|
Summer 99, Exam 1 |
Part 1: Multiple Choice. Circle the letter corresponding to the correct answer. Only one answer is correct for each question. (1 point each)1. McClelland and Rumelhart's (1981) Interactive Activation Model, unlike PANDEMONIUM,
includes a level of representation for _____. 2. According to _____ the meaning of a word is the object to which the word refers in
the real world. 3. Experiments using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) have shown that when
participants listen to sentences, the flow of blood to both Wernicke's Area and Broca's
Area increases as grammatical complexity increases. By the logic of the _____ technique
this suggests that both of these areas are involved in processing the grammatical
structure of a sentence. 4.The results of word association experiments ("What's the first word that comes
to mind when I say the word . . .") suggest that the strongest connections among
words in the lexicaon are based on _____. 5. Which of the following symptoms is normally associated with damage to the right
cerebral cortex? 6. The Wernicke-Lichteim-Geschwind Model of Aphasias is formulated at the level of
analysis that Marr referred to as the _____. 7. If Rumelhart and McClelland (1982) had found that letters are just as difficult to
recognize in unpronounceable non-words that share letter combinations with real words
(e.g., "SLNT") as they are in unpronounceable non-words that don't share letter
combinations with real words (e.g., "XLQJ"), then _____ would have been
falsified. 8. Patients suffereing from _____ produce sentences that are fluent and grammatical but
largely meaningless. 9. McClelland and Rumelhart (1981) found that the difference in activation levels between _____ words in their Interactive Activation Model increases over processing cycles when both are equally consistent with the input. They refer to this as the rich-get-richer effect. (a) high- and low-frequency (b) regular and exception (c) pronounceable and unpronounceable 10. In a long-term memory experiment, a participant presented with the word
"puppy" in a to-be-remembered list would be most likely to make a false-positive
response (saying "Yes, I saw that." instead of "No, I didn't see
that.") in response to the test word _____. Part 2: Definitions. In just 1 or 2 sentences, give an operational definition for each of the following concepts. Your definition may come from an experiment you are familiar with or you may make up your own definition (as long as it accurately defines the concept and is operational). (2 points each)Grading Criteria:
11. Reversible versus Nonreversible Sentences To determine if sentences are reversible or nonreversible I would present them to a group of participants and ask them to judge whether they still make sense when the agent and object are reversed (e.g., "The boy ate the bagel." --> "The bagel ate the boy."). Those for which a majority responded "yes" could then be classified as reversible while those for which a majority responded "no" could be classified as nonreversible. 12. Word Frequency I would begin by collecting a very large sample of naturally occurring language such as all the magazines published in the U. S. during 1998. To determine the frequency of a given word, I would then calculate the number of times it occurs (per million words) in my sample. 13. Working Memory Capacity I would auditorily present participants with groups of 5, 6, 7, etc. randomly selected digit and ask them to repeat them back immediately. I would use the highest number of digit that a participant was correct on at least half the time as a measure of his or her working memory capacity. [Note: This is the standard memory span measure.] 14. The Word Superiority Effect To demonstrate the Word Superiority Effect, we could ask people to look at a fixation point on a computer screen then name, as quickly as possible, letters that appear in its place. The Word Superiority Effect can then be defined as the difference in letter naming times (the time that elapses between presenting a letter and detecting the naming response) between letters presented alone (e.g., "O") and letters presented in the context of a word (e.g., "DOG"). 15. An Evoked Response Potential (ERP) To measure Evoked Potentials we could attach electrodes to participants heads and measure changes in electrical conductivity under two conditions: while they are staring at a fixation point and when that fixation point is replaced (very breifly) by some stilulus such as a word. We could then define the ERP as the difference between these two conditions. Part 3: Short Essay. Answer each of the following questions using no more than half of a page for each. (5 points each)16.Design an experiment to test the claim that words are easier to recognise when thay are presented in a meaningful context. Be sure to describe your independent and dependent variables, using operational definitions and/or examples where they are appropriate. What pattern of results would you expect if the claim is true? What pattern of results would you expect if the claim is false? Grading Criteria:
Example Answer: To test this claim I would ask two groups of participants to name out loud as quickly as possible a list of 20 words. For one group, each word would be presented alone following a fixation point which would be presented for 3 seconds (e.g., "+" followed by "CAT" ). For the other group, each word would be presented in the context of a meaningful sentence. The rest of the sentence would be presented first with the target word replaced by a blank. After 3 seconds, the target word would replace the blank in the sentence (e.g., "The dog chased the ___." followed by "The dog chased the CAT."). The independent variable in this experiment would be the presentation context (alone versus in a sentence context). The dependent variable would be the time that elapses between the presentation of a word and when a voice key detects that the participant has begun to pronounce its name. If the claim is true, I would expect words to be named faster when they are presented in sentence contexts. If the claim is false, I would expect to find no difference between words presented alone and those presented in a sentence context. 17. Design a functional neuroimaging experiment which uses the subtraction technique to identify the neural structures involved in understanding the meaning of a sentence. Do not worry about the details of neuroimaging, just take it for granted that you can measure changes in cerebral blood flow as the participants in your study engage in the tasks you assign them. Grading Criteria:
Example Answer: To perform this study we would need to monitor cerebral bllod flow during both an experimental task which involves understanding the meaning of a sentence and a comparison that involves all the same processes as the experimental task EXCEPT understanding the meaning of a sentence. For the experimantal task I would ask participants to silently read a list of 20 sentences sampled at random from the Minnesota Daily. For the comparison task I would ask them to silently a list of 20 grammatical nonsense sentences (such as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.") which I would create by selecting another random set of 20 sentences from the Daily, then randomly replacing each noun in this set with another noun from the set, each verb with another verb, each adverb with another adverb, and each adjective with another adjective. I would then make any changes required to ensure that the resulting nonsense sentences remained grammatical (e.g., by adding a plural "s" or changing the gender of a pronoun). I would then subtract the pattern of cerebral blood flow observed in the comparison task from the pattern observed in the experimental task to find the areas of the brain involved in understanding the meanings of sentences. |
|