RECAP OF LAST LESSONS:AUTOMATICITY, Automatic Processing

<< ATTENTION:Subsidiary Task, Capacity Theory, Reaction Time & Accuracy, Implications

AUTOMATICITY (continued):Experiment, Implications, Task interference >>

Cognitive Psychology PSY 504

Lesson 11

RECAP OF LAST LESSONS

Attention can be explained by bottleneck or filter models as well as by capacity models. Filter

models assume that interference in attention is caused by a filter or an attenuator. Some filter

models assume that filters occur early, before recognition. Others assume that filter occurs

late, after semantic analysis. Capacity Models assume that interference is caused by overload

on the capacity.

AUTOMATICITY

Automatic Processing

Tasks vary considerably in the amount of mental effort required to perform them. Some skills

become so well-practiced and routine that they require very minimal mental capacity. Cognitive

Psychologists use the term automatic processing to refer to such skills. The more a process has

been practiced, the less attention it requires, and there is speculation that highly practiced

process require no attention at all such highly practiced processes that require little attention are

referred to as automatic.

Pros and cons

It allows us to perform routine activities without much concentration or mental effort: it does not

require much attention.

Automatic processes complete themselves without conscious control by the subject.

We may make silly mistakes.

We may fail to remember what we did.

We are not able to show others how we do a task.

When is a skill automatic?

According to Posner and Snyder (1975)

A skill is automatic if it:

1) Occurs without intention

2) Does not give rise to conscious awareness

3) Does not interfere with other mental activities

Automaticity: Another Perspective

Shiffrin & Schneider (1977) argue that it is best to think of Automaticity as a matter of degree

rather than a distinct category. A nice demonstration of the way practice affects attentional

limitations is the study reported by Underwood (1974) on the psychologist Moray, who has spent

many years studying shadowing (split attention studies). Moray can report most of the unattended

channels, for him shadowing has become automatic. Through a great deal of practice, the

process of shadowing has become partially automated.

More experiments

Cognitive Psychology PSY 504

Schneider & Fisk (1982), Schneider & Shiffrin (1977), Shiffrin & Dumais (1982), and Shiffrin &

Schneider (1977) performed a series of experiments contrasting controlled vs. automatic

processing.

They said automatic processes complete themselves without conscious control by the subject. In

the visual and auditory report tasks reviewed earlier, the registering of the stimuli in sensory

memory is an automatic process. Many aspects of driving a car and comprehending language

appear to be automatic. Controlled processing seems to require conscious control. Many higher

cognitive processes, such as performing mental arithmetic, are controlled.

In their experiments, subjects were required to scan visual arrays. The subjects were given a

target letter or number and are instructed to scan a series of visual displays for the target.

Visual arrays

1st condition

letter to be recognized

2nd condition

number to be recognized

The task

Two factors are varied

Each frame has one, two or four characters on it. This factor is referred to as frame

size.

The other important variable is the relationship between the target item and the

items on the frames.

In the same category condition, the target is a letter as well all the characters on

the frame. In the different category condition the target is a number surrounded by

letters.

If the target appears on the frame, subject responds yes, if it doesn't appear on the

frame the subject responds no.

Results

In the different category condition

Reaction Time was 80 milliseconds, and Accuracy was 95%

In the Same Category condition

Reaction Time was 400 milliseconds, and Accuracy was also 95%

In the Different category condition

No effect of frame size

In the same category condition

Accuracy and RT deteriorated as frame size increased.

Cognitive Psychology PSY 504

Schneider and shiffrin argued that before coming into the laboratory, subjects were so well

practiced at detecting a number among letters that this process was automatic. In contrast, when

subjects had to identify a letter among letters, controlled processing was needed. In this situation

subjects had to attend separately to each letter in frame and compare it with the target. All these

steps took time, and thus subjects were able to inspect each frame properly and achieve

respectable levels of performance only when slides were presented slowly. Also the more letters

that were in a frame, the more slowly in the frames had to be presented, since subjects had to

check each letter in the frame separately. In contrast, subjects could check all items

simultaneously in the different category situation to see if any were numbers. They were able to

perform this processing simultaneously because process was automatic

Implications

Schneider & Shiffrin argued that detecting numbers among letters didn't place any load on the

capacity and that is why subjects were not affected by frame size.

Detecting letters among letters however was a hard task which placed a lot on attention capacity

which was affected negatively as frame size increased.

Table of Contents: