conjunction paradigm in a continuous recognition task to evaluate the role of familiarity and recollection in recognising compound words.


2) Read the papers

A. Key aspects of the papers (continued)

c) Rakover (2002) reviews a number of manipulations and theories relevant to face processing and memory.

d) Reinitz, Morrisey, and Demb (1994) used faces drawings in a standard study-test conjunction paradigm. Their theory appeals to the roles of features and configurations in recognition memory. Note that this approach is an alternative to theories that use familiarity, though the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.


3) Think about the papers that you have read and consider how they relate to the experiment done for the lab report.

A. Think some more. (We will not answer questions about the content of the readings until

you have read the papers and done some thinking).

B. In the lab report introduction, you will describe previous work and ideas on face memory, as well as on memory in general. You will then need to indicate the purpose of the current experiment (i.e., the one done for the lab report).


4) Analyse the data for the lab report.

A. The data are available via Blackboard, Pavlov, and the computers in EA402. Calculate the means and standard deviations (or standard error) for the different conditions (for each lag).

B. Make a table or figure using the means. (You can include this table or figure in the lab report.) Figures can be done by hand as long as they are done neatly. Look at the data and think about them. Describe the data to yourself. (You should describe the data in the lab report.) Think about how they related to theory.


4) Analyse the data for the lab report. (continued)

C. YOU need to decide what statistical comparisons should be made. (We will not tell you which comparisons you should make.) You can calculate 10 within-subject (i.e., dependent) t-tests either by hand or with SPSS (available in EA402) or with another software package, if you like.

If you know how to conduct the appropriate 2 x 4 Repeated Measures ANOVA, with post-hoc tests (if necessary), then you can do that analysis instead of the multiple t-tests.


4) Analyse the data for the lab report. (continued)

D. You can do the statistics by hand and submit the written out steps of the statistics for extra credit. Each correct t-test written out by hand will earn .5% of an extra mark (total possible extra = 5%).

Just attach the written out work to the end of the lab report.


5) Write the lab report.

A. See the useful writing tips document to help you.

B. See the Lab Manual for the components of the lab report and formatting.

a) Method section: Information for the methods appears in the slides below.

C. Use the lab on semantic priming as a template for many aspects of the lab report.

6) Proofread the lab report and fix errors.


7) Submit the lab report by 26 September 2005, 5 p.m.

Location: Assignment box labelled PSYC231 on the 4th floor of Easterfield.

Late assignments will incur a reduction in marks as described in the PSYC231 Course Outline (25% off for the first day late, with an additional 12.5% off for each day late, thereafter).

In the slides to follow you will see information presented in lecture and some new information on the methods. New information appears in the aqua colour.

Recognition memory

Conjunction paradigm

(Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973;

Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992)

Components of studied itemsrearranged to form test lures

Study (parents): blackmail AND jailbird

Test (conjunction): blackbird

Conjunction paradigm

Typical pattern of “old” responses:

old > conjunction > new hit false alarms (FA)

Conjunction effect Conjunction – new

(baseline)

Dual-process theory for conjunction errors Jones & Atchley (2002), Jones & Jacoby (2001)

Familiarity – fast, relatively automaticRecollection – relatively slow, consciously controlled

Old (hit) familiarity or recollection

Conjunction (false alarm) familiarity in the absence of

recollection

Conjunction lures

Familiarity: can induce an error

Recollection: can prevent an error

Recollection-based rejection

e.g., Remember:

black in blackmail, not blackbird

bird in jailbird, not blackbird

Jones & Atchley (2002) Continuous recognition; lag manipulation

Lag # of words intervening 2nd parent and conjunction

Reasoning shorter lags, more recollection-based rejection


Trial 1 blackmail parentTrial 2 showboat 1st presentation (new)Trial 3 showboat Old . jailbird parent . blackbird Conjunction . crewcut parent . crossbow 1st presentation (new) . shortcake parent . crossbow Old . shortcut Conjunction


Trial 1 blackmail parentTrial 2 showboat 1st presentation (new)Trial 3 showboat Old . jailbird parent . blackbird Conjunction . crewcut parent . crossbow 1st presentation (new) . shortcake parent . crossbow Old . shortcut Conjunction

Jones & Atchley (2002)

Lag

0 1 5 20

P (

"old

")

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Conjunction Errors

Jones & Atchley (2002)

Lag

0 1 5 20

P (

"old

")

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

ConjunctionCorrect Rejections

Conjunction Errors

Jones & Atchley (in press)

Lag

0 1 5 10 20

P (

"old

")

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Old (Hit)

Conjunction (FA)

Differences for other materials?

