Proseminar in Cognitive Psychology Module 2: Perceptual Processes PSYC 5665-002 Monday, 9:00 10:40 Leopard Elephant Copyright 2006 Aude Olivia & Antonio Torralba, MIT http://cvcl.mit.edu/hybrid_gallery/gallery.html
This course is one module of the six-module proseminar sequence for first and second year graduate students. It is organized around original papers and student presentations. You may want to refer to an undergraduate text such as by Jeremy Wolfe (Wolfe et al., 2012). There are copies around the department that you can borrow if need be. The sixth edition of the APA Publication Manual (American Psychological Association., 2010) is an indispensable book for all graduate students and researchers who are writing scholarly manuscripts. You should get one early in your graduate career. Goals: The objective of this course is to introduce fundamental issues in cognitive psychology regarding how we process sensory information and recognize objects. We will read and discuss papers that address critical issues on these topics. Students will be expected to email at least 3 questions or topics of discussion to the class email list prior to each class, and one person will be selected in advance to present the paper and distill the basic ideas for the class. This individual will also provide 2-3 lead-off questions for the whole class to discuss. Presentations and class participation will count for 70% of the grade while a take-home exam will count for the remaining 30%. Page 2
Reading Assignments 1. 25 August 2014, Monday Introduction 2. 1 September 2012, Monday Labor Day No Class 3. 8 September 2014, Monday Detection Theory (Swets, Tanner, & Birdsall, 1961) 4. 15 September 2014, Monday Detection Theory (Wixted & Mickes, 2014) 5. 22 September 2014, Monday Spatial Vision (Blakemore & Campbell, 1969; Campbell & Robson, 1968) 6. 29 September 2014, Monday Spatial Vision (Regan, 1982; Wilson, McFarlane, & Phillips, 1983) 7. 6 October 2014, Monday Object Perception (Schyns, Bonnar, & Gosselin, 2002) 8. 13 October 2014, Monday Object Perception (Bruce & Young, 2012) 9. 20 October 2014, Monday Object Perception (Kriegeskorte, Mur, & Bandettini, 2008) 10. 27 October 2014, Monday Object Perception (Alvarez, 2011; Wolfrum, Wolff, Lücke, & von der Malsburg, 2008) 11. 3 November 2014, Monday Auditory Frequency Bands (Plomp, 1976) 12. 10 November 2014, Monday Perception of Pitch (Shepard, 1982) 13. 17 November 2014, Monday Consonance and Dissonance (Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982; Plomp & Levelt, 1965) 14. 24 November 2014, Monday Fall Break 15. 1 December 2014, Monday Perception of Speech (Eimas & Corbit, 1973) 16. 8 December 2014, Monday Perception of Speech (Mesgarani & Chang, 2012) Page 3
Class Presentations When leading a discussion of a research paper in class it is helpful to emphasize the answers to five questions: 1. What question(s) was (were) the author(s) trying to answer? Many times authors of papers unnecessarily limit the scope of their paper or base their experiment on a false premise. An example is the question does recognition memory have one or two processes? This question assumes that one of these two possibilities is correct and ignores the possibility that more than two processes are involved. A much broader question would be How does recognition memory work? When you discuss a paper, do not take the author s question at face value; rephrase it in your own terms. 2. What did the author(s) do to answer the question? This topic involves method and procedure. Focus on the parts of the procedure that are important and ignore details that are irrelevant. Remember that the central idea of operationism is that concepts have no scientific meaning beyond the operations used to measure them. For example, the authors may have measured the reaction time of observers making judgments about whether or not a test face had been previously seen. Distinguish what is actually measured (reaction time) from the interpretation the authors put on it (e.g., confidence or speed of processing). In other words, distinguish what the authors actually did from what they think they did. 3. What did the author(s) find? In an APA style paper, this question is answered in the results section. The results are the actual data either in raw form or summarized by means that allow comparing relevant experimental conditions. For example, the results might be the mean reaction time for testing in the morning and mean reaction time for testing in the afternoon. 4. What did the author(s) conclude? This question is handled in the discussion section of the paper and is the part that deserves careful consideration. Do the results, combined with what the authors actually measured, justify the conclusions? One should feel free to contradict the authors if their conclusions are not justified. 5. What is your evaluation? Give us your opinion and evaluation of the paper. Page 4
References Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 122-131. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blakemore, C., & Campbell, F. W. (1969). On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology (London), 203(1), 237260. Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (2012). Chapter 6: Face Perception Face Perception (pp. 253 313). New York, New York: Psychology Press. Campbell, F. W., & Robson, J. G. (1968). Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology, 197(3), 551566. Eimas, P. D., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 99-109. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90006-6 Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., & Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Representational similarity analysis - connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2. doi: 10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008 Krumhansl, C. L., & Kessler, E. J. (1982). Tracing the dynamic changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial representation of musical keys. Psychological Review, 89(4), 334 368. Mesgarani, N., & Chang, E. F. (2012). Selective cortical representation of attended speaker in multi-talker speech perception. Nature, advance online publication. Plomp, R. (1976). Aspects of tone perception: a psychophysical study. New York: Academic Press. Plomp, R., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1965). Tonal consonance and critical bandwidth. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 38(4), 548 560. Regan, D. M. (1982). Visual information channeling in normal and disordered vision. Psychological Review, 89(4), 407 444. Schyns, P. G., Bonnar, L., & Gosselin, F. (2002). Show me the features! Understanding recognition from the use of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(5), 402-409. Page 5
Shepard, R. N. (1982). Geometrical approximations to the structure of musical pitch. Psychological Review, 89(4), 305 333. Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P., Jr., & Birdsall, T. G. (1961). Decision processes in perception. Psychological Review, 68(5), 301340. Wilson, H. R., McFarlane, D. K., & Phillips, G. C. (1983). Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking. Vision Research, 23(9), 873 882. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). A signal-detection-based diagnostic-feature-detection model of eyewitness identification. Psychological Review, 121(2), 262-276. doi: 10.1037/a0035940 Wolfe, J. M., Kluender, K. R., Levi, D. M., Bartoshuk, L. M., Herz, R. S., Klatzky, R. L.,... Merfeld, D. M. (2012). Sensation and Perception (3rd ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Wolfrum, P., Wolff, C., Lücke, J., & von der Malsburg, C. (2008). A recurrent dynamic model for correspondence-based face recognition. Journal of Vision, 8(7), 1 18. doi: 10.1167/8.7.34 Page 6
Participants in the Proseminar Name Nickname Advisor Presentation Cripe, Richelle Esther Richelle John Bennett Wk Goode, Lauren Lauren Eliana Colunga Wk Guillermo, Steffanie Lyn Steph Josh Correll Wk Lalchandani, Lakshmi Lux Alice Healy Wk Long, Andrew Robert Wk McKnight, Shannon Marie Shannon Al Kim Wk Morriston, Barbara W. Barbara NA Wk Reddan, Marianne Cumella Marianne Tor Wager Wk Roads, Brett David Brett Mike Mozer Wk 03 Sechman, Michael Scott Mike Rob Ruppert Wk Smolker, Harry Harry Marie Banich Wk Summerside, Erik Erik Alaa Ahmed Wk Young, Adam Patrick Adam Alice Healy Wk 04 Name Nickname Advisor Presentation Brett Roads Wk 03 Adam Young Wk 04 Wk 05 Wk 06 Wk 07 Wk 08 Wk 09 Wk 10 Wk 11 Wk 12 Wk 13 Fall Break Wk 14 Wk 15 Page 7
University of Colorado Boulder PSYC-5665-002 Perception/Attention Prosem Printed From mycuinfo 2014-08-22 at 3:06 This photo roster is made available to you for your use only as the instructor of this course. Per student privacy laws, photos may not be posted on the web or displayed for others to see. Cripe, Richelle Esther Goode, Lauren Guillermo, Steffanie Lyn Lalchandani, Lakshmi Long, Andrew Robert McKnight, Shannon Marie Reddan, Marianne Cumella Roads, Brett David Sechman, Michael Scott Smolker, Harry Summerside, Erik Young, Adam Patrick Page 8