Still no pictures ... But, I can do it through Photobucket!!!
Good morning … this is me again. I’m writing a new entry this morning. I haven’t posted the last entry, but we’re having trouble with Blogger and I think that the last one has gotten long and unruly. Basically, we’ve been concentrating on work, though not on warp speed. “Warp” that’s a new word for me. We discovered yesterday while looking up information on categorical perception. Yeeks, we gotta look up something again. Didn’t get a chance to type out the whole reference before bunny cheeks came to visit last night. Ahhh, that was nice.
We had a little trouble getting in sync for the first little bit, but we rally as we go through familiar places like eating and playing. God love playing! The man turns be into sparkly bubbles.
Hehehe … that’s so cool talked to V again. He’s over at his son’s house now because he is going to put together a computer that flies. We’re pretty sure this is going to be a super-mega-monster that speaks GB’s, but we’re going to wait to see what our son has to say about. We wrote V and let him know that we’ll then give appropriate amount of enthusiasm on the project! Hehehe used to be fathers and sons got together out in the garage, but now days … they are hooking systems up to 54” televisions. Yup, yup I think we’re making progress! The above pictures were talking to V and sharing fortune cookies with him … Sweet deal … he has to choose left or right, he gets a fortune and we get to eat BOTH cookies YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!
We talked to our Grandma again last night before fuzzy bunny feet came over. She was in a pretty good mood an said she has to start now working on age 99! YAYYYYY Grandma! So excited for her. We gave her a day to relax, but figured she might need some more time. She was hit kinda hard no matter where she went on her birthday with people wishing her well. My uncle brought with a cake too that was shared with some of her friends. I think that made her happy. She’s such a nice woman. Yup, yup pretty happy! She had a few extra garden treats too. She’s already made asparagus on toast and did some rhubarb sauce from the gathering. Hehehe she says though that her fridge is so full there’s no place to put anything. She had gotten groceries this week too. I think she gets them like once a month. There is a little deli downstairs where she gets some of the regular stuff. We didn’t’ keep her so long this time because of the tiredness and our friend coming over. She’s so gosh darn bubbly though its hard to leave her space. I told her we would be home this week so might give her a few more calls. I love it when she says, “You call anytime!”
Ok, anything else? We’re going to have to start concentrating again. I left off in a middle of a project
Lab Report – u06a01
During the categorical perception-identification demonstration it was easier to identify the endpoints of the vocal continuum, “ba” and ‘pa” than the sounds in the middle because most of us perceive stimuli categorically. This is recognized in the test as a sharp drop in the number of “Ba” responses between the first stimulus and the last stimulus. My results showed that although both ends of the continuum were predictable, the middle stimulus numbers “Ba5” and “Ba6” showed only a moderate drop in the number of “Ba” responses indicating that my perception is less categorical than others. The smoother transition might indicate that I am able to perceive to a small degree things that are more abstract.
Livingston, Andrews, and Harad (1994) state that the middle regions operate similarly to warp speed in that within a dimension there are decreases of psychological distance in between the regions within the dimensions, and which also causes perception to be more abstract. Smaller discrepancies are harder to pick up because they are representationally more “chunked” together. The authors (1994) hypothesize that “categorical perception effects can be induced by learning alone, without benefit of an innate mechanism. “specifically, we suggest that acquiring the ability to categorize objects and events is associated with a warping of the psychological similarity space such that during category learning some regions become compressed and others expanded, relative to their pre-categorization configuration” (1994).
The predominance of errors in the stimuli continuum between ‘ba” and “pa” were made on one side of a boundary as “ba” and stimuli on the other side as “pa” with the most abrupt misidentification. Laukka (2005) states that “the hallmark of CP [categorical perception] is greater sensitivity to a physical change when it crosses the boundary between two perceptual categories than to the same amount of change occurring within a particular category.” The discrimination is better crossing category boundaries rather than crossing stimuli belonging within the same category.
