Friday, December 22, 2006
And the winner is...
A solution to one of the most difficult problems in mathematics was the most important advance of 2006, according to journal Science. New findings on how memories are stored in the brain - the "mechanics" of memories - came in at number 9...
Follow this link to a description of the fidnings on Science's home page.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5807/1850a
For additional articles on the topic:
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/btoy2006/ru_links.html#ltplinks
Follow this link to a description of the fidnings on Science's home page.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5807/1850a
For additional articles on the topic:
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/btoy2006/ru_links.html#ltplinks
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Distraction, Expectation & Memory Consolidation Experiment Link ~ Yes I figured it out
Here is the link to our powerpoint presentation.
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/276435
Thanks to a great class,
The Drunken Monkeys
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/276435
Thanks to a great class,
The Drunken Monkeys
Having trouble posting
Our group is having problems posting on ourmedia.org. Can somebody please try to help. We are trying to upload our powerpoint.
Thanks,
The Drunken Monkeys
Thanks,
The Drunken Monkeys
Source Monitoring Lit Review
Kira was unable to post, so I (Brittany) posted for her.
Linda Benz Brittany Bianchi
Kira Davis Odeya Nini
Power of Suggestion Literature Review
The Power of Suggestion, or Source Monitoring is what we chose to base our group project on. While researching the topic we found that many experiments fitting under this subject were apart of a huge spectrum. Many experiments focused on different senses, intentional forgetting, and imagined events just to name a few. Of course many of them overlap in procedure, but every experiment reviewed, showed interesting findings.
In the American Journal of Psychology, Tracey Kahan, Rannia Mohsen, Jeanette Tandez, and Jennifer McDonald (1999) published the results of their experiment. In their experiment, participants were divided into two groups. Group 1 and Group 2, while blind folded, both ate 4 different types of fruit while imagining another. The only difference is Group 2 was allowed to handle the fruit they were supposed to imagine while tasting one of the 4 “common” fruits. Kahan et al (1999) found that group 2 was more confused when answering the questionnaire a few weeks later. Many participants from Group 2 stated they tasted the fruit they only imagined, and forgot about the fruit they tasted. Many participants from this group had extremely high confidence levels for the questions they were wrong on. Group 1 was not fooled, but the experimenters argued that they did not have as much interference as the second group. To fix this, there should be a third group. Group 1 and 2 should stay the same, but group 3 should be able to handle the fruit they taste and the fruit that they are to imagine. Another option is that Group3 could replace Group1, so both groups have an equal amount of distracters.
The second experiment we looked at dealt with source monitoring and touched on directed forgetting. Phillip Goernet published his findings in the British Journal of Psychology. This experiment also looked at two groups. When given the first list of words they were told to memorize them. Group 1 was told to forget the first list and move on to the second list. Group 2 was told to memorize both lists. Both lists were 16 words long. After a distracter task, participants were given 3 recall tests at intervals of 5 minutes after they completed each list. They had to fill in 16 words for each test. Goernet found that both groups mixed the different lists. Group 1 did not successfully forget list 1. Group 2 did not do what was expected of them, and mixed the two lists. They were not able to correctly distinguish which word went to which list when asked. The only critique, since it was not stated what the lists were, was composing the lists of related words versus rhyming words, but still 16 words long. Group1 could disregard the first list easily and Group 2 could see the difference and try to match the right words with the right lists.
In the last experiment, participants had to remember what they thought were random happenings while they were taking part in their experiment. Linda Henkel, Nancy Franklin, and Marcia K. Johnson reported that people often make the mistake that they see a whole event when that is not true. Many times people hear or feel something and do not report what they really experienced.
One of the simpler tests that participants went through was an “interview” with one of the experimenters. They were told to recall everything that they saw in the interview and what was discussed. Many participants recalled seeing things happen when their attention was somewhere else. One participant said they saw the experimenter slam her binder shut, but was concentrating on a questionnaire when the event happened. Another participant while in the middle of a hot topic and facing the door reported seeing a ball being dribbled by a friend who was stopping by to say hello, when they only heard it. Another person said they saw the experimenter sneeze and felt her spittle on his hand because she did not cover her mouth, but if he did he also would have seen her turn her head while she sneezed and tuck away her small squirt bottle. Even though it seems funny, Henkel et al report that these are fake memories and can cause trouble in other situations. Whether court cases or fights between siblings they argue that everyone should be aware that people often get their senses mixed up and cannot accurately report even daily events.
