@Participants: PRO Teacher, STU Student, ANT Student, BEA Student, BIR
Student, CAT Student, DOG Student, DUC Student, DRG Student, EMU
Student, PUM Student, ROB Student, ZEB Student
@Media: lect15, video
@Situation: Lecture in Room 332A Baker for Cognitive Research Methods
*PRO: no because he wasn't presenting real objects. ▶
*STU: is it possible that the frontal lobe is used to identify what an
object actually is once it's been seen. ▶
*PRO: yeah absolutely um not just of course <to> [/] to identify what it
is but one of the things we know is that identify things that is we
tend to act upon things motorically by what they mean to us. ▶
*PRO: so a table we start even thinking about putting papers down on it.
*PRO: ah a lot of objects um (.) bananas we think about peeling them. ▶
*PRO: maybe eating them. ▶
*BEA: The hand motions are distracting from the speech.
*PRO: we have a sort of a bunch of motor reactions to objects. ▶
*PRO: you know <they> [/] they we call them affordences. ▶
*PRO: so what is an affordence? ▶
*PRO: an affordence for example would be um a steering wheel <has certain
afford(ances)> [/] has certain affordences it provides places for
you to grab. ▶
*PRO: so as soon as you see a steer if you know how to drive as soon as
you find a steering wheel you start thinking oh I can drive you
*BEA: A steering wheel may not have been the best example of affordances
because many things are wheel, but you can't steer with them.
*PRO: you can turn it you can turn these are things you know.
*ZEB: Gave example of affordance, but no definition.
*PRO: what are the affordences of this? ▶
*PRO: you know it's sharp. ▶
*PRO: but they all were every single one of them were these funny sharp
objects that just had different patterns. ▶
*PRO: so there were realy no affordences. ▶
*PRO: now it turns out that one of the things the frontal lobes also does
(.) you are a hundred percent right but just push it a little
*ANT: Good teaching strategy: ask question, listen to response, start
discussion instead of just accepting the answer, and push it a
*ANT: all this is good for getting the student to think for him or
*PRO: one of the things the frontal lobes do is they particularly connect
to what we call the um the dorsal pathway which is the top of the
brain visual processing which is not just objects recognition not
just seeing what the object is but seeing how we should act on the
object ok. ▶
*PRO: and so this information is particulaly transmitted up to this
dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex this area. ▶
*DOG: when you say and, so uh this is a little confusing as to whether
you are still talking about what you were before or if it is a new
*DOG: it is hard to follow, particularly because I have little or no
background knowledge on what you are talking about.
*PRO: and the fact that he didn't pick this up is really just a matter of
using you know just unnatural stimuli. ▶
*PRO: so we go back to this whole experimental versus observational. ▶
*PRO: course the problem is you can't really observe people you know in
the total real world <but> [/] but well but you can still do f_M_R_I
and you can still run this experiment but the guy just failed to
include a condition with some real objects in it. ▶
*PRO: so if he had just put some real object in we would have been able
to make a lot more sense out of what he had done. ▶
*DUC: This example was much more relevant and helpful than the previous
*PRO: well beyond that then you'd say not just real objects what about um
should the guy have put in ones that um are more easily manipulated
as opposed to the ones that you know you don't act upon so much as
sort of just watch them and so on. ▶
*PRO: ah there are a lot of other conditions <and> [/] and some people
like uh remember the experiment where the image comparison what was
it the big parts the tryverski(sp) one with the big parts of the
objects where penguins have arms verses a penguin has claws or
*BIR: If the teacher doesn't know something, its unlikely that the
students will (.) unprepared example.
*PRO: remember that one? ▶
*PRO: you know with the little does he has teeth or claws verses does he
have a back you know. ▶
*PRO: it's all the Kosman(sp) imagery work. ▶
*PRO: Kosman has done a lot of f_M_R_I work about this kind of thing and
has actually shown that in fact the brain does a lot of this imagery
imagery imaging I guess you would say and <so> [/] so there is a way
in which thinking a lot about a way we really do object and how we
act upon them should inform what is going on down here. ▶
*PUM: Perhaps the way to go would be fewer tangents but more linkage to
the central discussion.
*PUM: in just a second we sort of jump back to the central lecture topic
and the connection, while clear, links us back to so much
information that its difficult to keep track of.
*PRO: eh if it doesn't I think we might be in a little trouble sometimes.
*PRO: that's ok (.) so (.) so that's all I guess that's all for now ok so
that's but there's a lot more to it. ▶
*CAT: There's a lot more to what?
*CAT: sorry, I just woke up.
*CAT: too dull to stay conscious during.
*CAT: how does this pertain to research methods?