On the word superiority demonstration my results indicated that word had a superior effect over a letter. I received 83.3% correct detections with the target letter in a word and 70.8% correct detections with the target letter in isolation. This is because the context of letters around the letter (word) allowed us to make a better interpretation. Although Francis, Neath, Mackewn, & Goldthwaite (2004) state there is an unknown reason for this phenomena, my first impulse before looking toward the research is that it presents itself as part of a bigger target and that it takes more time to narrow one’s focus on an individual space. This would be like seeing my cat’s body shape, before seeing his eyes. The strange thing about the test was that it seemed if every stimuli was a word, although some images seemed to be taken away faster. My guess is at this point that on those occasions there was just a single letter.
Research seems to indicate that several memory processes play an affect such as encoding and retrieval (Huron, Danion, Rizzo, Killofer, Damiens, (2003). They explain that pictures are more recognizable than words, so again it seems like that a structure more broadly placed (Thinking here of the former President’s 1000 points of light) is more clearly recognizable. Nelson (1979 as cited in 2003) states that “one explanation of this effect is that pictures have more distinctive sensory-perceptual codes than do words and are likely to undergo semantic processing as well.” So basically there is better encoding of pictures, which would lead to better retrieval. The authors go on to say that a superiority effect is accompanied by conscious recollection (2003). It seemed that it was easier to remember pictures and to know words, but the subjects were less able to verbally recall picture images as items, where in this case they could better verbally recall words. Perhaps the effect of conscious recollection supports that of categorical perception in that having more letters in a word forces you to categorize each of the elements.
References
Francis, G., Neath, I., Mackewn, A., & Goldthwaite, D. (2004). Coglab on a CD. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Huron, C., Danion, J, Rizzo, L, Kllofer, V, & Damiens, A. (2003, February). Subjective qualities of memories associated with the picture superiority effect in schizophrenia (Electronic ed.). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(1), 152-158.
Laukka, P. (2005, September). Categorical perception of vocal emotion expressions (Electronic ed.). American Psychological Association, 5(3), 277-295.
Livingston, K. R., Andrews, J. K. & Harnad, S. (1998, May). Categorical perception effects induced by category learning (Electronic ed.). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and Cognition, 24(3), 732-753.
End Lab Assignment…
Okie dokie here we are again … we had some sluff off time to each lunch and try to take care of a few things. Still can’t get my pictures onto Blooger AND now I can’t get the dumb ol media player to play my special songs on the radio. HMPF!! Closed down the computer 3 times trying … we’ll have to think of something else to do next. Ahh at least it will allow me to listen to V’s Sarah Brighman. That’s going to help for a bit. I think I’m in Musicmatch’s penalty box for listening to the same songs over and over again. *Sigh*.
Don’t think much has happened in the meantime since we last wrote, with the exception that hard working V. has finished his visiting and is now napping. AHA! He’s so smooth…
Ok, let’s surprise him and post! I’ll do the stuff just finished, then we’ll zoom over toward the third lab. K … hold on for the ride! Hmm, forgot no pictures … we’ll wait and do next assignment then … here goes.
Lab Report u07a01
The winning increases from a 1 in 2 chance to a 2 in 3 chance when I always switched doors because there were three doors and even if the first door chosen didn’t work I maintain the fact that there were 3 doors so I still have a 1/3 chance of winning.
If you weren’t given instructions on probability and you randomly chose, the odds would be 1 in 2 chance of winning. 50% of the time you are going to win, 50% of the time you are going to lose. 100% of the time during the first round one of the three doors was going to show “not winning.” Regardless of this concern it appeared that there were three doors, so the odds of selecting 1 of 3 doors as a win was pretty good and since there were two doors remaining this gave you a better chance of winning, statistically a 66% chance. One certainly couldn’t have odds of 1 of 4. I’m not sure how showmanship affects the odds. If the show was running long, I believe they would get faster to the point of getting the respondents to the win, especially since people are probably more prompted to view the show and it sponsors if others are winning. I think it makes people feel lucky.
Geiger (1997) and Mathews (1929 as cited in Burns and Wieth (2004) state that even after people think they have a 50-50 chance they stay with the first door they chose narrowing the odds of you winning to 33%. It was suggested that “people stay because of anticipation of regret (2004) and winning percent increased to 41% if the person was coaching someone else though there was a 93% chance that their reasoning was mixed up. This suggests that my answer is equally as faulty. It appears that this dilemma of understanding the odds have befuddled great mathematicians and researchers. When I did the experiment I believed the written material saying that if I switched I would have better odds of winning, so that is the option I took. I turned out to be right 83% of the time. Burns and Wieth (2004) also suggest that part of the trick is the presentation if Monty puts more emphasis on their being only two REAL doors to switch to then people are lulled into thinking the odds are even meaning their mental model has been erroneously tampered. Directly the authors (2004) state that “The contestant wins two thirds of the time by switching because the host’s actions reveal exactly where the prize is two thirds of the time” because of the collider principle. The collider principle is “opposite of causal structure when two independent variables influence a third variable” (2003). Collider principle states given a state of two variables (independent) that the variables are going to conditionally dependent by the effect (answer given).
Krauss and Wang (2003) called the judgment trick a “cognitive illusion” because it underscored “people’s resistance and deficiency in dealing with uncertainty. The phenomenon was explained by vos Savant who stated, “Suppose there are a million doors, and you pick number 1. Then the host, who knows what’s behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize, opens them all except door number 777,777. You’d switch to that door pretty fast, wouldn’t you?”
If I were doing the lab and lost 10 times in a row, I would most likely change my strategy because I would think I was doing something wrong. As stated above with the collider principle the independent variables are conditionally dependent on the effect.
References
Burns, B. D. & Wieth, M. (2004, September). The collider principle in causal reasoning: Why the Monty hall dilemma is so hard (electronic ed.). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(30), 434-449.
Francis, G., Neath, I., MacKewn, A., & Goldthwaite, D. (2004). Coglab on a CD. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Krauss, S. Wang, W. T. (2003, March). The psychology of the Monty Hall problem: Discovering psychological mechanisms for solving a tenacious brain teaser (Electronic ed.). American Psychological Association, 132(1), 3-22.
Lab Report u08a01
My results of the risky decision making experiment do not confirm the framing effect. If it had the proportion of risky choices I selected would be higher for losses and lower for gains. Instead I scored 46.7% on risky for gains and only 26.7 more risks with losses. The test was geared to risking more in the loss situations than in the gain situation. My answers were dependent primarily on which win gave me the better odds. I tried to maximize the potential gain, which is explained by Schlottmann and Tring (2003) as the expected value (a multiplied value of goal value and odds in attaining it) Using my calculator I would surmise if I had an 80% chance of gaining 1277 and a 90% chance of 1236, I would go with the 90% better odds and the difference in value wasn’t substantial. I sometimes had to subtract one amount from the other when the situation was showing a loss, because I wanted to compare only positive and positive … apples and apples. Between two choices in a situation of gain I risked about 50%. When a question was framed as a loss, it appears the amount of risk I would take was halved. My logic may not have been correct, but it was consistent the majority of the time. Some times the differences, categorical perception, had a more smooth transition and the thinking then became more abstract depending on the sum involved. I would question on this test, thinking that it was an equal distribution of money (experimenters are consistent) between low low low high high low high high. This would have also shown a quartering affect with the choices made, because in the first category where the risk was low low, most likely 25% of the time I would have assumed more risk. As well, if the amount gained was not significant from one risky choice over the other, I would take the surer bet.
Dunegan (1993) states that “Generally speaking, when incoming information is positive, cognitive processing tends to be less thorough and systematic (Klein, 1989). Conversely, when information is not favorable, there is a greater tendency to engage in a more deliberate careful analysis (Wofford & Goodwin, 199).” He also states based on the work of Tversky and Kahneman (1981) “that people react more strongly to potential losses than to potential gains primarily because the displeasure of losing is greater than the pleasure of winning equivalent amounts” (as cited in Dunegan, 1993). And, Dunegan found also that “it is common for someone in a positive affective state to respond with simplified cognitive heuristics,” and this was done because the participant didn’t want his pleasant state limited. For example one experimenter showed that women given a negative loss-frame pamphlet on self examination breast exams were more likely to have more positive attitudes toward the exam and more intention and behavior indicating they would or had performed the exam (Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987). The fact that I didn’t swing in the direction these researchers indicated I should, again was because I had a measured system of calculating our best odds for at least 73.4% of the time.
