PSYC3015PT.2

• looks at cognitive processes 
• uses a lot of techniques e.g. behaviour, eye-tracking, physiology, neuroimaging and case-studies.
• examines humans and non-human animals.

CAN BE CATEGORICAL/DISCRETE WHICH MEANS THAT THEY HAVE LEVELS OR CONDITIONS e.g. with "handedness" you could have L, R OR AMB. OR CONTINUOUS E.G. AGE. common IV'S are e.g. individual difference variables, neuropsychological case vs. healthy participants and TMS.

• NORMALLY CONTINUOUS E.G. RT. BUT CAN BE CATEGORICAL E.G. RANKS.
• common DV'S are e.g. electroencephalography EEG, ERP, eye-tracking, accuracy and RT, FRMRI, MVPA, DTI AND MEG.

repeated-measures aka. within and;  independent groups aka. between.

• good to have a good question or hypothesis going in
• Has been derived from research.
• Powerful designs normally have to theories that predict different data.
• exploratory research is good when not much is known. This can then motivate the future research.
• need to be specific, falsifiable e.g. has conditions that can be falsified.
• operationization.
• paradigms should be carefully chosen and be optimal.
• THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS SHOULD MATCH THE CONCEPT TO THE OPERALIZATION AND THE DATA AND THE CONCLUSION.

• SPATIOTEMPORAL TRAJECTORY. E.G. does it come back at the same location that was expected from the object's initial trajectory. (Features are the same).
• AND FEATURE SIMILARITY E.G. does it have the same properties (e.g. colour and shape) as the original object? (The trajectory is the same).
• BOTH WOULD BE A COLOUR AND LOCATION CHANGE.

• HAVE A SAME-OBJECT TRIAL E.G. there's a square (S) and a triangle (P). Then they move and the P re-appears in the triangle.
• DIFFERENT-OBJECT TRIAL E.G. THE SAME AS BEFORE BUT THE P RE-APPEARS IN THE SQUARE.
• RT IS NORMALLY FAST FOR THE SOC THAN THE DOC. THIS DIFFERENCE IS CALLED THE "OBJECT-SPECIFIC PREVIEW BENEFIT".
• The first evidence that the brain tracks objects e.g. with the motion linked to the shapes we would expect a certain letter to re-appear in a certain shape.

• DETECTED FEATURE CHANGES IN TRAVELLING AND TEMPORARILY OCCLUDED OBJECTS.
• THEY MANIPULATED SPATIOTEMPORAL TRAJECTORY AND MEASURED HOW THESE CHANGES AFFECTED THE CHANGE DETECTION
• e.g. had 3 pillars and a ball that rolled behind them. The manipulation was when the ball went in at the top and came out the bottom. Participants then had to click a button when there was a colour change.
• Believed that participants would be quicker (and more accurate) at detecting feature changes after occlusion when they were able to perceive the same object through time. 
• There would be bad change detection when they thought that they were 2 distinct objects.

WERE WAY BETTER AT DETECTING IN THE TUNNEL CONDITION THAN THE SPATIAL OR TEMPORAL MANIPULATIONS. THESE IMPAIRED THEIR COLOUR DETECTION. NOT SUPPORTIVE E.G. lecture. said that we have a "spatiotemporal bias". didn't examine the features by themselves (e.g. without the OC) and didn't consider an important aspect in their interpretation.

is the object that comes out the same/different when it passes behind an occluder.

THE FUSIFORM FACE AREA (AKA. FFA). CAN ALSO ENCODE ANY TYPE OF EXPERTISE.

• USED THE FFA AND MEASURED OBJECT CORRESPONDENCE IN RELATION TO REPETITION SUPPRESSION. greater suppression = treating it as the same object to a greater extent.
• FOUR CONDITIONS E.G.
• 1. continuous and unrepeated (e.g. same occluder and different face).
• 2. continuous and repeated (e.g. same occluder and the same face).
• 3. discontinuous and unrepeated (e.g. object emerges from a different occluder + different face).
• 4. discontinuous and repeated (e.g. emerges from a different occluder + the same face).
• there was a bigger difference between the unrepeated and the related trials in the continuous trial.
• didn't examine the features by themselves (e.g. without the OC).

