UCSD Cognitive Brownbag
Spring 2015 Schedule
Fridays, 12:00-1:00pm, in the Crick Conference
Room (Mandler Hall 3545).
Directions here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week 3 April 17 Diane Pecher (University of Rotterdam)
Memory
and the motor system
Consistent
with the view that cognition is grounded in perception and action, semantic
tasks on object pictures or language often show interactions with actions. The
question is whether episodic memory is also grounded in action. I will present
several studies that investigated the role of motor actions in memory. In our
studies participants studied object pictures or action verbs while performing
concurrent tasks such as making hand movements. Although concurrent tasks did
interfere with memory performance, in none of the experiments did I find any
evidence that concurrent motor tasks affected memory differently for manipulable and non-manipulable objects. I conclude that episodic memory does not seem to
rely much on the motor system.
Week
4 April 24 On Amir (UCSD, Rady)
Liking Goes with
Liking: An Intuitive Congruence between
Preference and Prominence
Week
5 May 1 Jonathan Schooler (UC
Santa Barbara)
Lost in the Clouds: The
Costs, Benefits and Regulation of Mind-Wandering
Humans
spend a large proportion of their waking hours in thoughts that are unrelated
to the external activities in which they are engaged. When it occurs at inopportune times, the costs
of mind-wandering can be substantial and represent a central underlying factor
in cognitive performance. However, when
timed judiciously, mind-wandering can cause relatively little disruption. Moreover, there appear to be significant
potential benefits of mind-wandering for planning and creativity. Training techniques that, such as
mindfulness practices, that foster the regulation of mind-wandering may be
especially valuable in minimizing its disruptive consequences without
(hopefully) curtailing its benefits.
Week
6 May 8 Johannes Müller-Trede (UCSD, Rady)
When Experience meets Description: How Dyads Integrate
Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions
How do teams make joint decisions under risk
when some team members learn about a prospect from description and others learn
from experience? In a series of experiments, we find that two-person teams
composed of one participant who learns from description and a second
participant who learns from experience make shared decisions by taking turns
and compromising. In doing so, they attenuate individual biases, such as the
over- and underweighting of the probability of rare events. The social
interaction thus leads dyads to make shared decisions that follow normative
standards more closely than the decisions made by individual decision makers.
Finally, in processing experiential information, dyads appear to be sensitive
to the reliability of the experience: The more reliable the experiential
information, the larger its influence on the dyad’s decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week
7 May 15 Dan Kleinman (UCSD, Psychology)
Duck, Duck, ... Mallard: Advance Planning
Facilitates Production of Non-Dominant Responses
Consider the spoken sentence “Dan fell asleep
yesterday on the lab couch.” The speaker likely planned most of its semantic
content prior to speech onset (e.g., deciding that the last word would refer to
the piece of furniture in question). However, due to the attention-demanding
nature of word selection, the speaker may not have selected the final word
(“couch”, instead of the equally acceptable “sofa”) until shortly before it was
uttered. This difference in automaticity means that, relative to a word
produced in isolation, words produced in connected speech can be planned for
longer prior to selection. How does this additional pre-selection planning
affect the words that speakers choose to say? More generally, how does advance
planning affect response activation and selection?
In each of four
dual-task experiments, participants freely chose
between dominant and non-dominant responses under conditions of divided or
undivided attention. In Experiments 1 and 2, speakers named pictures with
multiple names (e.g., “couch” – the dominant name according to norming studies
– and “sofa”). In Experiment 3, bilinguals named pictures in either their
dominant language (“cat”) or their non-dominant language (“gato”).
In Experiment 4, participants categorized either the color (red vs. green) or
the shape (circle vs. triangle) of an object after receiving different amounts
of training on those two tasks. In every experiment, when participants
responded quickly, they produced more non-dominant responses when their
attention was divided than when it was undivided.
These results indicate
that when response selection is delayed, non-dominant responses have more time
to become accessible and so are selected more often. Because attentional bottlenecks
delay response selection in everyday situations, the words we speak, the
languages we use, and the actions we take may be influenced by our ability to
plan them in advance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week
8 May 22 Shlomi
Sher (Pomona College)
A Rational Analysis of Constructed Preference
Choices are sensitive to the context of
available options and the order in which questions are asked. These phenomena
suggest that preferences are "constructed" (rather than
"revealed") and are often considered counter-normative. We propose a
rational analysis of constructed preference, which casts some of these
phenomena in a new light. When knowledge is incomplete, reasonable inferences
from sampled options can explain some important context effects -- including
joint-separate reversals and asymmetric dominance effects. Furthermore, when
preferences are incomplete, a normatively appropriate decision rule treats
choices as precedents, and generates "coherent arbitrariness". The
rational construction of preference is context- and history-dependent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week
9 May 29 Craig
Fox (UCLA)
Week 10 June 5 Rachel Ostrand
(UCSD, Cognitive Science)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©
2015 Department of Psychology,
UCSD
Contact
the organizer here