Compare_and_Contrast

TMA01 Option 1 Compare and contrast early vs. late selection models of attention. How well do they explain how we selectively attend to information' (Words: 2007) Attention is how we selectively focus on particular objects and events by identifying what is of importance and will be of use at a particular time or within a particular situation or environment (Naish 2010). Models of selective attention are concerned with how and at what stage of processing this selection takes place. Yes, good Classic theories of selective attention believe not sure believe’s the right word – a theory is inert and can’t really believe anything that cognitive resources do not process all the information received in the same way, but that information is filtered in order to concentrate on processing and allocating attention only to information that is needed, these are known as ‘bottleneck theories of attention’(Naish 2010). However, bottleneck theories vary according to what stage they believe that filtering takes place to focus attention. Evidence will be presented to support Broadbent’s filter of selective attention, and Treisman’s attenuation theory, in order to explore early selection theories of attention, whilst evidence from Deutsch and Deutsch will be provided to support late selection theories of attention. You have a number of secondary references here, which should be acknowledged as such This essay will focus on auditory selection, in order to compare and contrast early selection theories of attention with late selection theories of attention, and discuss; ‘how well early and late selection models explain how we selectively attend to information’. a clear introduction, well done Broadbent developed his theory of early selection of attention, after working with air traffic controllers during WWww2 (Driver 2001). What he noticed, was that they could only apply attention to one message at a time successfully. To investigate this further, he designed the ‘dichotic listening task’ .This experiment required participants to wear headphones, where they received different sounds played in each ear (Driver 2001). What Broadbent found, was that although participants could recall exactly what had happened in one ear, they had no recollection of the message or sound in the other ear. He concluded that information could only be attended in one ear or channel, and that it was serially processed, and not processed in parallel. Broadbent believed that information was filtered based on physical characteristics, such as sound and tone, and that meaning is only extracted after filtering takes place. A good summary It was his belief, that once filtering had taken place that the unattended information was lost, or not understood (Driver 2001). Whilst Broadbent’s theory of early selection and bottleneck theory was influential; researchers began to question that all unattended information was lost, this led to further research by Treisman, and she expanded on Broadbent’s filter theory (Naish. (2010). Yes, nicely done, a good link Treisman (1960) a secondary reference used the conundrum of the ‘cocktail party effect’ to question how, a person who is attending to one conversation, can still be able to recognise their own name being mentioned from across the room (Cherry 1953 as cited in McDermott 1997 aha, good ). Treisman developed a theory that rather than lose information, it is filtered by directing less attention to it, like turning down the volume, and if we hear something of interest such as our name, then there is enough information available in the unattended ear in order to process, and to direct attention when required (Driver 2001). Yes, good, but I’s only the unattended ear in this paradigm Treisman’s attenuation theory was researched further by conducting several experiments using dichotic listening tasks. Treisman conducted an experiment which used a shadowing (repeating aloud) technique, where participants listened to identical messages in both ears, but with a delay between messages, results found that if the delay was too long, then the participants could not remember any of the unattended message, however when the unattended message was played two seconds before the attended message, participants showed some recognition of the similarity of the messages (Lavie et al., 2004). I don’t really follow this Treisman concluded from this experiment, that unattended information could be stored temporarily, but if it was not used within two seconds, it would be lost;, yes, good she also concluded that processing happened in a systematic way, beginning with physical characteristics such as syllabic patterns and words, followed by grammatical structure and meaning (Naish 2010). I think a paragraph break would be useful here Whilst the results of these experiments could be seen to support Broadbent’s singular filter theory - that only physical characteristics of the unattended message are remembered. Treisman found that certain information from of the unattended message could be remembered semantically and was not lost immediately after filtering (Naish 2010). Treisman referred to this information as being ‘attenuated’, which is unattended information that has received reduced attention, but could be used when required and needed (McNeill 2011). This would explain the ‘Cocktail party effect’ and that recognition of our own name, requires little processing., Driver could be seen to offer support for this theory, and suggests that people may have a heightened awareness for certain words such as their own name, and presents evidence from Moray (1959) who found during an experiment using a shadowing task, that participants could pick out and identify their own name in a non shadowed message. Quite a long sentence This evidence would support Treisman’s attenuation theory, however Driver suggests another theory; that we are primed to certain words, therefore they require less processing, and less attention (Driver 2001). Isn’t that much the same thing, Treisman talks of thresholds of activation' Heightened awareness is quite a vague term Similarly certain attenuated words could be seen as priming words, that is they are words that are expected and predicted. During a dichotic listening task, Treisman switched the message from the attended ear to the unattended ear half way through a story. What she found, was that participants were able to swap attention during that task, in order to make sense of the story. Yes, good Conversely how is it conversely' Alternatively' Corteen and Wood (1972) conducted research that explored whether information that would not be seen as being highly predictable could be re-called. Participants were asked to listen to a list of words from a specific category of words, whilst hearing these words, participants concurrently received a mild electrical shock. In the second part of the experiment, which used no electric shocks, a galvanic skin response (GSR) was used to record physical responses shown by participants during a dichotic listening task. When participants were presented with a word from the shocked category in their unattended ear, they were recorded as showing a GSR (Naish 2010). Good point, but make sure you show how this is relevant to your argument Whilst evidence using dichotic listening tasks has provided data that can demonstrate how some unattended information may be accessed, there are still vulnerabilities in evidence that presents research for the re-call of unattended information. not sure I follow this sentence Corteen and Wwood’s experiment was considered as not only controversial for using electric shocks, but Driver criticises this experiment by explaining, words that showed a response, would