Module 2

Perception:

Perception is the mental process through which sensory input is interpreted to create
meaningful experiences of objects, people, and events. Although it appears effortless,
perception is a highly complex cognitive activity. Neuroscientists estimate that nearly half of
the cerebral cortex is devoted to visual processing, showing how intricate perception is. The
main question in perception is how humans attach meaning to sensory information so quickly
and accurately. Cognitive psychologists aim to explain how information about an object’s
size, shape, texture, location, and function is acquired and processed. Perception includes
different sensory modalities such as visual, auditory, olfactory, haptic, and gustatory, but
research mainly focuses on the visual and auditory types.
The process of perception involves three stages: the distal stimulus, the proximal stimulus,
and the percept. The distal stimulus is the external object or event; the proximal stimulus is
the sensory pattern registered by the sense organ, such as a retinal image; and the percept is
the meaningful interpretation or recognition of that stimulus. For example, when seeing a
tree, the light reflected to the retina creates an inverted image that we interpret as an upright
tree. This distinction shows that perception is more than sensory reception. An example is
size constancy, where an object appears the same size despite changes in the retinal image,
proving that perception involves interpretation beyond raw sense data. Pattern recognition
also plays a key role, as it allows identification of stimuli as belonging to specific categories
through previous learning and experience.
Several theoretical approaches explain perception. The Gestalt school proposed that
perception organizes visual input into figure and background, emphasizing holistic
processing. Bottom-up theories describe perception as starting with sensory input, whereas
top-down theories highlight the influence of prior knowledge and expectations. Most
psychologists now view perception as a combination of both processes. J. J. Gibson’s theory
of direct perception, however, differs by suggesting that perceivers need little processing
because the environment provides sufficient information for direct detection. Studies of
people with normal vision but impaired perception demonstrate that perception is distinct
from sensation and essential for understanding and interacting with the world.
GESTALT APPROACHES TO PERCEPTION:
Gestalt psychology emphasizes that perception is organized by grouping sensory stimuli into
meaningful wholes (Gestalts), rather than being a mere sum of individual parts. Founders
Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Köhler argued that the whole possesses
emergent properties not found in isolated elements—such as recognizing a face from its
configuration or a melody from its notes, demonstrating that perception is holistic and
dynamic.
A central aspect of Gestalt theory is the figure-ground organization, where the perceptual
field is segmented into objects (figures) and backgrounds (grounds). The figure is perceived
as distinct and meaningful, while the ground appears less defined. Ambiguous or reversible
figures (e.g., the vase/faces illusion) illustrate how perception can shift based on attention and
context, showing that organization is an active process involving the perceiver.
Gestalt psychologists identified several key principles of perceptual organization:
 Proximity: Elements close together are grouped.
 Similarity: Similar elements are perceived together.
 Good Continuation: Elements aligned in a continuous line or curve are seen as a
group.
 Closure: The mind fills gaps to perceive complete figures.
 Common Fate: Elements moving together are grouped together.
 Law of Prägnanz (Simplicity/Gestalt): Perception tends toward the simplest, most
stable, and symmetric forms.
These principles explain how the mind organizes complex stimuli into coherent patterns,
even perceiving illusory contours (e.g., the Kanizsa triangle) where no physical boundaries
exist. Gestalt theory also highlights emergent features—qualities of the whole that cannot be
predicted from its parts alone, such as the configural superiority effect, where recognition is
faster in composite displays than in isolated elements.
Modern research supports the neural basis of Gestalt grouping, with evidence from fMRI and
developmental studies showing that these principles operate early in life and are fundamental
to both visual and auditory perception. Thus, Gestalt psychology remains central to
understanding perceptual organization in cognitive science
Bottom-up theory of perception:
Bottom-up processing, also known as data-driven or stimulus-driven processing, is a theory
of perception that begins with the analysis of low-level sensory features—such as edges,
shapes, and light regions—and builds up to a perceptual interpretation solely from the
information present in the stimulus itself. This process is automatic, reflexive, and largely
independent of expectations, prior knowledge, or context. Bottom-up processing starts with
sensory input (e.g., light entering the retina), which is then transmitted to the brain for
integration and interpretation, forming a perception based entirely on the sensory data
available.
In bottom-up models, perception is viewed as a linear, one-directional process: information