*PRO: a lot more to that. ▶
*PRO: ok now um there is also some I'll ask you a couple of questions
about this difference here functional verses experimental. ▶
*PRO: ah I don't know probably has anyone tried to answer any of those
questions yet I don't know? ▶
*PRO: um in the Massaro readings you know first of all Massaro makes
this difference and I think this is an interesting difference. ▶
*BEA: Failed to conclude a sentence.
*PRO: but it is very hard to really pin down in practice whether an
experiment is an experiment or whether it is a functional measure. ▶
*PRO: so what Massaro uses as his example of functional measurement is
this photon stuff. ▶
*PRO: ok do you remember the photon thing? ▶
*PRO: it's not really photons what are they called quanta like quanta and
if I quess what is the differences quanta anyone know physics good
enough what is the differences between a photon and a quantum? ▶
*BIR: Is this relevant?
*PRO: isn't it one photon one quantum? ▶
*BEA: Off topic on physics material, for which the facts are probably
*PRO: (.) quantum of life no? ▶
*PRO: no physics ok? ▶
*PRO: I think so I think that means the minimal amount of light would be
the photon ok. ▶
*PRO: and so it ends up with this thing where in fact the retina is
sensitive to nine that there are nine or ten ah neurons on the
retina get one quantum one photon then that is enough to say that
you've seen a light in darkness. ▶
*PUM: The gesturing here is unnecessary.
*PUM: no amount of hand gestures imply a photon to me.
*PUM: Also it appears to be a bit of unnecessary information.
*PUM: We are more interested here in the fact that it was a functional
measure rather than what he concluded.
*PUM: The specifics of his study are readily available in the
*PRO: so you have to be dark adapted and probably you know ah I can't
remember if there is anything else probably you know good vision. ▶
*PRO: so ah but one of the things was this study went in and said um
please note that a lot of these quantar aren't getting through to
the retina because of the they're being filtered out by the ah
what's between the retina and the eye it's the iris or the pupil or
whatever all the stuff the maculum butain all the stuff in front of
the retina. ▶
*BIR: Unprepared example, kind of trails of in listing the physiological
parts that may filter the light entering the eye.
*PRO: so a lot of pho(ton) a lot <of those> [/] of those quanta aren't
getting through and so finally the ones that are actually getting
through we believe are nine or ten. ▶
*CAT: Ummm (.) Lens and aqueous humor?
*CAT: I don't think the iris does much filtering, especially when dark
adapted, and the pupil is just a hole.
*PRO: so this a <very> [/] very physiological measurement ok. ▶
*ROB: It would have helped if there was a drawing to go along with the
discussion of this functional study.
*PRO: ah (.) <and> [/] and why is this not an experiment? ▶
*PRO: (.) <why is this> [/] why is this a functional study <and not> [/]
and not an experiment? ▶
*PRO: it is tricky. ▶
*PRO: yeah Chris. ▶
*DOG: this is confusing, is he right or wrong and how does this tie
together with what you were talking about?
*STU: because you are not actually controlling how much life hits the
actual neuron the receptors. ▶
*PRO: ah that would be great it that were true that would make a nice
clean separation <between the true> [//] between the two. ▶
*PRO: ah (.) oh in that well maybe I'm not quite sure I think the answers
no I think they are controlling but let me think what you are saying
*PRO: maybe you're right maybe it depends on how you (.) what a second
their not controlling so they do control the darkness the time since
darkness ah so the lights go out and you get dark adapted right? ▶
*BEA: Immediately rejected a students thoughts before thinking about it.
*PRO: so that is a variable sort of right. ▶
*PRO: you even saw that you saw that so that hum +... ▶
*PRO: and they can't control what you'll be responsive to. ▶
*PRO: yeah um (.) <I don't know> [/] I don't know. ▶
*PRO: anyone else wa(nt) I'm not trying I don't know that there this is
an easy answer here so don't I'm just trying I'm just trying to get
this out on the table what does Massaro means here I mean he does
have something important to say. ▶
*PRO: but ah (.) it doesn't feel like an experiment maybe but why? ▶
*PRO: why does this not feel like an experiment? ▶
*PRO: when you go into the optometrist or to the audiologist do you feel
like you are being experimented on? ▶
*PRO: are you in like <two control one> [//] are you in a control
condition like you verses another group? ▶
*PRO: or are you know see what I am saying is there like a design here? ▶
*PRO: instead what is going on? ▶
*DOG: Its distracting when you touch your face.
*ROB: It is good to let the class think here.
*ROB: Since this is an important concept the time spent here is useful.
