1 / 22

Functional decay in serial attention

This research explores how cognition prevents old items from interfering with the current item in a serial attention task. It investigates the role of functional decay and strengthening through use in preventing interference. The findings have implications for understanding within-run slowing, error increase, and switch costs in cognitive performance.

peterdaniels
Download Presentation

Functional decay in serial attention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Functional decay in serial attention ACT-R Workshop August 1999 Erik M. Altmann (altmann@gmu.edu) Wayne D. Gray (gray@gmu.edu) hfac.gmu.edu

  2. B more active than A Item A attended Item B attended When is decay functional? • When Item B is current Activation Time

  3. Research question • How does cognition prevent old items from interfering with the current item? • Especially when there are many items • And when items are used while current • Use increases strength • The serial attention task...

  4. Instruction Even Odd

  5. Target 7 4 3 ...

  6. Instruction High Low

  7. Target 8 9 ... 2

  8. High Low EO EO EO HL EO HL EO Potential interference Task structure Even Odd ... ... 8 7 4 Perception Cognition Memory Time

  9. Analytical framework: Activation • What happens to an instruction’s activation over time? • Assumptions: • Episodic representation of instructions • One instruction per chunk • Retrieval increases instruction activation • Memory delivers the most active instruction

  10. Assume 1 instruction retrieval per trial (every ~500 msec) New instruction less active Strengthening through use Activation

  11. New instruction more active 1 use every 500 msec 1 use every 100 msec Decay through use Activation

  12. Predictions of decay model • A performance decline as instruction decays • Within-run slowing • Within-run error increase • Encoding time • Encoding takes 100 msec per cycle • How many cycles needed to ensure decay?

  13. Within-run slowing Response time (msec) Replicated in many conditions

  14. Within-run error increase

  15. Encoding time • Ho — Instruction is a detection trial • Takes less cognition than a classification trial • Expect 200 to 500 msec RT • H1 — Instruction is an encoding trial • Duration predicted by number of 100 msec encoding cycles required to achieve decay

  16. Assume minimum activation at end of run How much encoding?

  17. How much encoding? • Find the slope of the activation curve • R = number of retrievals (10) • E = number of encoding cycles (?) • Slope = d/dR [ln(2(R+E)/R-0.5)] • When slope is zero, E = R • N encodings ensure decay for N retrievals • Predicted encoding time: • 10 cycles x 100 msec per cycle = 1000 msec

  18. E1 E2 Empirical encoding time Encoding time = E1 + E2 Response time (msec)

  19. H1 RMSE: 6.5% H0 Empirical encoding times Response time (msec)

  20. Implications • Model predicts repetition effect • One trial has to prime the next(Altmann & Gray, 1999a) • Optimized learning is true • Non-optimized learning discounts encoding • Don’t need PAS parameter • Permanent noise comes from transient noise during encoding

  21. Conclusions • Decay is crucial – need to forget old items • Forgetting by deletion impossible in wetware • Forgetting by decay predicts within-run slowing • Decay demands up-front strengthening • Predicts switch costs (e.g., Rogers & Monsell, 1995) • An integrated theory of serial attention • Switching and maintenance functionally related

  22. References Altmann & Gray (1999a). Preparing to forget: Memory and functional decay in serial attention. Manuscript submitted for publication. Altmann & Gray (1999b). Serial attention as strategic memory. Proc. Cog. Sci. 21. Altmann & Gray (1998). Pervasive episodic memory: Evidence from a control-of-attention paradigm. Proc. Cog. Sci. 20.

More Related