• USED A CHANGE DETECTION MEASURE E.G. HAD TO JUDGE WHETHER 2 IMAGES WERE THE SAME OR DIFFERENT TO THE PREVIEW.
• in 1/2 the trials one pair of the objects changed throughout the trial.
• manipulated spatiotemporal trajectory and the features pre-and-post occlusion.
• OC was measured with RT (assumed that RT would be quicker when there's more object correspondence. Can detect the changes quicker).
• WERE FASTER IN THE CONSISTENT CONDITIONS. 2. CONSISTENT POSITION AND INCONSISTENT COLOUR; 3. CONSISTENT COLOUR AND INCONSISTENT POSITION AND; 4. INCONSISTENT.

• USED SACCADES TO MEASURE OC. THEIR TASK WAS TO MOVE THEIR EYES FROM THE CENTRE OF THE SCREEN TO THE SIGNALED TARGET.
• exploited "saccadic suppression". 
• Each trial had different positions and different features. Recorded RT and whether the correct saccade was made.
• how does changing the position interfere saccading to the target feature?
• how does changing the feature interfere with saccading to the target position?
• POSITION + FEATURE CHANGES INTERFERED WITH THEIR ABILITY TO INFER OC
• WERE GOOD WHEN THERE WAS NO SWITCH. OK WHEN THERE WAS A SACCADE TO POSITION AND INCONSISTENT COLOUR. WORSE WHEN THERE WAS A SACCADE TO COLOUR AND AN INCONSISTENT POSITION. They needed to correct their saccade more in this condition as well.

• USED REAL-WORLD AND RECOGNIZABLE OBJECTS E.G. A TOMATO AND A DUCK. 
• THERE WAS THE SAME PATTERN (incl. saccadic correction).
• POSITION AND FEATURE CHANGES INTERFERED WITH THE OC FOR REAL-WORLD OBJECTS.

• USED THE TERNUS DISPLAY E.G. LOOKED AT HOW FEATURES IMPACTED OBJECT GROUP AND OC.
• e.g. element motion (ABC-BCA) AND group motion (ABC-ABC). done with colours + lines etc.
• polarity, colour and orientation (+hue) all bias our perception towards group AND element motion. They all effect our inference of OC.

THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT BOTH FEATURES AND SPATIOTEMPORAL TRAJECTORY EFFECT OC IN THE ENVIRONMENT (E.G. OCCLUSION)+ A PARTICIPANT'S OWN EYE-MOVEMENTS.

THE ABILITY TO SELECTIVELY PROCESS ANY INCOMING SENSORY INFORMATION AND FILTER OUT IRRELEVANT VISUAL NOISE.

• ORIENTING ATTENTION e.g. shifting your attention across the visual field.
• SPLITTING ATTENTION e.g. attending to two (or more) spatially different locations at the same time.
• ATTENTION BREADTH e.g. changing the spatial region over which your attention is focused (e.g. little to big).

O = WITHOUT EYE MOVEMENTS AND C = WITH EYE MOVEMENTS.

• ENDOGENOUS = voluntary and top-down. draws our attention to stimuli based on our current goals.
• E.G. LOOKING AT THE CAFE DOOR WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING SOMEONE THERE.
• EXOGENOUS = involuntary and bottom-up. driven by the environment.
• E.G. AN UNEXPECTED MOUSE RUNNING PAST.

• WE ALTER THE SPATIAL REGION OVER WHICH OUR ATTENTION IS DISTRIBUTED. 
• IT GIVES US INSIGHT INTO COGNITION.
• e.g. does altering the breadth of attention effect our visual perception? Relatively new area of research.
• First examined how narrow vs. broad attention effect target detection RT's.
• Now looking at how attention effects other components of vision. There's no clear-cut approach.