*PRO: (.) it's sort of like the stimulus is being ratcheted up and your
response to it is the amount of time in the dark adaptation is
<being> [/] being you know continuously varied <in every> [//] it's
like ah I don't know it is like ah you know how many volts can we
give you before you scream pain or something. ▶
*DUC: At this point, it's pretty apparent that either his question is
vague or nobody knows the answer, so he should go ahead and answer
*PRO: you know I don't know if you want to do one of those experiments
but you know something like that.
*PRO: ratchet up to the point until something happens ok. ▶
*PRO: so it's like measuring the functional characteristics of you as an
*PRO: ah (.) how much loudness before <oo> [!] you have you know <this>
[/] this reaction. ▶
*ROB: Here it would be good to let some time for the class to process
each of the examples given to try to find the connection between
*EMU: Good lead in to why the light tests are more functional than
*PRO: another one would be the brain stem response. ▶
*PRO: <ah to aud(itory)> [//] there is a thing called the auditory evoke
*BIR: Not clear what auditory evoked potential is or what it measures.
*PRO: and ah you can actual(ly) you know put on EEG cap and then you
can make a sound and you can measure this in newborns. ▶
*PUM: Sort of a side note: How do you convince moms to give their
newborns up for an EEG scan.
*PUM: If there is an established method there should definitely be a
class in it.
*PUM: Relating it to lecture style, when a professor introduces neat
facts like this but don't explain them fully or relate them more
clearly attention tends to wander.
*PRO: ok (.) <there's a> [/] there's a potential. ▶
*PRO: so you could be stuff that really isn't in a way isn't is it an
experiment isn't it.
*PRO: well see I think that's the problem here is that in a way these are
*PRO: but they are kind of biological experiments.
*PRO: (.) ok they are almost kind of like real science <xxx> [= laugh]. ▶
*PRO: I don't want to say that no fair how should I say it they are not
really testing how about this they are not testing a hypothesis. ▶
*DRG: Saying, hmm, how about this makes him sound like he hasn't thought
through the material.
*PRO: right? ▶
*PRO: would you agree? ▶
*PRO: what's the hypothesis being tested in the photon experiment? ▶
*PRO: (.) xxx . ▶
*PRO: try to get some +... ▶
*PRO: do you think their is a hypothesis? ▶
*PRO: Adler do you say that there is. ▶
*PRO: what is being tested in the photon experiment? ▶
*PRO: (.) yeah Carry? ▶
*PRO: a threshold. ▶
*PRO: a threshold. ▶
*PRO: yeah kind of a reactivity. ▶
*PRO: ok what's the point at which ok. ▶
*PRO: ah so I think that's what the distinction here. ▶
*PRO: now what if I said my hypothesis is that peoples' threshold is (.)
nine photons. ▶
*PRO: oh wait a second th(at) what would you say about that as a
*PRO: is that a reasonable hypothesis? ▶
*PRO: peoples yeah. ▶
*PRO: well if you had a reason behind picking nine. ▶
*PRO: there you go. ▶
*PRO: yeah there you go. ▶
*PRO: what would that be? ▶
*PRO: why would you magically say nine. ▶
*BEA: no clue. ▶
*PRO: yeah no clue I mean this is one of the big times that actually one
of the few places that I almost thought Chomsky made some sense once
or twice. ▶
*PUM: Let us in on the joke.
*DOG: incomplete sentence.
*ZEB: Unclear, what aspect of Chomsky's theory do you agree with?
*DRG: He cuts down Chompsky.
*DRG: Maybe he knows better, but it seems like the students should be
left to make their own judgments.
*DUC: This is very confusing for students who are not familiar with
Chomsky's theory, perhaps a little more explanation would have
*ZEB: This example was clearer than the Chomsky example.
*PRO: ah but ah you know people say <why is it> [/] why is it magically
that we can understand sentences with two center embedding and not
*PRO: you know where is the theory that says actually later on we did get
people did get end up with a theory that why three center imbeddings
are wrong it's just the dog the cat the rat chased by xxx ran jumped
or what ever you know sentences you can't understand ok. ▶
*PRO: um ah now George Miller had this notion ah the magical number seven
plus or minus two that the capacity of short term memory is such and
such but he never really said it was seven did <he> [/] he said
seven was a little bit variable you know. ▶
*PRO: So this when ever we come up with a number in Psychology it's not
the number that's the hypothesis the number is always going to be
variable around some individuals (.) capacity. ▶
*ROB: Here is a nice definition about the importance of numbers in
psychology with enough discussion around it for the class to
*PRO: ok in fact children's ah short term working capacity actually will
increase over age. ▶
*PUM: Fundamentally interesting point.
*PUM: put it on the board or come up with a neater gesture.
*PUM: the point itself is a nice sort of revelation that clears up the
difference between functional and experimental quite nicely.
*PRO: so young children can only remember digit spans of three and four.
