PSY 375 Module One Lab Worksheet

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

375

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MegaFireMeerkat38

PSY 375 Module One Lab Worksheet Template Complete this template by replacing the bracketed text with the relevant information. All responses to lab questions should be in your own words or paraphrased. Simple Detection Lab Data ● Insert your data in the table below. Trial Number Reaction Time 1 274ms 2 272ms 3 250ms 4 269ms 5 252ms 6 258ms 1

Trial Number Reaction Time 7 255ms 8 252ms 9 252ms 10 281ms 11 283ms 12 239ms 13 265ms 14 283ms 15 243ms 2

Trial Number Reaction Time 16 274ms 17 236ms 18 218ms 19 230ms 20 245ms ● Insert a screenshot of the lab output below. 3

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Lab Questions ● How do your individual results relate to cognitive theories or concepts? Hint: For ways to relate your answer to course concepts, see the lab introduction, the predicted results that come with your output, and the text. Most of my responses ranged from 230ms-260ms range. I had a few responses that were lower than 230ms and a few that were higher than 260ms. These time anomalies are caused by the brain’s processing speed after receiving the image. My trial was punctuated by too-early responses, and a few too-late responses. The responses occurred because I was either too focused or fixated on hitting the “M” button on my laptop. I did repeat the lab a second time because I was hoping for better times, but my times actually got worse because I was anticipating when the green dot would appear. ● Why can you not react faster than 200ms? According to the lab, due to a combination of cognitive and biomechanical constraints you cannot react faster than 200ms. It is not likely that anyone can react faster than 200ms. According to the text, in 200 milliseconds our eye’s receptors transmit a message to our brain. This message sends a message to an active neuron, which proceeds to send another message to our fingertip. This determines whether or not we detect the stimulus. As a result, it is highly unlikely that we will ever have a reaction time of less than 200 milliseconds. Reacting quicker than 200 milliseconds is extremely improbable due to a combination of cognitive and physical constraints (Goldstein, 2019). Signal Detection Lab Data ● Insert your data in the table below. 5

Number of Dots d’ C Hits False Alarm Correct Rejections Misses 144 5.142 -1.729 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000 400 5.142 -1.729 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000 1000 1.049 0.000 0.700 0.300 0.700 0.300 ● Insert a screenshot of the lab output below. 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Lab Questions ● How do your individual results relate to cognitive theories or concepts? Hint: For ways to relate your answer to course concepts, see the lab introduction, the predicted results that come with your output, and the text. The findings would be relevant to cognitive theories of attention, particularly selective attention, because the task demands the identification of certain stimuli and then responding to them. As a result, cognitive functions, such as attention, decision-making, and perception are all engaged. ● What does d’ measure and how is it calculated? Why is this a helpful tool when measuring cognitive tasks? D' assesses sensitivity, or a person's ability to perceive and interpret information. d' is determined by how well you can discern the line when it is in the frame and when it is not. The number of noise dots is also used to calculate the d’. The less d’ there is, the more noise dots there are. For example, a lower score indicates that you are more accurate at detecting the 10-line when it is there and when it is not. The d’ metric is significant because it may be used to calculate sensitivity scores for discrimination and identification responses. Visual Search Lab Data ● Insert your data in the table below. 8

Number of Distractors Feature Present Feature Absent Conjunction Present Conjunction Absent 4 772.400 1054.400 1028.200 1170.000 16 1016.200 898.600 1520.800 1720.00 32 844.000 947.200 1740.000 3232.800 64 881.200 810.800 2146.000 3945.400 ● Insert a screenshot of the lab output below. 9

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Lab Questions ● How does the pattern of your individual results relate to that predicted for feature vs conjunction searches? Hint: For ways to relate your answer to course concepts, see the lab introduction, the predicted results that come with your output, and the text. The normal inquiry design extended that as the quantity of distractor structures rose, the response time would stay consistent. In any case, as the number of distractors rose, so did my own disclosures of the anticipated hunt. The time would increment as the quantity of distractors expanded, as per the forecasts for the combination search design. Be that as it may, as the quantity of distractors rose, so did my individual anticipated pursuit results. It declined, developed, and afterward diminished once more. ● What is an example of a conjunction search in everyday life? For example, think about decisions that law enforcement officers, educators, medical professionals, or computer scientists make. This example can be personal or hypothetical. One example of a conjunction search in everyday life for me personally would be my junk drawer. Some people have a “kitchen” junk drawer, I happen to have a junk drawer in almost every room in my house because I have outgrown just having one. If you are unfamiliar with junk drawers mine have a variety of items in them. Some of them have spare keys, batteries, charging cables, nails, cleaning sponges, coins, paperclips, and many other items. Depending on the room I am in would depend on how much stuff I would have to go through to find the one item I am searching for. This would be a comparable example to the conjunction lab where I had to search through “piles” of green and blue shapes to find the one green circle. Module Question ● Compare and contrast the differences in what your mind had to do to complete the tasks. The first lab experiment, (the simple detection test) was probably in the middle of the group as far as the difficulty for me. Yet it was the simplest because all I had to do was click on the “m” button when the green dot appeared in the rectangle. The results hinged upon my reaction time. The second lab entailed detecting dots in a straight-line pattern, which was immersed sometimes in a cloud of dots. This experiment required focus, and attention to details on my part. My psyche needed to respond distinctively to the visual hunt lab. In this visual pursuit lab, the point was for my brain to see the designed line of ten dabs moving from upper left to base right. The thought was to go through the numerous apparent spots and check whether the ten specks were either missing or present. Lab two was a bit similar to lab three, but lab three required less focus and attention to details as compared to lab two. Lab three entailed finding a green circle immersed in the midst of square objects of different colors. I had to utilize more focus when the square objects appeared in green colors as well. 11

Goldstein, E. B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [E-book]. Cengage Learning. 12

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Related Documents

Module 7.docx

Assignment# 2 - Professional Presentation Proposal.docx

Jones Professional Presentation.pdf

1-2 Journal.docx

Understanding.pptx 22.pptx

6-2 Journal.docx

PSY 375 Project One Milestone.docx

CJ 315 week 5 journal.docx

PSY 215 Module Five Milestone .docx

D.Nance 3-3 Annotated Bibliography.docx

D.Nance 2-2 Journal.docx

Chapter 11 Bonus Quiz.pdf

Recommended textbooks for you

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)

Psychology

ISBN:9780134477961

Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Publisher:PEARSON

Cognitive Psychology

Psychology

ISBN:9781337408271

Author:Goldstein, E. Bruce.

Publisher:Cengage Learning,

Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and ...

Psychology

ISBN:9781337565691

Author:Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)

Psychology

ISBN:9780393265156

Author:Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga

Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company

Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a...

Psychology

ISBN:9781285763880

Author:E. Bruce Goldstein

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)

Psychology

ISBN:9781305652958

Author:Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz

Publisher:Cengage Learning

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:9780134477961
Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:PEARSON
Cognitive Psychology
Psychology
ISBN:9781337408271
Author:Goldstein, E. Bruce.
Publisher:Cengage Learning,
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and ...
Psychology
ISBN:9781337565691
Author:Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:9780393265156
Author:Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a...
Psychology
ISBN:9781285763880
Author:E. Bruce Goldstein
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Psychology
ISBN:9781305652958
Author:Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz
Publisher:Cengage Learning