Mental Rotation

In experiment 1, participants were instructed to press a key to determine if the stimulus was red, blue, yellow, or green. On the second half of the experiment, the stimulus appeared in grey with only one colored letter which was positioned randomly. Error rates for the experiment were below 2.5% for each condition, which is quite low. Experiment 2 was the same as experiment 1 except that there were 114 data collections instead of 288 and there were 36 practice trials instead of 72. According to experiment 1 and 2 it is suggested that the effect of

Ullsperger, Bylsma, and Botvinick (2005) investigated whether the findings of Mayr, Awh, and Laurey (2003) can be replicated and how much they can be shown across different task performances. Their specific study was motivated by a prior experiment where Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) found that after an incompatible type trial reaction times were reduced and target processing occurred more frequently than flanker processing on the next trial. Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, and Cohen (2001) believed that this follows the conflict monitoring hypothesis where incompatible trials involve a conflict with the response leading to greater top-down information processing (Botvinick, Nystrom, Fissell, Carter, & Cohen, 1999). However, Mayr et. al (2003) argued that the congruency sequence effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) was due to repetition priming because of stimulus repeats in a flanker task. This may have led to a faster reaction time with repeated trials. Mayr et al. (2003) used two experiments to present evidence for their argument. Both experiments failed to show the effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) when target and stimulus items did not repeat from trial to trial.

Purpose: The purpose of the experiment was to see if there was any correlation between the spatial presentation of stimuli and a change in comprehension and memorizing information.

Throughout these experiments, psychologists have simplified the IMR as being an action that a person subconsciously performs by repeated exposure to an image (Herbort and Butz, 2012; Shin et al., 2010). According to the IMR the three main effects that can occur after exposure to an image repeatedly are: associating the image with real life events (p. 945), seeing an event can automatically cause the brain to remember it in that specific way (p. 946), and witnessing another event that looks similar to the original image can cause the brain to automatically enact on those actions that are associated with the original image (Shin et al., 2010, p. 960). Originally, this concept was used to study different learning techniques and how fast a person could adapt to learning something new through visual imagery (Shine et al., 2010; Herbert and Butz,

After being shown an image of one of twelve standardized faces, half of black boys, half of white boy, they were asked to determine whether the next image was of a weapon or toy, followed by a pattern mask to block visual processing of the previous image (Todd, et al., 2016). Todd et al (2016) measured reaction time (RT), which were measured in milliseconds (ms) and error rate or how often an object was identified incorrectly. Following the identification task the participants rated the age, race-ethnicity, and how threatening the image was for each of the 12 images. (Todd, et al.,

The two independent variables were luminant cue patches (light cue, dark cue and equiluminant cue) and location of the cue and target (valid side with cue and target on same side and invalid side with cue and target on opposite sides). The dependent variable was participants’ reaction time in millisecond.

However, while these explanations are plausible, I made an assumption that, if inaccurate, could diminish the validity of my claims. Specifically, I made the assumption that gesture training alone, without necessarily producing gesture during mental rotation tasks, could serve to enhance mental rotation performance. Should signing individuals not spontaneously produce gesture when solving mental rotation tasks, then the gesture intrinsic in sign language may still act as inherent spatial training, but it may not be used as an advantageous strategy

Early studies have widely researched attention with selective processing (Driver, 2001). Broadbent (1958) filter theory of attention states that certain information does not require focal attention. It is based on certain stimulus attributes such as colour and shape (Friedenberg, 2012). A previous study carried out by Treisman and Schmidt (1982) proposes that when attention is diverted from a display of several figures, the participants incorrectly combine the features of colour and shape therefore increases the illusory conjunctions portrayed by the participants (Tsal, 1989). Another study by Shaw (1978) found that reaction time of participant to identify targets varied with the probability that a target would appear in a particular display location. These results indicate that different amounts of attention towards the targets are distributed to different positions in the visual field. However, Houck and Hoffman (1986) found that the feature integration of colour and orientation can sometimes be accomplished without attention (James et al.,

Overly, the model provides coherent explanation of many kind of information about faces and how they relate to each other. It provides evidence about significant differences in processing of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Nonetheless there are limitations. For instance, there is not enough information about processing unfamiliar faces. Burton et al. (1999)

(Similar to effects noted in patients with Agnosia, to be further discussed.) However Tarr and Bülthoff (1995) found that when giving participants’ novel objects to recognise and extensive practice at viewing the objects from a specified viewpoint that performance in object recognition was better from familiar viewpoints than unfamiliar ones, which does not support Biedermans viewpoint invariant theory. This result demonstrates viewpoint dependent where by object recognition is slower and less accurate when viewed from different perspectives, this can be compared to the importance of the inversion effect in face recognition where by faces are less accurately recognised when viewed upside down.

