1 19 september, 2000hku cognitive psychology part i: where does cognitive psychology fit within...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
240 views
TRANSCRIPT
19 September, 2000 HKU 1
Cognitive Psychology
Part I:
Where does Cognitive Psychology fit within Cognitive Science?
19 September, 2000 HKU 2
Just about everywhere.
Almost all research in Cognitive Science is relevant to some
Cognitive Psychologist.
19 September, 2000 HKU 3
Important Concepts
• Three levels of organization of intelligent systems (Pylyshyn, 1999)– Physical/Biological– Syntactic/Symbolic– Semantic/Knowledge
19 September, 2000 HKU 4
• Three levels of understanding information processing (Marr, 1982)– Hardware Implementation– Representational Algorithm– Computational Theory
19 September, 2000 HKU 5
Computational Theory(knowledge/semantics)
• What is the goal of the computation?
See a brown dog
Pet the brown dog
19 September, 2000 HKU 6
Representation & Algorithm(Syntactic/Symbolic)
• How to implement these goals?
• How are the inputs and outputs represented?– What must be done to “see” a brown dog?– To “pet” the brown dog?
• What is the algorithm for transforming one to the other?
19 September, 2000 HKU 7
Hardware Implementation(biological/physical)
• What physical equipment is needed to implement these representations and algorithms?
• Retina(s)• Interneurons• Motoneurons• Muscles• Arm/hand• Proprioceptors• Tactile sensory
neurons• Etc.
19 September, 2000 HKU 8
• The three levels (theory, representation & algorithm, and implementation) are useful organizing principles in all of Cognitive Science
• Psychology is mostly concerned with the second level: Representation and Processing
19 September, 2000 HKU 9
What’s not Cognitive Psychology?
• Purely “engineering” solutions (e.g. Deep Blue II)– Building jet airplanes doesn’t help us better
understand birds
19 September, 2000 HKU 10
Reading AssignmentWeek 2
• Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). What’s in your mind? In Lepore, E. & Pylyshyn, Z. (Eds.) What is Cognitive Science (pp. 1-25). Oxford, Blackwell.
19 September, 2000 HKU 11
Warning
Pylyshyn is very biased
(but not necessarily wrong).
• Opposed to behaviorism (1.1–1.2, 4.1).
• Opposed to connectionism (In favor of symbolic representations) (4.2).
19 September, 2000 HKU 12
Behaviorism
• We can only understand an organism’s behavior by studying physical stimuli and how the organism reacts to them.
• It is not possible to observe the internal workings of the mind, so don’t propose internal constructs (goals/desires, mental representations, algorithms, etc.)
• Now largely abandoned. In Cognitive Psychology it is now common and accepted to postulate internal constructs.
19 September, 2000 HKU 13
Connectionism
• Computational models of behavior.
• Modeled on the brain (neural networks).
• Do not rely on symbolic expressions.
• Can perform a surprising range of computational/behavioral tasks.
• Can’t do everything humans can?(Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988)
19 September, 2000 HKU 14
Part II
What is Cognitive Psychology?
19 September, 2000 HKU 15
Cognitive Psychology
How• Experimental• Biological• Computational
What• Perception• Categorization• Representation• Memory• Attention• Learning• Thought
19 September, 2000 HKU 16
Why do experiments?
“Human beings were not created for the convenience of
experimental psychologists.” George Miller (in Barsalou, 1992)
19 September, 2000 HKU 17
Control the situation
• Most phenomena could have many causes, how do we know which one is the (main) cause?
• Test each possibility, one by one.
• Need to eliminate chance of other causes taking effect (control)
19 September, 2000 HKU 18
Some ways to control variables
• Select your subjects carefully– Only right-handed, male, native English
speakers
• Create your stimuli carefully– Record specific syllables spoken by a
trained talker
• Choose a simple environment– Empty room, sound booth, etc.
19 September, 2000 HKU 19
Manipulate your subjects
• Experiments crucially involve a comparison of (at least) two groups (who may still be the same people).
• The difference between the groups is caused by manipulation of experimental variables.
19 September, 2000 HKU 20
Some Experimental Manipulations
• Between group comparisons:– 2 year-old children vs. 6 yr olds– English speakers vs. Cantonese speakers– University students vs. early school leavers
• Within group comparisons:– Untrained listeners vs. trained listeners– Listening to Cantonese vs. listening to English– Dosed with a drug vs. with a placebo
19 September, 2000 HKU 21
For example
• Question: Does knowing how to speak one tone language make it easier to hear the tones of a different tone language?(easier than it is without knowing a tone language)
• Possible answers:– Yes, perception of tone is universal – if you’ve got it, you’ve got it.
– No, perception of tone is language-specific. You must learn the sound system of each language separately.
• How do we test this?
19 September, 2000 HKU 22
Lee, Vakoch, & Wurm (1996)
• Three groups: Cantonese, Mandarin, and English speakers
• Two sets of sounds: Cantonese and Mandarin (presented in pairs, grouped by language)
• Asked subjects “same or different” for each pair
19 September, 2000 HKU 23
Lee, Vakoch, & Wurm (1996)
• Cantonese tones:Cantonese > Mandarin = English
• Mandarin tones:Mandarin > Cantonese > English
• Conclusions:– Native language is best– knowing Cantonese helps with Mandarin– Knowing Mandarin does not help with
Cantonese
19 September, 2000 HKU 24
Criticism of experiments
• Ecologically implausible– “same-different” task is unlike real
speech perception
• Small answers to small problems– What do we really know now that we
didn’t know before?
19 September, 2000 HKU 25
Bibliography• Barsalou, L. W. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
and Associates.• Coren, S. & Ward, L. M. (1989). Sensation and Perception, Third Edition. Fort Worth, NJ, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.• Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition,
28, 3-71.• Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231-262. • Lee, Y.-S., Vakoch, D. A., & Wurm, L. H. (1996). Tone perception in Cantonese and Mandarin: A cross-linguistic
comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 527-542.• Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York, W. H. Freeman & Company.• Medin, D. L. & Aguilar, C. (1999). Categorization. In Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C. (Eds.) The MIT Encyclopedia of the
Cognitive Sciences (pp. 104-106). Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.• Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). What’s in your mind? In Lepore, E. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (Eds.) What is Cognitive Science
(pp. 1-25). Oxford, Blackwell.• Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.• Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18,
624-643.• Wu, L., (1995). Perceptual Representation in Conceptual Combination. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago