Visual attention and short term memory

1. Visual attention and short term memory Ekaterini Drakaki- Peterson The University of Texas at Dallas Behavioral and Brain Science Department

2. Related Literatureindicates that there are different factors and certain strategies that contribute and effect visual attention and short term memory A similar study of familiarity and recollection reflects differences in the strength of a common memory signal (Cleary and Curran (2003) for relevant neuroimaging findings. My method was similar to Bundesen, Habekost, and Kyllingsbaek (2011). A neural theory of visual attention and short-term memory (NTVA) objects and features important to the participants are likely to stand out and stay longer into the visual short-term memory (VSTM).

3. INTRODUCTION • Recall and Familiarity: Faces and Places • Theory of Visual Attention and Short – Term Memory • (explanation of the experiment) • Selective attention • Mechanisms of visual attention • There are also specific forms of visual agnosia, or type-specific. • Prosopagnosia (lesion of the right fusiform gyrus), for example, results in the inability to recognize faces. • Landmark agnosia (right parahippocampal gyrus) results in the inability to identify specific buildings or landmarks http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vision-and-how-the-brain-organizes-itself/

4. introduction (continued) Current models of visual organization in the brain is that there are two streams of visual information: the ventral stream relates to object recognition, and lesions of which result in visual agnosia, and the dorsal stream is for planning actions. Lesions of the dorsal stream result in what is called optic ataxia.

5. Method • Participants • 18 students at the University of Texas at Dallas, Behavioral and Brain Science Department, class of Experimental Projects. • Materials • 40 pictures which they were projected as 4 different power points, each power point consisted of 10 pictures. Each participant was provided with paper and pencil. • Procedure • Recollected images were written in paper

6. Method (continued) 2 factors : Familiarity and Faces/Places Familiarity levels : Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces/Places levels: Faces and Places ANOVA within subject Design

7. Recall and familiarity Hypothesis • Familiar Faces • Participants will familiar images easier • Unfamiliar Faces • Participants will more likely not be able to recall unfamiliar faces (not common among most individuals) • participants with strong memory described the images. • Familiar Places • Participants easily will recall familiar places • Unfamiliar Places • Most participants will recall in some form unfamiliar places

8. Method Participants 18 students at the University of Texas at Dallas, Behavioral and Brain Science Department, class of Experimental Projects. Materials 40 pictures which they were projected as 4 different power points, each power point consisted of 10 pictures. Each participant was provided with paper and pencil. Procedure Recollected images were written in paper

9. Results Interaction - Unfamiliar Faces and Unfamiliar Places - Familiar Faces and Unfamiliar Places My Hypothesis and support : 1. Participants will not recall unfamiliar places and faces-Interaction 2. Participants will recall familiar images – Main effect 3. Participants will recall more faces – Main effect 1 – not supported 2 & 3 - supported

10. Main Effects of my method • a1b1, a1b2, a2b1, a2b2 IV1 isFamiliarity F( 1,9) = 16.11, p =.003 IV2 isFaces/Place F( 1,9) = 61.71, p<.0001

11. Interaction • a1b1, a1b2, a2b1, a2b2 Familiarity x Faces & Places F (1,9) = 1.22, p=.29

13. Results Participants reported significantly high results on recalling UFaces and Places. My hypothesis was that participants will not recognize (describe) unfamiliar faces but only FF, only that part of the hypothesis was not supported I took to consideration of course the positively affected result of details provided of unfamiliar faces, but not so on unfamiliar places . Few participants confident with their memory, provided detail description of unfamiliar images Participants recalled more faces Interaction not significant

14. …. Results continued • High numbers of Familiar Faces and Places were recalled • High numbers of Unfamiliar Faces • A shortage in Unfamiliar Places recalled was obvious /familiar to one means nothing to another • Study with many short falls. Future study more detailed and participants are grouped. (in discussion slide) • State of participants was considered, participants can be indifferent in the content of the presentation • Faces better recall – familiar better than unfamiliar . S Hypothesis was : • 1. Participants will not recall unfamiliar places and faces-Interaction • 2. Participants will recall familiar images – Main effect • 3. Participants will recall more faces – Main effect • 1 – not supported • 2 & 3 - supported

15. Discussion …..

16. ….discussion continued • In the present experiment participants showed strong memory recall • Unfamiliar places lower in consideration of the familiar faces and places • And also unfamiliar faces described • In a future experiment a more detailed study will have better results • Suggestions: • 1. Divide participants to groups by age, gender , ethnicity • Since the data was collected only from one study group, use • participants from other studies, such as literature studies. computer • sciences mathematics etc. • Future studies can determine the group preferences and knowledge or not • of the subject of the images. • Also, future studies could examine how much attention impacts educational success, retaining information longer. • Despite the assumed drawbacks of Visual attention, knowing the subject or the stress of the individual will bring better results.

17. How each processes viProcessing visual informationIn order to study focused visual attention, visual search tasks have been used. My study did not take into consideration the processing of each participant, history of their health, and strong like or dislikes of the experiments images presented.Cited:tp://www.floiminter.net/?page_id=183http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/vision-and-how-the-brain-organizes-itself/Stressors can be involvedEach person deals with images differently. Interest is also a factor in recollecting them after the projection