The signature phenomena of cue competition in conditioning are overshadowing and blocking. In overshadowing (Pavlov, 1927), when two cues are redundant predictors of the same outcome, less is learned about either than when it is the sole predictor of the outcome. In blocking (Kamin, 1969), training with a single cue reduces (blocks) learning about a second, redundant cue added later. Several studies have looked for blocking or overshadowing of geometric information by features (for a review, see Cheng & Newcombe, 2005). Most studies have concluded that a predictive feature near a goal does not block learning about the shape of an enclosure (e.g., Hayward, Good, & Pearce, 2004; Pearce et al., 2001; Wall et al., 2004). Moreover, in contrast with the expected competition between cues, geometry is sometimes learned better in the presence than in the absence of informative features. Pearce et al. (2001), for example, found that a beacon improved learning about the geometry of a triangular water tank. Other researchers have come across hints of this same phenomenon (e.g., Hayward et al., 2004; Hayward, McGregor, Good, & Pearce, 2003). Using a geometrically unambiguous kite-shaped water tank, Graham, Good, McGregor, and Pearce (2006) demonstrated in rats substantial potentiation of geometry learning by a feature. Kelly and Spetch (2004a, 2004b) also found clear evidence of potentiation of geometry learning by a feature in an operant task in which people and pigeons were

Reaction time, like most subjects related to the brain, has an interesting history. At first, most scientists believed that mental processes in the human brain were too fast to be measured. However, a Dutch Physiologist named F.C. Donders started to think, about whether reaction time could be measured in 1965. Donder’s thoughts were backed up by research done by a English scientist and inventor Charles Wheatstone. In 1840, Wheatstone conducted an experiment where a patient’s foot was shocked. The test subject had to press a button using the hand that was on the same side as the foot that was shocked. Some patients knew which foot would be shocked and others did not know. There was a one-fifteenth second delay between the two. The was the first record of the mind being measured (Shannon, 2012).

Journal of Vision 2015). There was an experiment conducted where Participants were calibrated with an 8-dot calibration before the start of each task. Subsequently, each participant did both the Number and the Area Task, with order counterbalanced across subjects. Participants had to verify whether the cumulative area was higher for the blue or yellow side, independent of number. In the Number Task participants had to verify whether the total number of items on the screen was higher for the blue or yellow side, independent of cumulative area. The experimenter stayed with the participant for four practice trials in order to make sure that the participant understood which dimension to attend to on each Task. Each trial was presented for 2000 milliseconds and participants were able to respond at any time during that period. The stimulus stayed up after the response, allowing eye tracking to continue for the full 2000 millisecond period. However, all of the reported results are reduced to the participant 's response time on the particular trial. All eye-tracking variables were extracted from the data by examining fixation points along the horizontal and vertical axes; fixation points were determined with thresholds on both velocity and position. Any samples that were unreliable were removed from the data analysis, because the participant blinked or looked

Similarly, both theories are supported by research. Lawson and Humphreys (1996), for example, showed that recognition is affected more by tilt of major axis (foreshortening) than any other rotation, which endorses Marr’s and Nishihara prediction that establishing a central axis is crucial to the process of recognition. Warrington and Taylor (1978) reported that brain damaged patients could recognize objects presented in a typical view only. These patients found difficult to say if two photographs presented simultaneously were the same object when one image was a typical view and the other an unusual view. Although this could be explained as the patient’s inability to transform a 2D version of the atypical view into a 3D model, it could also be due to difficulty in establishing the central axis or due to some features of the object being hidden. In a later study, Humphreys and Riddoch (1984) used images where either the axis had been foreshortened through rotation or a critical feature was hidden. They found that patients had more problems recognizing the images with a foreshortened axis than the ones where a critical feature was hidden. Their

The reaction time (RT) of students was measured in the experiment to determine whether light or sound stimulus initiates a quicker response time. The question of whether or not RT was related to movement time (MT) was also challenged. Each student performed two test in random order; one testing the reaction time of a red light stimulus, or visual reaction time (VRT); and the other testing the reaction time of a “beeping” sound stimulus, or auditory reaction time (ART). The student completed the VRT trial by simply receiving the stimulus and pressing a button. The student placing and holding their hand on a button starts the ART trial. Once the student receives the stimulus (beep) they press the adjacent button as fast as they can. The ART trial does not only include the data of the RT, but also the data from the MT. Having previous knowledge that light travels faster than sound; one can predict that VRT is faster than ART. The prediction that MT is independent upon RT can be made with the thought that there are so many opposing variables that could affect the MT of an individual unrelated RT such as old age