flows from the sensory organs to higher cognitive centers, with each stage building on the
previous one. For example, when perceiving a scene, one might first detect edges and shapes,
then combine them into recognizable objects, without relying on previous experience or
expectations. This approach is reductionist, breaking perception down into its most basic
sensory elements.
Bottom-up processing is considered fundamental to understanding how raw sensory input is
transformed into meaningful perception. It is especially relevant in situations where stimuli
are clear and unambiguous, and when perception is not influenced by context or prior
learning. The ecological theory of perception, proposed by James J. Gibson, aligns closely
with bottom-up processing, emphasizing that perception is a direct result of environmental
stimuli, with little need for higher-level cognitive interpretation.
Bottom-Up Theories
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are template theories,
prototype theories, feature theories, and structural-description theories.
1) Direct perception:
Direct perception, as proposed by J. J. Gibson, is a bottom-up, data-driven theory that asserts
perception is a direct process, requiring no internal mental representations or interpretation.
Gibson argued that the environment provides rich, structured information—such as optical
arrays, texture gradients, and optical flow—which is sufficient for perceivers to make
accurate judgments about objects, events, and affordances. According to this ecological
approach, perception is immediate and innate, shaped by evolution to allow organisms to
respond quickly and efficiently to their surroundings. Unlike constructivist models, which
claim that perception involves inference and memory, Gibson’s theory emphasizes that
perceivers directly pick up invariant information from the environment, such as the
relationship between objects, depth cues, and motion, without needing to construct mental
images.
A key feature of direct perception is the concept of affordances—the opportunities for action
offered by the environment, such as a chair affording sitting or a door affording passage.
Gibson believed these affordances are perceived directly, not inferred from prior experience.
Perception and action are thus intimately linked, as organisms continuously interact with their
environment and pick up on relevant cues for survival and navigation. Gibson’s work,
supported by studies on infants and motion perception, demonstrates that even with minimal
sensory input, perceivers can recognize forms and actions, underscoring the theory’s
emphasis on the richness and sufficiency of environmental information.
In summary, direct perception theory offers a robust explanation for the speed, accuracy, and
universality of perception, highlighting the active role of the perceiver and the dynamic
relationship between organisms and their environments. It remains a foundational perspective
in cognitive psychology, reminding us that perception is not just about interpreting sensory
input, but about directly engaging with the world around us.
2) Template theories:
Template matching is a cognitive model of pattern recognition that explains how we identify
objects, events, or stimuli by comparing incoming sensory information with previously stored
mental representations called templates. This process is similar to using a stencil: just as a
stencil allows multiple copies of the same shape, a template allows us to recognize the same
object even if its appearance varies slightly. For example, the numbers at the bottom of a
bank check are “read” by machines such as check sorters, which compare the pattern of each
number with stored templates to identify the correct digit. The machine decides which
number is represented by finding the best match between the incoming pattern and the
available templates, as shown in Figure3.8. This demonstrates how template matching works:
every object or stimulus is compared with stored templates, and recognition occurs when a
match is found.
However, template matching has significant limitations as a complete theory of perception.
First, it would require an impossibly large number of templates to account for all possible
variations in objects—such as different fonts, sizes, orientations, or degraded stimuli. For
instance, if 14 people write the sentence “Cognitive psychology rocks!” in their own
handwriting, each version differs in size, shape, orientation, and spacing, yet we can still
recognize all as the same sentence. Template matching struggles to explain how we recognize
patterns as the same despite such variability. Similarly, everyday perception often involves
“noisy” stimuli—blurred or faint letters, partially blocked objects, or sounds against a
background of other sounds—which template matching cannot easily handle. The model also
fails to explain how we recognize new objects (like DVDs or smartphones) or how we adjust
for rotation or orientation before matching, since we cannot know how to adjust the input
until we already know what the object is.
In summary, while template matching is useful for technology and simple, well-defined
stimuli, it does not fully explain the flexibility and adaptability of human perception. The
model’s requirement for exact matches and its inability to handle variability, novelty, and
ambiguity mean it is best seen as a limited component of pattern recognition rather than a
comprehensive theory of perception.

3) Prototype theories:
Prototype matching is a perceptual model designed to address the shortcomings of both
template-matching and feature analysis approaches. Like template models, prototype
matching explains perception as a process of comparing an input to a stored representation.
However, instead of requiring an exact or close match to a whole stored pattern, the stored
representation in this model is a prototype—an idealized, abstract representation of a class of
objects or events, such as the letter R, a cup, a VCR, or a collie. For example, the prototype
for “dog” would be an image representing the most typical or “doggiest” dog imaginable,
even if no specific dog exactly matches this ideal. In Figure 3.14, you can see various
representations of the letter R—some forms appear more prototypical than others, as most
people tend to judge the more typical and familiar examples as being closer to their mental
prototype.

Prototype-matching models work by having the perceiver compare new stimuli against these
stored prototypes. An object is recognized when there is a sufficient degree of similarity, not
necessarily an exact match. This is more flexible than template models, since no single
feature or fixed set of features is required for identification; rather, the probability of a match
increases with the number and strength of shared features. For example, when presented with
multiple forms of the letter R, individuals are more likely to recognize those versions that are
closer to their internal prototype as the “best” or most typical R. Research by Posner and
Keele (1968) involved creating series of dot patterns (prototypes and distortions) and found
that people could accurately classify distortions even if they had never seen the original
prototype. In their study, participants classified both old (previously seen) and new (not
previously encountered) distortions, and most notably, prototypes they had never seen before
demonstrating that people internally generate prototypes and can use them for perceptual
classification. Cabeza et al. (1999) provided similar findings with photos of faces;
participants more easily recognized never-before-seen prototype faces compared to less
prototypical new faces, further supporting the power of internalized prototypes in perception.
In summary, prototype matching allows perception to be more tolerant of variation and
“noise” than older models. It shows that we recognize objects by reference to an idealized
example that accounts for shared features and relational structure among parts—explaining
why we can rapidly and flexibly recognize variations of letters, faces, and other patterns,
even those we have never previously encountered, as long as they are sufficiently similar to
our prototype.
4) Feature theories:
Featural analysis is a perceptual model that proposes we recognize objects by breaking them
down into their component parts, or features, rather than processing them as whole units. For
example, when looking at a dog, we identify features such as ears, muzzle, tail, paws, and
eyes, and use recognition of these features to infer the identity of the whole animal.
According to this model, object recognition depends on the detection and combination of
these features, which are processed individually by specialized detectors in the visual system.
Neurophysiological evidence supports featural analysis. Studies on frog retinas (Lettvin et
al.,1959) revealed that specific cells respond to particular features—such as edges between
light and dark (“edge detectors”) or moving dots (“bug detectors”). Hubel and Wiesel
(1962,1968) found similar feature detectors in the visual cortex of cats and monkeys,
including cells that respond selectively to horizontal or vertical lines. These findings confirm
that the brain scans sensory input for specific features, and the presence or absence of a
feature determines the response of these detectors.
Irving Biederman’s recognition-by-components (RBC) theory is a prominent example of
featural analysis. Biederman proposed that objects are segmented into basic geometric
components called geons (geometrical ions), such as bricks, cylinders, and cones. From a
small set of geons, we can mentally represent thousands of common objects. Just as the44
phonemes in English can form all words, Biederman argued that a limited set of geons can
form all recognizable objects. Evidence for this comes from studies where participants
consistently segment unfamiliar objects into recognizable parts, demonstrating that we divide
the whole into its component geons, regardless of familiarity. The arrangement of geons also
matters—different arrangements of the same geons can produce very different objects.
Featural analysis is also evident in letter and speech perception. People are more likely to
confuse letters that share features (e.g., G and C), and visual search tasks show that similarity
between features increases search difficulty. In speech, listeners use acoustic features such as
voicing, nasality, duration, and place of articulation to categorize sounds. For example, Lisker
and Abramson (1970) showed that listeners categorically perceive speech sounds based on
features like voice onset time (VOT), grouping sounds into distinct categories (e.g., “ba” vs.
“pa”) even when the physical differences are subtle. This categorical perception allows us to
understand speech quickly, ignoring irrelevant variations in voice or accent.
Despite its strengths, featural analysis faces challenges. There is no clear definition of what
constitutes a feature across all objects, and it is unclear how perceivers know which features
to use for different objects. The list of possible features would be enormous if applied
universally, raising questions about the speed and efficiency of perception.
In summary, featural analysis explains object recognition by breaking down stimuli into
component features, supported by neurophysiological and experimental evidence. While it
accounts for rapid and flexible perception, the model struggles to define features universally
and explain how perceivers select relevant features for novel objects.
5) Structural description theory:
Structural-description theory, specifically Biederman’s recognition-by-components (RBC)
theory, proposes that we form stable three-dimensional mental representations of objects by
decomposing them into a small set of simple geometric shapes called geons. These geons
include basic forms such as bricks, cylinders, wedges, cones, and their curved-axis
counterparts. According to RBC theory, object recognition occurs when we observe the edges
of an object and break it down into its component geons, which are then matched against
stored representations in memory. This process is similar to how a small set of letters can be
combined to form countless words—likewise, a limited number of geons can be recombined
in various arrangements to build up a vast array of basic shapes and objects.
A key feature of geons is their viewpoint invariance, meaning they can be discerned from
multiple perspectives and even under degraded visual conditions. This allows objects
constructed from geons to be recognized easily, regardless of changes in viewpoint or minor
distortions. For example, we can recognize chairs, lamps, or faces as belonging to a general
category, even if their appearance changes. However, the RBC theory does not fully explain
how we recognize specific instances—such as one’s own face or a close friend’s face—
because it focuses on general classifications rather than unique details. Biederman
acknowledged that further work is needed to describe how the relations among object parts
are represented and how prior expectations and environmental context influence pattern
perception.
In summary, structural-description theory offers a parsimonious explanation for rapid,
automatic, and accurate object recognition by reducing complex objects to combinations of
simple, viewpoint-invariant geons. While it accounts well for the recognition of general
object categories, it falls short in explaining the recognition of specific, individual objects and
the influence of top-down factors like context and expectations.

