Info for PSYC231 Lab report
Please note that to do this lab report you need
(a) TO THINK. One goal of the lab report is to help
foster your thinking skills.
(b) to WORK ON YOUR OWN (this is NOT a group
project). Collaborative efforts will be regarded as
academic fraud (cheating).
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
Steps (1 - 7) to the lab report:
1) Obtain the four critical readings (listed below) from
Closed Reserve or office EA611.
Bartlett, J. C., Hurry, S., & Thorley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces.
Memory & Cognition, 12, 219-228.
Jones, T. C., & Atchley, P. (2002). Conjunction error rates on a continuous
recognition memory test: Little evidence for recollection. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 374-379.
Rakover, S. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual
and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1-30.
Reinitz, M. T., Morrisey, J., & Demb, J. (1994). Role of attention in face encoding.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 161168.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
2) Read the papers
A. Key aspects of the papers
a) The Bartlett et al. (1984) paper may be the
most difficult one to read. Just do your best. The
bottom line: They suggest that familiarity is a
process that underlies face processing/memory.
b) Jones and Atchley (2002) consider familiarity
and recollection as memory processes underlying
word performance. They used a conjunction
paradigm in a continuous recognition task to
evaluate the role of familiarity and recollection in
recognising compound words.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
2) Read the papers
A. Key aspects of the papers (continued)
c) Rakover (2002) reviews a number of
manipulations and theories relevant to face
processing and memory.
d) Reinitz, Morrisey, and Demb (1994) used
faces drawings in a standard study-test conjunction
paradigm. Their theory appeals to the roles of
features and configurations in recognition memory.
Note that this approach is an alternative to theories
that use familiarity, though the two approaches are
not mutually exclusive.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
3) Think about the papers that you have read and
consider how they relate to the experiment done for
the lab report.
A. Think some more. (We will not answer
questions about the content of the readings until
you have read the papers and done some
thinking).
B. In the lab report introduction, you will
describe previous work and ideas on face
memory, as well as on memory in general. You
will then need to indicate the purpose of the
current experiment (i.e., the one done for the lab
report).
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
4) Analyse the data for the lab report.
A. The data are available via Blackboard, Pavlov,
and the computers in EA402. Calculate the means
and standard deviations (or standard error) for the
different conditions (for each lag).
B. Make a table or figure using the means. (You can
include this table or figure in the lab report.)
Figures can be done by hand as long as they are
done neatly. Look at the data and think about them.
Describe the data to yourself. (You should describe
the data in the lab report.) Think about how they
related to theory.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
4) Analyse the data for the lab report. (continued)
C. YOU need to decide what statistical comparisons
should be made. (We will not tell you which
comparisons you should make.) You can calculate
10 within-subject (i.e., dependent) t-tests either by
hand or with SPSS (available in EA402) or with
another software package, if you like.
If you know how to conduct the appropriate 2 x 4
Repeated Measures ANOVA, with post-hoc tests (if
necessary), then you can do that analysis instead of
the multiple t-tests.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
4) Analyse the data for the lab report. (continued)
D. You can do the statistics by hand and submit the
written out steps of the statistics for extra credit.
Each correct t-test written out by hand will earn
.5% of an extra mark (total possible extra = 5%).
Just attach the written out work to the end of the
lab report.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
5) Write the lab report.
A. See the useful writing tips document to help you.
B. See the Lab Manual for the components of the
lab report and formatting.
a) Method section: Information for the methods
appears in the slides below.
C. Use the lab on semantic priming as a template
for many aspects of the lab report.
6) Proofread the lab report and fix errors.
Info for PSYC231 Lab report
7) Submit the lab report by 26 September 2005, 5 p.m.
Location: Assignment box labelled PSYC231 on the
4th floor of Easterfield.
Late assignments will incur a reduction in marks as
described in the PSYC231 Course Outline (25% off
for the first day late, with an additional 12.5% off
for each day late, thereafter).
In the slides to follow you will see information
presented in lecture and some new information
on the methods. New information appears in
the aqua colour.
Recognition memory
Conjunction paradigm
(Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973;
Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992)
Components of studied items rearranged to
form test lures
Study (parents): blackmail AND jailbird
Test (conjunction): blackbird
Conjunction paradigm
Typical pattern of “old” responses:
old > conjunction > new
hit
false alarms (FA)
Conjunction effect
Conjunction – new (baseline)
Dual-process theory for conjunction errors
Jones & Atchley (2002), Jones & Jacoby (2001)
Familiarity – fast, relatively automatic
Recollection – relatively slow, consciously controlled
Old (hit)
familiarity or recollection
Conjunction (false alarm)
familiarity in the absence of recollection
Conjunction lures
Familiarity: can induce an error
Recollection: can prevent an error
Recollection-based rejection
e.g., Remember:
black in blackmail, not blackbird
bird in jailbird, not blackbird
Jones & Atchley (2002)
Continuous recognition; lag manipulation
Lag
# of words intervening 2nd parent and conjunction
Reasoning
shorter lags, more recollection-based rejection
Jones & Atchley (2002)
Continuous recognition; lag manipulation
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
blackmail
showboat
showboat
jailbird
blackbird
crewcut
crossbow
shortcake
crossbow
shortcut
parent
1st presentation (new)
Old
parent
Conjunction
parent
1st presentation (new)
parent
Old
Conjunction
Jones & Atchley (2002)
Continuous recognition; lag manipulation
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
blackmail
showboat
showboat
jailbird
blackbird
crewcut
crossbow
shortcake
crossbow
shortcut
parent
1st presentation (new)
Old
parent
Conjunction
parent
1st presentation (new)
parent
Old
Conjunction
Jones & Atchley (2002)
1.0
0.9
P ("old")
0.8
0.7
0.6
Conjunction Errors
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1
5
20
Lag
Jones & Atchley (2002)
1.0
0.9
P ("old")
0.8
Conjunction
Correct Rejections
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Conjunction Errors
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1
5
20
Lag
Jones & Atchley (in press)
1.0
0.9
Old (Hit)
P ("old")
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Conjunction (FA)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1
5
10
Lag
20
Differences for other materials?