Faces

The Hawkeye (1963)

The Hawkeye (1963)

The following methodological info needs to be worked into complete sentences. (Some bits may be in sentences already; other bits you will need to write into complete sentences).

Materials & Equipment. Number of stimuli = 180: 80 original photographs, 80 constructed photos, which were made by combining features of two other faces, and 20 filler photographs. The stimuli were electronic grey-scale bitmap files.


Source of originals: The Hawkeye (1963). The original and constructed faces were used by Jones, Bartlett, and Wade (2005). Size: 10.8 cm in height, 7.9 cm in width; Subject of photographs: (all) Caucasion male--clean shaven, and no spectacles; Photo: torso (cutting across or just below the shoulders) and head; Pose: Either directly facing the camera or with the head slightly angled to the left or to the right (For many photographs, both ears of a subject were visible); Attire: dark sport coats, light-coloured shirt, and neckties.

Computer programmes were composed with E-prime software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002a, 2002b). Fifteen PC-computers were used. Participants were run in groups of up to 15.


Adobe Photoshop® was used for all editing of the photographs and to create conjunction stimuli. For the construction of conjunction faces, photographs of individuals with similar poses and, where possible, somewhat similar appearance, were put into pairs. These pairs were used to construct faces by combining the the inner features (eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth) and outer features (forehead, hair, ears, cheeks, jaw, and chin) from a pair of faces.

Design2 (Condition: Old, Conjunction) x 4 (Lag: 0, 1, 5, 20) fully within-participants design. Procedure

Continuous recognition; lag manipulation Face photographs

Lag # of trials intervening 1st and 2nd presentation (old) # of trials intervening 2nd parent and conjunction

lags: 0, 1, 5, 20

Jones & Bartlett# of trials: 200--100 new, 60 old (40 critical, 20 fillers), 40 conjunctions

# of critical old faces = 40, 10 per lag # of conjunction faces = 40, 10 per lag

Items counterbalanced such that each critical test face appeared in each condition (old or conjunction x lag) equally often across participants. Forty parent faces (all constructions) for the later conjunction lures were seen by any one participant. The 80 constructed parent faces were presented equally often across participants.

Jones & Bartlett

Some subjects not told about conjunctions

Some subjects informed of the conjunctions

For the lab report, only the informed subjects will be considered (though there appear to be only slight differences between the two groups)

Events in a trial1 Face appears: duration--1500 ms2 Screen goes blank: duration—150 ms3 Confidence scale appears: present up to 2500 ms

1=very sure new, 2=somewhat sure new, 3=unsure new4=unsure old, 5=somewhat sure old, 6=very sure old

If response made before 2500-ms time limit, confidence scale disappears and computer waits for the remainder of the time. If a response was not entered in time, the programme continued to the next trial.

4 Intertrial interval (blank screen): 250 ms

DATA

The data for 16 subjects are in an SPSS file and an Excel file on the computers in EA402, Blackboard, and PAVLOV.

For the sake of simplicity, only the proportions of “very sure old” responses (out of the total within a condition) will be considered.

Again, You will need to

(a) Read the assigned papers(b) Think about the relationship of the

previous work to the new work(c) Conduct statistical comparisons for

what you think are the best comparisons (either multiple t-tests or a Repeated Measures ANOVA or MANOVA with follow-up comparisons, if necesseary)

(d) Write up the work Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results

(including a table or a figure) and Discussion,

References(e) Submit the lab report

References for The Hawkeye, Jones et al. (2005), and the software programme appear below. These references should appear in your Reference section.

Jones, T. C., Bartlett, J.C., & Wade, K. A. (2005). Nonverbal conjunction errors in recognition memory: Support for familiarity but not for feature bundling. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime User’s Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.

The Hawkeye (1963). Iowa City, IA: State University of Iowa.

Have fun

THINKING

&

FIGURING THINGS OUT (FOR YOURSELF)!

Documents

Info for PSYC231 Lab report Please note that to do this lab report you need (a)TO THINK. One goal of the lab report is to help foster your thinking skills