*PRO: very young children. ▶
*PRO: and then it goes up to five actually Kelley and I did a bunch of
*PRO: I've got beautiful graphs showing how childrens short term memory
just increases linearly with age. ▶
*PRO: we are not the only people that have found this but it is a very
very very smooth function. ▶
*PRO: ok well so it's an organic thing it's not so much a theory right? ▶
*PRO: I mean what if I told you the meylin the conductivity of the nerves
*PRO: right? ▶
*PRO: because we have meylinization you know remember the nodes of xxx
and all that stuff the little fat sheaths around the neurons. ▶
*PRO: those increase the speed of the conduction of the neurons so that
very young children do not have very quick reaction times and as
those become meylinated they become faster and faster. ▶
*PRO: it not really um yes or no kind of hypothesis it like how much
mylanization how much increase there is no number nine that's really
a magic number. ▶
*ZEB: Unclear why this any different between other studies of dose
*ZEB: Also, what is a yes no hypothesis?
*BEA: Is this is answer to the question from a while earlier?
*BEA: A lot of examples were hit since the original topic, and a review
might have been good.
*PRO: ok. ▶
*PRO: was this important because I think you are going to have a lot of
trouble understanding some of that Massaro stuff unless you kind of
try to see what he's fishing for here. ▶
*PRO: but ah so that's fine but what about the Sperling thing. ▶
*PRO: you know there's this ah (.) remember the Sperling one? ▶
*CAT: Massaro, Chompsky, Sperling, Miller, seven, nine, myelination,
STM, Optometry, Hypothesis testing, Conductivity, Fishing.
*CAT: All right, I'm lost.
*CAT: You keep droping new names, and now here comes another old
experiment that we've studied a lot before.
*CAT: What exactly are you trying to tell us?
*CAT: What point are you trying to get across?
*CAT: I remember something about something about Massaro, but you have
spent so much more time talking about random experimental tangents
that I'm confused.
*PRO: with the ah you know ah r@l q@l two z@l (.) right this business. ▶
%com: write grid on board
*PRO: I guess this is four rows of four or whatever it is but remember
*EMU: The jump to Sperling is a bit difficult to follow until it is
finished, and it makes it difficult to understand where things are
going until drawing is finished.
*DOG: diagram is confusing, not clear.
*PRO: so in Spurling you know if we point here then we can show the
capacity for short term memory is larger than if we don't have a
probe here. ▶
*PRO: ah is this functional? ▶
*PUM: The explanation of the Sperling is completely unclear.
*PUM: It sort of lost the class at a high point.
*PUM: Perhaps clearer examples mapped out before class would be helpful.
*PRO: is this we all remember the experiment is everybody ok? ▶
*ZEB: Good to check for comprehension.
*PRO: um is this a functional study or is this an experimental study? ▶
*PRO: <Wh(at)> [//] <why> [/] why is it one or the other here? ▶
*PRO: (.) Dwight? ▶
*BEA: I don't remember the experiment exactly but I would say probably
experimental because he has some sort of theory that he's testing
*PRO: yeah you're right the theory +/. ▶
*PRO: he's saying that short term memory's what increased in xxx when he
puts the probe in. ▶
*PRO: it's there for a short period of time. ▶
*PRO: you can't quite recode. ▶
*PRO: it that remember that whole thing again with the three box theory.
*PRO: ok then you have your sensory (.) then your short term memory (.)
then your long term memory. ▶
*PRO: and you are trying to get stuff over into you short term memory but
you can't do the coding fast enough to get the chunks that are going
to sit in short term memory. ▶
*PRO: ah so you can't get the whole display. ▶
*PRO: <but if> [//] but it is there for a moment. ▶
*PRO: so therefore if you probe it you would get a larger ah estimate of
size and which indicates there was something there. ▶
*BEA: so there is a hypothesis but he is testing something functional
like in terms of <xxx> [>]. ▶
*PRO: <that's> [<] what I'm trying to get at it's right on that boarder
*BEA: yeah. ▶
*PRO: where the it's it's where it is the size issue. ▶
*PRO: how much and how big is the number. ▶
*PRO: he actually does measure the number of characters that you have in
this sensory memory as opposed to the number that are actually
transferable over into short term memory. ▶
*PRO: his hypothesis is that they're different. ▶
*PRO: but he also goes ahead and measures ah the size of them so a way
it's right on that borderline. ▶
*ROB: Here is a interesting example since it is on the border.
*ROB: While it helps define how to differentiate the two types of
studies, it would be helpful if it was either one of the other.
*ROB: Or if there was another case that was also close, but could be
*PRO: ok good exactly. ▶
*PRO: ok ah and then there's another one. ▶