I believe that the Francis, Neath, Mackewn, & Goldthwaite (2004) summarized the best measure for changing the framing effect to “focus on the bottom line” and by “learning the details about statistical reasoning. In my attempt to reduce the framing effect; I used a calculator, while still reserving some choices to going against the odds because the money looked good in the lesser odds scenario.
Reference
Dunegan, K. J. (1993, June). Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full (Electronic ed.). American Psychological Association, 78(3), 491-503.
Meyerowitz, B. E. & Chaiken, S. (1987, March). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behaviour (Electronic ed.). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.
Schlottmann, A. & Tring, J. (2005, September). How children reason about gains and losses: Framing effects in judgement and choice (Electronic ed.). Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 153-171.
End of Assignments for tonight…
YAYYYYYYYY!!!!
Well, this is how we look at the end of a long day. I got backed up in commenting to a peer. It’s kind of funny … I’m sure he’s smarter than us, but this last time it only started off thinking we were challenging him, in the end the feeling was more like we were trying to help him out. I think he is capable of more, but has a few poor habits to get over. I’m not saying that I don’t as well. We all know that I fall into traps of my own making. And, taking the time to read through a peer’s paper even though its not required takes time. It’s just that … this was the only person in the course who could think pretty good. If I didn’t respond to him, no one else would have. Our peers are, I am guessing intimidated by him. Very few respond to his papers and if they do, it’s just a comment or two. He’ sure is a high energy guy though. Thinks up a storm!
u06d3 Relativity and Universals :
Compare and contrast linguistic relativity and linguistic universals (p. 324-329), being sure to provide evidence that supports the existence of each (look for evidence in research). What has neuropsychological research taught us about the relationship between particular areas of the brain and particular linguistic functions? (p. 351-354).What other methods have shed additional light on this relationship? (p. 354-355).
This is our next paper. We’re working backward now, because I realize as much as I wanted to skip this paper, I really am going to have to get all of them in to get credit and the time necessary to do the final paper late.
Not tonight though. Just remembered to take our pills. Cleaned up a bit and am deciding whether I should sleep with the air on or leave it off. Feel warm, although I know it cools off at nighttime. This just goes to prove how tired we are … can’t think through it. Today we added a towel to the table in front of us because our elbows were feeling bad. We keep the keyboard at a decent length away from us toward the screens. This is because when we study we place the book directly in front of us. The table is oval and not suitable in placing things toward a left or right corner. *Sigh* little thing right? Well! Get used to it cuz I have just about a whole smoke to go here. No telling what’s going to come out! Figuring out the damage here … There is 7 papers left. 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10 + the major one. Most of it has to get done this week, because there is no telling how the following week is going to go. I asked the prof today with something I handed in the exact dates again. It’s confusing me so much. I’m not sure why. I have to do a paper a day then before leaving, and ideally one more gets squeezed in there because I’ll need energy Sunday to be driving. Need to leave between 7-9 am to assure we’re at the hotel about 3 pm. I guess then I could be working that day too in the early morning and after I get settled in the room. … maybe have dinner. I think we’re going to be without a web camera, unless I remember where the CD’s are and install one on the laptop. I wonder if I could get by with just the camera. Hmm… I’m pretty used to the web camera and our image keeping ourselves company. Maybe, we’ll have to figure that out too. I think our friend is going to be over a little on Monday and Tuesday to help with the car stuff, so I’m thinking have to be really economical with the papers. We still haven’t made arrangements with Dr. M yet, because I’ll be gone for the next appointment. Maybe that could be rescheduled this week? Hmm, maybe better though if we can get the following Thursday. Maybe touch bases with him Thursday over the phone.
Ok, there. That settles it … we wrote him a note asking him what he wants to do. Next is to get to sleep. Smokes over. Think no air just fresh air.
posted by Ann Marie @ 6/05/2006 06:34:00 AM
Comments: 2