Top-Down theory of perception

1)Constructive perception
2)Computational theory of perception
3)Spatiotemporal Boundary formation theory
▪ This approach is indirect and experience-driven. Here, your past knowledge and experiences
play a big role in how you perceive things.
▪ It is heavily influenced by what we already know and expect. It's like using your prior
knowledge and expectations to understand things. For instance, when you saw the word
"Paris" in a tricky sentence, your expectation led you to think it was "Paris in the spring"
even though the word "the" was repeated in the sentence
▪ It's like having a mental template or expectation that you use to interpret what you see.
▪ Richard Gregory (1970) was the strongest advocate of this view Constructive perception
▪ Constructive perception was proposed by British psychologist Richard Gregory in 1970.
Gregory argued that perception is an active process of constructing hypotheses about the
world around us based on our sensory input and prior knowledge.
▪ He proposed that the brain does not simply receive and process sensory information
passively, but rather actively selects and interprets information in order to create a meaningful
representation of the world.
▪ Gregory's theory of constructive perception is a top-down theory of perception, which
means that it emphasizes the role of higher-level cognitive processes in shaping our
perceptions.
▪ This is in contrast to bottom-up theories of perception, which emphasize the role of sensory
information in shaping our perceptions.
▪ Constructive perception is a widely accepted theory in cognitive psychology, and there is a
great deal of evidence to support it. For example, studies have shown that our perceptions can
be influenced by our expectations, motivations, and emotions.
▪ Additionally, studies have shown that we are able to perceive objects and events even when
there is only partial or ambiguous sensory information available. examples of constructive
perception in action
: * When we see a face in the clouds, we are actively constructing a hypothesis about what we
are seeing based on our prior knowledge of faces
. * When we read a word, we are actively constructing a hypothesis about what the word says
based on the context of the sentence and our prior knowledge of the language.
* When we drive a car, we are actively constructing a hypothesis about the traffic situation
around us based on the sensory input we are receiving from our eyes, ears, and other senses,
as well as our prior knowledge of traffic rules and regulations.
▪ Constructive perception is an important concept in cognitive psychology because it helps to
explain how we are able to make sense of the world around us even when the sensory
information we are receiving is incomplete or ambiguous.
▪ It also has implications for understanding how our perceptions can be influenced by our
cognitive biases and other factors. Computational theory of perception (CTP)
▪ The computational theory of perception (CTP) was proposed by David Marr in his book
Vision: A Computational Investigation (1982)
▪ CTP is a theory that suggests that perception is an information processing system that can
be computationally modeled. CTP views perception as a series of steps in which sensory
information is encoded, transformed, and interpreted in order to create a meaningful
representation of the world.
▪ One way to think about CTP is to imagine the brain as a computer. The sensory organs
(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) are like the input devices of a computer, and the brain is
like the central processing unit (CPU). The CPU takes the input from the sensory organs and
processes it in order to create an output. In the case of perception, the output is a mental
representation of the world.
▪ CTP is a useful framework for understanding perception because it allows us to break down
the process into smaller, more manageable components. This can be helpful in identifying the
specific steps that go wrong in perceptual disorders.
1. Sensory encoding: The first step in perception is sensory encoding. This is the process by
which sensory information from the environment is converted into a neural code. For
example, when light hits the retina, it is converted into a pattern of neural activity that is sent
to the brain.
2. Feature extraction: Once the sensory information has been encoded, the brain begins to
extract features from it. Features are basic building blocks of perception, such as brightness,
color, shape, and motion. For example, when you look at a house, the brain extracts features
such as the shape of the roof, the color of the walls, and the presence of windows and doors.
[Link] recognition: The next step in perception is object recognition. This is the process by
which the brain identifies objects in the environment. The brain does this by matching the
extracted features from the sensory input to a stored database of known object
representations. For example, when you see a house, the brain matches the extracted features
to its stored representation of a house.
4. Perceptual interpretation Once the brain has recognized an object, it must then interpret the
object's meaning. This involves taking into account the context of the object and the viewer's
own prior knowledge. For example, if you see a house on fire, you will interpret it differently
than if you see a house that is not on fire. Perceptual styles - Field dependent Vs Field
independent, Repressors Vs Sensitizers, Levellers Vs Sharpeners. Perceptual vigilance.