• THE MOST USED MODEL THAT EXPLAINS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTENTIONAL BREADTH AND PERCEPTION eg. predicts that as attentional breadth ^'s, perception processing decreases.
• WAS INITIALLY TESTED AS AN EXOGENOUS CUEING PARADIGM.
• e.g. used 8 letters in a circle. endogenously cued letters were underlined (more = a broader breadth of attention). RT was longer with broader breadths.

• A BRIEFLY PRESENTED (AND PERIPHERAL) VISUAL CUE DIRECTS OUR ATTENTION TO A CERTAIN LOCATION.
• HAVE TO RESPOND AS ACCURATELY AS YOU CAN WHEN THE TARGET APPEARS.
• It appears at the cued location (e.g. valid) or at a non-cued location (e.g. invalid).
• e.g. the red box is the cue and the target is a smiley face.
• BETTER AT THE VALID TRIALS == THERE IS BETTER VISUAL PROCESSING AT THE CUED LOCATION.

• FMRI WAS USED TO EXAMINE HOW NARROW AND BROAD ATTENTION CHANGED THE ACTIVATION IN THE VISUAL CORTEX.
• e.g. participant's had a broad or narrow cueing manipulation. Had to detect a blue target and RT was recorded.
• Looked at the intensity and distribution of retinotopic activity in the PVC.
• NARROW ATTENTION HAD MORE INTENSE ACTIVATION OVER A SMALLER REGION IN THE PVC.

• older research only used tasks that had the participants process fine spatial detail. THERE'S OTHER EFFECTS (e.g. the visual pathways).
• e.g. narrow attention effects the parvocellular pathway not magnocellular.

• USED A SHAPE INDUCER TASK TO MANIPULATE ATTENTIONAL BREADTH (e.g. had small (narrow) and big (broad) circles and ovals).
• 80% were inducer trials;
• 20% measured how attentional breadth effected the P&M processing in the task.
• SPATIAL ACUITY (P) e.g. had a small gap in the shape and TEMPORAL ACUITY (M) e.g. had to detect whether the circle flickered.
• assumed that better AC/RT meant ^perceptual sensitivity.

• AB EFFECTED THE SPATIAL-GAP TASK AND NOT THE TEMPORAL-GAP TASK. It only effected the parvocellular cells.
• This is because the main function of AB is to help with fine-spatial processing.
• Could have used HSF'S AND LSF'S to test this.

• GOOD AT PROCESSING COLOUR AND FINE SPATIAL-DETAIL.
• SLOWER RESPONSE (E.G. THEY CAN'T PROCESS FINE CHANGES VERY QUICKLY).
• SMALL RF'S.
• parvocellular has high spatial resolution (detail) and bad temporal resolution.

• CAN'T PROCESS COLOUR BUT GOOD A PROCESSING COARSE SPATIAL DETAIL.
• FASTER (E.G. CAN PROCESS FINE TEMPORAL DETAIL).
• magnocellular has high temporal resolution and low spatial resolution.
• BIG RF'S.

• USED A SHAPE INDUCER TASK. HSF'S AND LSF'S WERE USED. Is the shape tilted to the L/R?
• attention only effected the parvocellular cells (e.g. HSF'S) discrimination accuracy.

• We know that PC have SRF'S and that MC have BRF'S and that NA maps onto the SRF'S (P) and that BA maps onto the LRF'S (M).
• Each improves the processing of their respective counterpart. Therefore, there's a tradeoff (e.g. one sacrifices a bit of itself to use the other).
• MOUNTS AND EDWARDS (2017) USED EXOGENOUS CUEING TO CHANGE AB AND FOUND THAT NA ^SA AND BA ^TA (e.g. which improve their respective P&M processing pathway).

• The ZLM argues that NA helps visual processing more than BA.
• The SSEM argues that changes in attentional breadth only effect the parvocellular cells.
• The STTOM argues that NA improves the PC and BA improves the MC.

• EXOGENOUS + ENDOGENOUS ATTENTION MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON THE P&M CELLS.
• changing the task difficulty can change the BOA.
• e.g. perceptual load (e.g. low = BA and high = NA) AND cognitive load ((e.g. high = BA and low = NA).