When referring to these experiments our group was able to pick out small things that we would have liked to change about our experiment. It was interesting to see a few different ways to observe source monitoring. Even though two of the three experiments talked about in this review, have to do with imagined events, their findings are just as fantastic as ours. We are glad that our experiment came out the way it did. Even with all of the difficulties, and our not being able to accomplish everything we set out to do. The experiments mentioned still helped in the write up and shed light on what we could have done differently.
Reference Page
Goernt, Phillip N. (2005). Source monitoring accuracy across repeated tests following directed forgetting. British Journal of Psychology .v96 i2 p231(17).
Henkel, L., Franklin,N., Johnson, Marcia K. Cross-Modal: Source Monitoring Confusions Between Perceived and Imagined Events. Department of Psychology. University of Florida.
Kahan, T., Mohsen R., Tandez, J. McDonald J. (1999). Discriminating Memories for Actual and Imagined Taste Experiences: A reality monitoring approach. American Journal of Psychology. v112, 1 p97.
Linda Benz Brittany Bianchi
Kira Davis Odeya Nini
Power of Suggestion Literature Review
The Power of Suggestion, or Source Monitoring is what we chose to base our group project on. While researching the topic we found that many experiments fitting under this subject were apart of a huge spectrum. Many experiments focused on different senses, intentional forgetting, and imagined events just to name a few. Of course many of them overlap in procedure, but every experiment reviewed, showed interesting findings.
In the American Journal of Psychology, Tracey Kahan, Rannia Mohsen, Jeanette Tandez, and Jennifer McDonald (1999) published the results of their experiment. In their experiment, participants were divided into two groups. Group 1 and Group 2, while blind folded, both ate 4 different types of fruit while imagining another. The only difference is Group 2 was allowed to handle the fruit they were supposed to imagine while tasting one of the 4 “common” fruits. Kahan et al (1999) found that group 2 was more confused when answering the questionnaire a few weeks later. Many participants from Group 2 stated they tasted the fruit they only imagined, and forgot about the fruit they tasted. Many participants from this group had extremely high confidence levels for the questions they were wrong on. Group 1 was not fooled, but the experimenters argued that they did not have as much interference as the second group. To fix this, there should be a third group. Group 1 and 2 should stay the same, but group 3 should be able to handle the fruit they taste and the fruit that they are to imagine. Another option is that Group3 could replace Group1, so both groups have an equal amount of distracters.
The second experiment we looked at dealt with source monitoring and touched on directed forgetting. Phillip Goernet published his findings in the British Journal of Psychology. This experiment also looked at two groups. When given the first list of words they were told to memorize them. Group 1 was told to forget the first list and move on to the second list. Group 2 was told to memorize both lists. Both lists were 16 words long. After a distracter task, participants were given 3 recall tests at intervals of 5 minutes after they completed each list. They had to fill in 16 words for each test. Goernet found that both groups mixed the different lists. Group 1 did not successfully forget list 1. Group 2 did not do what was expected of them, and mixed the two lists. They were not able to correctly distinguish which word went to which list when asked. The only critique, since it was not stated what the lists were, was composing the lists of related words versus rhyming words, but still 16 words long. Group1 could disregard the first list easily and Group 2 could see the difference and try to match the right words with the right lists.
In the last experiment, participants had to remember what they thought were random happenings while they were taking part in their experiment. Linda Henkel, Nancy Franklin, and Marcia K. Johnson reported that people often make the mistake that they see a whole event when that is not true. Many times people hear or feel something and do not report what they really experienced.
One of the simpler tests that participants went through was an “interview” with one of the experimenters. They were told to recall everything that they saw in the interview and what was discussed. Many participants recalled seeing things happen when their attention was somewhere else. One participant said they saw the experimenter slam her binder shut, but was concentrating on a questionnaire when the event happened. Another participant while in the middle of a hot topic and facing the door reported seeing a ball being dribbled by a friend who was stopping by to say hello, when they only heard it. Another person said they saw the experimenter sneeze and felt her spittle on his hand because she did not cover her mouth, but if he did he also would have seen her turn her head while she sneezed and tuck away her small squirt bottle. Even though it seems funny, Henkel et al report that these are fake memories and can cause trouble in other situations. Whether court cases or fights between siblings they argue that everyone should be aware that people often get their senses mixed up and cannot accurately report even daily events.
When referring to these experiments our group was able to pick out small things that we would have liked to change about our experiment. It was interesting to see a few different ways to observe source monitoring. Even though two of the three experiments talked about in this review, have to do with imagined events, their findings are just as fantastic as ours. We are glad that our experiment came out the way it did. Even with all of the difficulties, and our not being able to accomplish everything we set out to do. The experiments mentioned still helped in the write up and shed light on what we could have done differently.
Reference Page
Goernt, Phillip N. (2005). Source monitoring accuracy across repeated tests following directed forgetting. British Journal of Psychology .v96 i2 p231(17).
Henkel, L., Franklin,N., Johnson, Marcia K. Cross-Modal: Source Monitoring Confusions Between Perceived and Imagined Events. Department of Psychology. University of Florida.
Kahan, T., Mohsen R., Tandez, J. McDonald J. (1999). Discriminating Memories for Actual and Imagined Taste Experiences: A reality monitoring approach. American Journal of Psychology. v112, 1 p97.
Study Session
I will be at the Cosi on 13th and 6th tonight at 6:30 with my book and notes if anyone cares to join me......
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Final exam options: heuristics in action
Let's say that a roulette table was fixed to be random yet biased, such that on average it would come up red 70% of the time and black 30% of the time. Suppose you could only bet on red, which you'd want to do anyway, but you had to state how many times you'd be willing to play. You'd want to play forever, right?
Now let's say you were forced to bet on black, but you still had the right to state how many times you'd be willing to play. You'd ask to play only once and then get out of there, I hope.
Why the difference? When the odds are in your favor, you want to maximize your opportunity to play that game, but when the odds are against you, you'd want to minimize the opportunity. This is one reason, simplistically speaking, why good blackjack card-counters want to play for hours.
So Rebecca gave us a choice of 10 essay questions or 1 of 2 essay questions, and collectively, we chose the latter. What does this say about our perception of our ability to "beat the house" thisThursday??
Sure, it's not an exact analogy, but in the last class, I sensed a desire to do less work without the recognition that, with respect to the question options, we were betting everything on one (or two) rolls of the dice.
Then again, not all groups have posted their presentations...have some people reconsidered their strategic self-interest??
Now let's say you were forced to bet on black, but you still had the right to state how many times you'd be willing to play. You'd ask to play only once and then get out of there, I hope.
Why the difference? When the odds are in your favor, you want to maximize your opportunity to play that game, but when the odds are against you, you'd want to minimize the opportunity. This is one reason, simplistically speaking, why good blackjack card-counters want to play for hours.
So Rebecca gave us a choice of 10 essay questions or 1 of 2 essay questions, and collectively, we chose the latter. What does this say about our perception of our ability to "beat the house" thisThursday??
Sure, it's not an exact analogy, but in the last class, I sensed a desire to do less work without the recognition that, with respect to the question options, we were betting everything on one (or two) rolls of the dice.
Then again, not all groups have posted their presentations...have some people reconsidered their strategic self-interest??
Sunday, December 17, 2006
False Positives group: link to experiment summary
I've posted the full summary to Google Docs as a beta test of that service. The calibration graph isn't rendering correctly, but it's all more or less published. Paste this link:
http://docs.google.com/View?Docid=dfhb5hd5_0ctwght
Any comments, either on content or how it renders in html, let us know.
http://docs.google.com/View?Docid=dfhb5hd5_0ctwght
Any comments, either on content or how it renders in html, let us know.
Friday, December 15, 2006
subliminal messages
Here is a link that talks about the history of subliminal message in film, television, print media and audio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message
The Silencer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message
The Silencer
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
"Me Translate Pretty One Day"
An article by Wired magazine about creating algorithms for language translation. Do you think it will ever really work?
article about nature vs nurture debate
Check out this article I found about the nature vs nurture debate.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/dickens/200104.htm
The article breaks down nature vs. nurture over the IQ paradox. Basically descibes that large intergeneration changes in IQ have been noted that cannot possibly be due to heritability.
Pretty interesting. Let me know what you think?
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/dickens/200104.htm
The article breaks down nature vs. nurture over the IQ paradox. Basically descibes that large intergeneration changes in IQ have been noted that cannot possibly be due to heritability.
Pretty interesting. Let me know what you think?
Friday, December 01, 2006
If you want to help the False Positives study...
...please check the False Positives blog below. You can e-mail me (rgasparre@mindspring.com) in confidence if you don't want to post, and I'll respond directly.
Thanks in advance for all efforts...
Thanks in advance for all efforts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)