have become relevant to the participants, because of the electric shocks, and not due to an increase in attention in the unattended ear (Driver 2001). Isn’t this exactly what Treisman was saying' I’m not sure that Driver is criticising the study here Debate as to the reliability of dichotic listening tasks, cannot assume that participants have not changed attention during the experiment to the unattended ear. Good point Shinn-Cunningham (2008) suggests that it is possible that we can share attention across two competing sources, and that we can use our short term sensory memory to fill in information that may be lost in the process of switching attention (Shinn-Cunningham 2008). Interesting point Criticisms of an early selection model of attention suggest that it is too simplified, and theories of how selection for attention takes place are conflicting and inconclusive. Models of late selection of attention, question why the brain does not process more than one signal at a time (Lavie et al. 2004). Good point, and we most likely do Deutsch and Deutsch’s late selection models of attention may seem to resemble Treiiesman’s attenuation theory, in that they believe all information is processed, whether it is attended to or not. Where they differ, is that they, believe that there is no lower filter of attention, and all information is processed equally. Yes, good point However, it is how information is attended to and what motivates a higher level of attention that is of interest. Driver suggests that results of selective listening tasks that indicate little awareness of non-shadowed tasks are not the result of lower perceptual processing, but because unrecognised or unfamiliar words do not gain access to processing mechanisms where they can be used or attended to ( Driver 2001). Duncan (1980) as cited in Driver further explains that whilst unattended information may receive full perceptual processing, if a person has no prior knowledge or memory of this information, then it cannot be conceivably used. This would then mean that information is selected at a later stage of filtering, and would indicate that selection is a conscious and not an automatic process (Driver 2001). Well I think that Duncan moved away from this position, but it’s not important Deutsch and Deutsch’s late selection theory has been criticised for not providing new research evidence, and they have used the same empirical data as Treisman, but interpreted ing the results from their own perspective (Lavie et al. 2004). Using a shadowing task as an example, an early selection theory may explain the ability to recall unattended information and be able to switch ears if the message had been switched unexpectedly, because in order to make sense of the message, the unattended word that made sense of the sentence, would have been attenuated, and was made available because it stood out, therefore was a priming word (Naish 2010). This is a long sentence, and quite hard to follow Late selection theorists may believe that although one message was unattended, the meaning had been processed; therefore the word was available once if' needed (Driver 2001). Paradoxically whilst late selection and attenuation theories may differ in the levels of processing of information, their approaches to how an unattended message can be attended to are very similar, and the process used to attend information, could be seen as being the same. However In order to understand early versus late selection of attention, it is important to look at the approach that these theories take. Early selection uses a cognitive approach, and views semantics, Broadbent’s didn’t sounds and tone to be important in selection, whilst late selection is more concerned with meaning semantics is meaning , it could be argued that early and late selection theories of attention may not be theoretically different, but that these opposed approaches are influential in defining what is ‘early’ and ‘late selection’ (Lavie et al 2004). Good point, but I think this needs some more explanation The comparison of these theories is problematic, and it may be more useful to consider them as stages in understanding how the development of selection theories has occurred. Good point Broadbent’s singular filter theory could be seen as the first stage with a bottleneck that creates a filter for attention. However Broadbent’s singular theory did not explain how unattended information could ‘get through’. Treisman responds to shortcomings with her attenuation theory. Late selection theories that see all information as being processed, but selected and attended to by meaning, could be seen as having the same explanation of selection as Treisman’s attenuation theory, albeit using a different psychological viewpoint. An interaction of these theories would be more comprehensive; an explanation to the understanding of how we selectively attend to information. Underwood (1993) could be seen as offering support for an interactive explanation of selection; he questions whether singular unattended words are extracted for meaning, as in late selection, or whether singular words are attenuated, to as in early selection. He suggests that there is no bottleneck in the processing of information, but that whole sentences are processed, and that filters can process either early or later depending on the incoming stimuli, which suggests a flexibility and interaction of early and late selection. (Driver59') yes, I think it would be useful to explore this a little further It would seem that both early and late selection theories can explain how we selectively attend to information and research evidence could be seen to support each theory in equal measures. There are flaws in interpretation of research methods what are they' and evidence has shown that results can be too easily influenced how' which causes a bias that favours one particular viewpoint. It would be more prudent to look at research evidence not as supporting either early or late selection theories of attention, but in order to understand how we attend selectively to attention;, it would be more useful to consider research as contributing to an interaction of these theories. I would rather you had expanded on this In conclusion it would seem that early and late selection models of attention both provide an explanation with research evidence to support their own theories of how we selectively attend to information. However by viewing these theories as an alliance, and with the introduction of more recent and scientific research methods such as brain imaging, good point, but you haven’t gone into this this may provide a more conclusive and constructive answer. Word count' References Your references should be in alphabetical order of surname Naish, P. (2005) Attention, in Cognitive Psychology (2nd Edition), pp. 29-63, The Open University, Milton Keynes. Driver, J. (2001) A selective review of selective attention research from the past century, The British Psychological Society, 92, pp. 53-73, University College London, UK. McDermott, J. (1997), The Cocktail Party Problem, Current Biology, 19, pp. r1025-r1027, Primer, UK. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., Fockert, J., Essie, V. (2004) Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control, American Psychological society, 133, pp.339-354, Journal of experimental psychology, USA. McNeill, Dr A. (2011) Perceptual Processes 1- Attention, Open University Day School handout, pp.1-9, The Open University, Milton Keynes. Shinn-Cunningham, G. (2008) , Object- based auditory and visual attention, Hearing research centre, pp. 182-186, MA 02215,02139, Departments of cognitive and neural systems and biomedical engineering, Boston University, USA.