• STIMULUS QUALITY (e.g. lighting, expression and blur etc.)
• EYE LEVEL EFFECTS AND INPUT (e.g. age and age-related macular degeneration).
• BRAIN LEVEL EFFECTS (e.g. prospagosia, "super-recognizers" and genes).
• 60% hertiable and a big % of this is not shared with object recognition genes and general IQ.
• THE ENVIRONMENT AND EXPERIENCE (e.g. other-race effects).

• will use two side-by-side photos but in real life faces can be viewed from different views, lighting (+expressions and hair-styles etc).
• They also use high-quality images e.g. in an 8-person line-up (degraded images) participants correctly identified 30% of the people.

• THE MOST COMMON PROBLEM IS UNCORRECTED REFRACTIVE ERROR (esp. in old people).
• eg myopia (nearsightedness, hyperopia (farsightedness), presbyopia (age related) and astigmatism.

• ACQUIRED (e.g. lose the ability to recognize faces. Result of a head-injury/stroke)
• CONGENITAL (e.g. recognition deficits with no other vision/brain problems). 
• SUBTYPES e.g. face-specific/not, heritable and different components are effected.

1-2%. RECOGNIZE PEOPLE AFTER MANY YEARS AND OUT OF CONTEXT e.g. are used to help police match suspects from CCTV.

• IT'S HARDER TO RECOGNIZE FACES THAT AREN'T SIMILAR TO OURS.
• GROUPS WITH LESS EXPERIENCE MIGHT SHOW BIGGER EFFECTS (but there's no direct correlation between ORE and experience).
• age the experience is acquired is important (e.g. early childhood). 9MTH-old's are favouring faces.
• asymmetries (e.g. white people show the effect but asian/black don't. Could be to do with other factors like power and SES).
• THESE CATEGORIES AREN'Y ALWAYS SALIENT (eg. the university effects vanished when race effects were also included).

• AVERAGE LOW QUALITY IMAGES (e.g. it removes problems with lighting and blur)
• HELPING PEOPLE WHO HAVE EYE PROBLEMS AND PROSOPAGNOSIA.
• TRAINING AND AWARENESS (e.g. passport-officers who have been trained are no better than students with no training).
• e.g. prosopagnosia child was trained to recognize family member's features. 
• Had ^fixations to internal features for both familiar and unfamiliar faces after this.
• individuation training can <ORE and implicit bias.
• Even experimenters just telling the participants to individuate can help.
• USING CROWD ANALYSIS AND SWARM INTELLIGENCE.

• FACES ARE ENCODED ON A NO. OF DIMENSIONS AS POINTS AND VECTORS THAT ARE RELATIVE TO A PROTOTYPE/NORM FACE.
• was originally used to explain race-effects. +faces that are more unusual are hard to recognize because they're further from the centre.
• is there one norm or heaps? They might be temporarily formed based on the task.

HAS VARIABLE AND LESS VARIABLE ASPECTS OF FACE RECOGNITION?

• THE MECHANISM THAT LETS US SELECTIVELY PROCESS VISUAL INFORMATION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT.
• THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES (e.g. spatial, object-based and feature-based).

• CAN MANIPULATE WHERE THEIR ATTENTION IS ALLOCATED.
• A VISUAL CUE DIRECTS THEIR ATTENTION TO A CERTAIN LOCATION.
• HAVE TO PRESS A KEY AS SOON AS THE TARGET IS SEEN. (e.g. a shape) OR TO DISCRIMINATE A TARGET (e.g. E vs. F).
• THE TARGET WILL EITHER APPEAR AT THE CUED LOCATION. (e.g. the valid trial) OR THE NON-CUED LOCATION (e.g. the invalid trial).

• RT'S ARE FASTER FOR THE VALID TRIALS.
• THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THE ATTENTIONAL SPOTLIGHT HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO A CUED LOCATION.
• The AS is the region over which attentional resources are allocated.
• CAN QUANTIFY THIS WITH A CUEING SCORE ~ (e.g. the difference in RT between valid and invalid trials).