Faces
The Hawkeye (1963)
The Hawkeye (1963)
The following methodological info needs to be worked
into complete sentences. (Some bits may be in sentences
already; other bits you will need to write into complete
sentences).
Materials & Equipment. Number of stimuli = 180: 80 original
photographs, 80 constructed photos, which were made by
combining features of two other faces, and 20 filler photographs.
The stimuli were electronic grey-scale bitmap files.
The following methodological info needs to be worked
into complete sentences. (Some bits may be in sentences
already; other bits you will need to write into complete
sentences).
Source of originals: The Hawkeye (1963). The original and
constructed faces were used by Jones, Bartlett, and Wade (2005).
Size: 10.8 cm in height, 7.9 cm in width; Subject of photographs:
(all) Caucasion male--clean shaven, and no spectacles; Photo: torso
(cutting across or just below the shoulders) and head; Pose: Either
directly facing the camera or with the head slightly angled to the left
or to the right (For many photographs, both ears of a subject were
visible); Attire: dark sport coats, light-coloured shirt, and neckties.
Computer programmes were composed with E-prime software
(Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002a, 2002b). Fifteen PCcomputers were used. Participants were run in groups of up to 15.
The following methodological info needs to be worked
into complete sentences. (Some bits may be in sentences
already; other bits you will need to write into complete
sentences).
Adobe Photoshop® was used for all editing of the photographs and
to create conjunction stimuli. For the construction of conjunction
faces, photographs of individuals with similar poses and, where
possible, somewhat similar appearance, were put into pairs. These
pairs were used to construct faces by combining the the inner
features (eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth) and outer features (forehead,
hair, ears, cheeks, jaw, and chin) from a pair of faces.
Design
2 (Condition: Old, Conjunction) x 4 (Lag: 0, 1, 5, 20)
fully within-participants design.
Procedure
Continuous recognition; lag manipulation
Face photographs
Lag
# of trials intervening 1st and 2nd presentation (old)
# of trials intervening 2nd parent and conjunction
lags: 0, 1, 5, 20
Jones & Bartlett
# of trials: 200--100 new, 60 old (40 critical, 20 fillers),
40 conjunctions
# of critical old faces = 40, 10 per lag
# of conjunction faces = 40, 10 per lag
Items counterbalanced such that each critical test face
appeared in each condition (old or conjunction x lag)
equally often across participants. Forty parent faces
(all constructions) for the later conjunction lures were
seen by any one participant. The 80 constructed
parent faces were presented equally often across
participants.
Jones & Bartlett
Some subjects not told about conjunctions
Some subjects informed of the conjunctions
For the lab report, only the informed subjects
will be considered (though there appear to be only
slight differences between the two groups)
Events in a trial
1
Face appears: duration--1500 ms
2
Screen goes blank: duration—150 ms
3
Confidence scale appears: present up to 2500 ms
1=very sure new, 2=somewhat sure new, 3=unsure new
4=unsure old, 5=somewhat sure old, 6=very sure old
If response made before 2500-ms time limit,
confidence scale disappears and computer waits for the
remainder of the time. If a response was not entered
in time, the programme continued to the next trial.
4
Intertrial interval (blank screen): 250 ms
DATA
The data for 16 subjects are in an SPSS file and an
Excel file on the computers in EA402, Blackboard, and
PAVLOV.
For the sake of simplicity, only the proportions of
“very sure old” responses (out of the total within a
condition) will be considered.
Again, You will need to
(a) Read the assigned papers
(b) Think about the relationship of the previous work
to the new work
(c) Conduct statistical comparisons for what you think
are the best comparisons (either multiple t-tests or a
Repeated Measures ANOVA or MANOVA with
follow-up comparisons, if necesseary)
(d) Write up the work
Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results
(including a table or a figure) and Discussion,
References
(e) Submit the lab report
References for The Hawkeye, Jones et al. (2005), and
the software programme appear below. These
references should appear in your Reference section.
Jones, T. C., Bartlett, J.C., & Wade, K. A. (2005). Nonverbal conjunction errors
in recognition memory: Support for familiarity but not for feature bundling.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-Prime User’s Guide.
Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-Prime Reference
Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
The Hawkeye (1963). Iowa City, IA: State University of Iowa.
Have fun
THINKING
&
FIGURING THINGS OUT
(FOR YOURSELF)!