• THE CUE NEEDS TO BE A SALIENT STIMULUS (e.g. the red frame).
• PERIPHERAL.
• IT NEEDS TO BE PREDICTIVE OF THE TARGET'S LOCATION. (50% valid & 50% are invalid).
• HAS A SHORT CUE-TARGET INTERVAL (e.g. 100MS).
• GET INHIBITION OF RETURN AT LONG CUE-TARGET INTERVALS (e.g. 300MS).

• HAPPEN WITH EXOGENOUS CUES AT LONG CUE-TARGET INTERVALS (eg 300MS).
• VALID TRIAL > INVALID TRIAL RT.
• Attention is shifted to the cued location.
• Because the time is too long we disengage from the cued location and then attend to the non-cued location instead.

• THE CUE IS A CENTRAL AND SYMBOLIC CUE (e.g. an arrow).
• THE CUE PREDICTS THE TARGET'S LOCATION (e.g. 75% valid and 35% invalid).
• A LONGER CUE-TARGET INTERVAL IS NEEDED SO THEY CAN INTERPRET THE CUE (e.g. 300MS).
• Jonides (1981) argued that central cues always elicit endogenous attention.
• BUT CENTRAL CUES CAN ALSO ELICIT INVOLUNTARY ATTENTION. (E.G. GAZE).

• THE FACE EITHER LOOKS TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT.
• THE TARGET IS A SNOWMAN. Participants have to detect him as fast as they can.
• TOLD THAT THE GAZE DOES NOT PREDICT THE SNOWMAN'S LOCATION.
• THERE WERE STILL CUEING EFFECTS (even though the cue was non-predictive.).

• GAZE INFORMATION IS BIOLOGICALLY RELEVANT.
• (e.g. alert, gauges other people's intentions and goals and used in conversations).
• BUT NON-PREDICTIVE CUES ALSO HAD THIS EFFECT. THEY ARE MANUFACTURED STIMULI THAT WE ARE EXPOSED TO A LOT.
• USING THEM IN ENDOGENOUS CUEING MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC.

• CAN'T USE ARROWS.
• CAN USE NUMBERS OR COLOURS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN SPATIAL LOCATIONS (e.g. 1 = right, 2 = top etc.).
• TRAINING IS NEEDED TO THEY CAN LEARN THIS RELATIONSHIP.
• Good because colours and numbers are not intrinsically linked to spatial locations (like e.g. arrows and gazes are).

• THE ABILITY TO SEE FINE DETAIL.
• IS ENHANCED BY BOTH EXOGENOUS AND ENDOGENOUS ATTENTION.

• TESTED ATTENTION AND SPATIAL RESOLUTION WITH DIFFERENT TASKS (e.g. which side of the square has a gap?; was the line continuous or broken? and; was the upper line displaced to the L/R of the bottom line?).
• CUED (e.g. a green horizontal line) = ABOVE THE TARGET LOCATION. NEUTRAL = IN THE MIDDLE.
• TRANSIENT ATTENTION BECAUSE THE CUE WAS ALWAYS VALID.
• PERFORMANCE WAS GOOD IN THE CUED CONDITION (at big eccentricities). Thus, endogenous cueing also effects our performance on spatial resolution tasks.

• THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE FINE TEMPORAL DETAIL (E.G. A FLICKER).
• IS IMPAIRED BY EXO. ATTENTION AND ENHANCED BY ENDOGENOUS ATTENTION.

• TESTED ATTENTION AND TEMPORAL RESOLUTION.
• Participants had to determine whether two discs were presented with a gap in the middle or whether they were presented continuously.
• HAD A CUED CONDITION (e.g. was a horizontal bar) AND A NEUTRAL CONDITION
• THEIR PERCEPTUAL SENSITIVITY WAS LOWER IN THE CUED CONDITION.
• ATTENTION CAN IMPAIR OUR PERCEPTUAL PERFORMANCE.
• Why does exogenous attention enhance SR and impair TR? Can be explained with P&M cells. MIGHT ENHANCE P-CELLS.

• EXAMINED HOW ENDOGENOUS ATTENTION EFFECTED TEMPORAL RESOLUTION.
• USED A VALID AND INVALID ARROW CUE.
• Participant's had to decide which dot had appeared first (e.g. the L/R one).
• IT ENHANCED ATTENTION.

• WE HAVE MORE M-CELL INPUT AND LESS P-CELL INPUT FOR VISUAL PERCEPTION NEAR THE HANDS.
• experiment = have to hold their hands on the monitor while doing the task.
• HAS A TEMPORAL-GAP DETECTION (e.g. a quick disappearence.) AND A SPATIAL-GAP TASK (e.g. a gap in the circle).
• WERE WORSE AT THE SPATIAL CONDITION WITH THEIR HANDS NEAR (+overall.) AND BETTER AT THE TEMPORAL CONDITION WITH THEIR HANDS NEAR.
• DID WORSE WITH THEIR HANDS NEAR AT HSF'S (They did a lot better at LSF'S).

• Each hand has an attentional spotlight.
• When they're both up the spotlights merge into one big spotlight. A LS enchances TA and impairs SA AND A SS enhances SA and impairs the TA.

• TEMPORALLY-TRAILING MASK IMPAIRS THE PERCEPTION OF A TARGET. 
• e.g. has a simultaneous mask-offset (target is visible with the mask.) and delayed mask-offset (the target is presented first).
• MASKING MAGNITUDE = IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIMULTANEOUS AND DELAYED MASK-OFFSET CONDITIONS.
• E.G. FOUR CIRCLES WITH GAPS AND THEN FOUR DOTS AROUND THE TARGET.

• THE TARGET'S OBJECT FILE IS CREATED.
• IT THEN IT GETS UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FOUR-DOT MASK.
• OSM HAPPENS BECAUSE THE BRAIN THINKS THAT THE TWO OBJECTS (the target and the mask) ARE ONE (e.g. the mask).
• This prevents the target from being consciously perceived.
• IF THIS IS TRUE THEN =
• The same physical information should be processed differently. (which depends on whether it is perceived as a continuous object or not).

• 1. The same physical information should be processed differently. (Which depends on whether it is perceived as a continuous object or not).
• 2. The manipulations that cause the brain to treat them as the same object would lead more masking (and vice versa).

• HAD LOTS OF C'S AND PARTICIPANTS HAD TO FIND THE GAP.
• HAS SHORT ISI (short and move as one).
• HAS LONG ISI (long and did not move together = a different object).
• FOUND THE MASKING MAGNITUDE.
• MASKING ONLY HAPPENED IN THE DELAYED OFFSET SHORT ISI CONDITION. THE MASK WAS SEEN AS A CONTINUING OBJECT WHICH = OBJECT UPDATING
• (Long ISI condition = it was seen as a new object that appeared after the target).

• HAD RED C AND RED MASK, GREEN C AND GREEN MASK, GREEN MASK AND RED C AND GREEN C AND RED MASK.
• Same colour would make the brain think that they belonged to the same object (& vice versa). THIS IS WHAT THEY FOUND.
• THERE WAS MORE MASKING IN THE SAME COLOUR CONDITION AND LESS WHEN THEY LOOKED LIKE DISTINCT OBJECT.

• USED SET-SIZE TO OPERATIONALIZE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE TARGET. 
• USED 1-16.
• Believed that we wouldn't get masking if their attention was completely focused vs. distributed.
• HAD WORSE % CORRECT WITH BIGGER SET-SIZES.
• THERE WAS A CEILING EFFECT WHICH MIGHT HAVE CREATED THE INTERACTION.
• Another experiment (that used 4-16) found a smaller interaction.

• E.G. 1. ATTENTIONAL CUEING.
• 2. MANIPULATING THE SIZE OF THE ATTENDED REGION (breadth re-scaling).
• MANIPULATED CUES.
• DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT ATTENTION (when mediated by cues.) EFFECTED THE OSM MAGNITUDE.
• Did effect performance though which means that the attentional manipulation was working.

• WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP WITH BRAIN DAMAGE ARE STUDIED.
• HELPS US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT COGNITIVE PROCESSES ARE LINK WITH WHAT NEURAL STRUCTURES.
• There's a focus on diagnosis and rehabilitation where it's possible.
• CAN ASK QUESTIONS LIKE E.G. 1. The degree of it's functional specialization?
• 2. Is process "A" mediated by area "B?"
• 3. Are processes "A" and "B" distinct or in the same region?
• e.g. some patients have face perception deficits but not object perception deficits. Does this mean that face and object recognition are distinct processes?

• SOME HAVE FACE BUT NOT OBJECT DEFICITS.
• e.g. two patients with prosopagnosia could recognize objects but one couldn't.
• CHILD PATIENT L.G HAD IMPAIRMENT ON BOTH.
• ADULT PATIENT N.S COULDN'T INTEGRATE FACES AND OBJECTS INTO A WHOLE.

• SINGLE = process "A" is impaired when area "A" is damaged and "B" works.
• DOUBLE = process "A" is impaired when area "A" is damaged and "B" works, AND process "B" is impaired when area "B" is damaged and process "A" works.

• USE MAGNETIC FIELDS (via a metal coil) TO STIMULATE THE CELLS IN A CERTAIN REGION.
• IT CAUSES A TEMPORARY IMPAIRMENT IN THAT REGION.
• CAN ALSO BE REPETITIVE (E.G. RTMS).
• eg. TMS effected semantic processing in the anterior cortex and that TMS effected phonological processing in the posterior cortex.

• THE PERCEPTUAL PHENOMENON IN WHICH ONE SENSATION TRIGGERS ANOTHER SENSATION (e.g. they "taste" shape or "hear" colours).
• THE MOST COMMON IS COLOUR-GRAPHEME.
• MOST ADULT SYNAESTHETES ARE SURPRISED WHEN THEY LEARN THAT IT'S NOT A COMMON THING.

• GENETICS AND DEVELOPMENTAL (e.g. incomplete synaptic pruning).
• THIS COULD BE WHY GRAPHEME-COLOUR IS SO COMMON.

THEY HAD TO RELATE A COLOUR TO A WORD (These were either happy or sad.). MOST OF THE COLOURS WERE EXACTLY THE SAME.

CONSISTENCY; BEHAVIOURAL EFFECTS (e.g. accuracy and RT) AND NEUROIMAGNG.

• BETTER AT RECOGNIZING FACES.
• ARE BETTER AT EXTRACTING GLOBAL INFORMATION.
• CAN MAKE US SUSCEPTIBLE TO PERIPHERAL AND TASK IRRELEVANT EMOTIONAL STIMULI.

• 15 COLOUR-GRAPHEME SYNAESTHETES VS. NON-SYNAESTHETIC CONTROLS.
• WANTED TO TEST THEIR CONSISTENCY.
• They were given 150-items with letters, no.'s and words. They had to describe the experience. DID THE SAME EXPERIMENT 3 MONTHS LATER (C = 1M).
• THE SYNAESTHETES WERE WAY MORE CONSISTANT.

• CONGRUENT = THE SAME COLOUR AND WORD ASSOCIATION & INCONGRUENT = NOT.
• RT WAS FASTER FOR THE CONGRUENT TRIALS AND SLOWER FOR THE INCONGRUENT TRIALS IN SYNAESTHETES. Controls were a horizontal line. (didn't matter).

• THE COLOUR AREA RESPONDS IN "COLOURED" SYNAESTHETES.
• MIGHT BE DISTINCT FROM COLOUR IMAGERY.
• THERE ARE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE BRAIN'S OF SYNAESTHETES AND NON-SYNAESTHETES.

• THEY HAVE ENHANCED SENSORY PROCESSING.
• THEY HAVE BETTER MEMORY.
• THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE ARTISTIC PURSUITS AND BE MORE CREATIVE.
• MORE "OTE" AND FANTASIZING. LOWER ON AGREEABLENESS.

• TESTED WHETHER A BIG ATTENTIONAL BREADTH IS GOOD FOR FACE DETECTION
• WATCHED A VIDEO OF A ROBBERY.
• 3 CONDITIONS
• e.g. a global navon task, a local navon task and an unrelated task).
• THEY THEN SAW 8 FACES AND HAD TO DETECT WHICH ONE WAS THE ROBBER.
• GN = 83%, CONTROL = 60% AND LN = 30%. (sig.)

• WANTED TO SEE WHETHER SEARCH STYLE HAD AN EFFECT.
• DID A SERIAL SEARCH (e.g. which one doesn't have a gap. Harder)
• OR A PARALLEL SEARCH (e.g. which one has the gap).
• THEN DID A MEAN DISCRIMINATION TASK (e.g. what was the average size) OR A MEMBER IDENTIFICATION TASK (e.g. what size was here?).
• RT WAS SLOWER FOR ALL SERIAL (e.g. the focused) SEARCHES.
• The mean was considered to be "bigger" in the serial searches & the member was considered to be "bigger" in the parallel searches.

TRAINED PARTICIPANTS TO ASSOCIATE CERTAIN COLOURS WITH AN ELECTRIC SHOCK

• ARE WE ABLE TO SET A BREADTH OF SPATIAL ATTENTION AND RESCALE IT IN A RAPID AND EFFICIENT FASHION. (e.g. driving).
• Are we equally good at expanding vs. contracting our attention?
• CAN BE MANIPULATED VIA TASK DEMANDS AND CHANGING STATES. (emotions).
• ITS WIDELY BELIEVED THAT WE PREFER A BROAD BREADTH OF ATTENTION. Does this mean we are better at expanding than contracting our attention?

• USED THE NAVON TASK.
• HAS A FIXATION CROSS, STIMULUS PRESENTATION AND A RT.
• 3 CONDITIONS (neutral (50/50), global (80/20) & local (80/20)). The second and third conditions were randomized.
• GPRT = LRT IN THE NEUTRAL BLOCK - GRT IN THE NEURTRAL BLOCK. ^+NO.'S = BETTER ON GLOBAL TRIALS.
• CONTRACTION COST = LRT IN THE GLOBAL BLOCK - GRT IN THE GLOBAL BLOCK. ^+NO. = SLOWER FROM BROAD TO NARROW.
• EXPANSION COST = GRT IN THE LOCAL BLOCK - LRT IN THE LOCAL BLOCK. ^NO. = SLOWER GOING FROM NARROW TO BROAD.

• There was a GPE in the neutral conditions. There was no asymmetry in the EVS.C conditions. 
• The participants had just adapted to the task.
• WOULD BE GOOD TO TEST IF ASYMMETRY CHANGES WITH MOTIVATION OR OUR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
• EVEN THE REAL-WORLD TASKS (E.G. DRIVING).

• CONSTRUCT = A THEORETICAL CONCEPT. 
• (e.g. the basis of research questions).
• OPERATIONALIZATIONS == THE METHODS THAT ARE USED TO MANIPULATE AND MEASURE THESE CONSTRUCTS
• (e.g. These are the parameters of the experiment).
• Always look at the gaps between these when critiquing an experiment.

• NAVON; FLANKER AND THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE IOR.
• But are they all testing the same thing?

• NAVON. Measured using the GPS (e.g. RT to local targets - RT's to global targets) 
• FLANKER. Varied the distance between the middle and distracted targets. 
• RT'S to local target = RT to global target. AND;
• HUTTERMAN BREADTH-OF-ATTENTION TEST.
• Had flashes. (e.g. How many grey squares were on the L/R?.). Varied the distance between the two configurations. Measured accuracy.

• HAD TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY.
• THE GLOBAL PRECEDENCE EFFECT WAS FOUND IN THE NAVON; RT/ACC. < WITH ^DISTANCE IN THE OTHER TWO.
• HUTTERMAN TEST WAS AN OUTLIER.