Spatiotemporal
spatiotemporal refers to the integrated processing and representation of information across
both space and time in the brain and mind. This concept is fundamental to cognitive
functions such as reasoning, memory, perception, and attention, and is also applied in clinical
fields like psychopathology.

Boundary Formation Theory

Boundary formation theory is a framework that explores how individuals and groups create,
maintain, and negotiate the borders between different psychological, social, or physical
domains. It explains how people manage the separation or integration of roles (like work and
personal life) and the implications for identity, interaction, and well-being, particularly in
managing stress and emotional distress. The theory can apply to visual perception, cognitive
categorization, and work-life balance, with different "boundary styles"
like segmentation (keeping domains separate) and integration (blending them).

Perceptual styles
Perceptual Styles:
1. Field Dependent vs. Field Independent:
• Field Dependent individuals are influenced by the surrounding context when perceiving
information and have difficulty distinguishing objects from their background.
• Field Independent individuals can separate objects from their context and focus on specific
details.2. Repressors vs. Sensitizers:
• Repressors tend to avoid thinking about stressful or negative stimuli and
repress emotional responses.
• Sensitizers are more alert and responsive to stress, tending to focus on
and analyze potential threats.
3. Levelers vs. Sharpeners:
• Levelers are more likely to perceive things in a generalized manner, minimizing differences.
• Sharpeners tend to exaggerate differences, perceiving things as more distinct.
4. Perceptual Vigilance:
• This refers to the tendency to focus on certain stimuli while ignoring others, particularly
stimuli that are personally relevant or interesting. It’s a form of selective attention.

ATTENTION
Attention is the means by which we actively process a limited amount of information from the
enormous amount of information available through our senses, our stored memories, and our
other cognitive processes.
It includes both conscious and unconscious processes. Conscious processes are relatively easy
to study in many cases. Unconscious processes arc harder to study simply because you are not
conscious of them.
The process through which certain stimuli are selected from a group of others is generally
referred to as attention. It refers to focusing and processing information from our surroundings.
Attention is the process of getting an object of thoughts clearly before the mind. It is essential
for acquiring knowledge.
TYPES OF ATTENTION:
[Link] attention: A situation in which individuals try to attend to only one source of
information while ignoring other stimuli; also known as focused attention. Or the ability to
select from many factors on stimuli and to focus on only one that you want while filtering
others.
2. Divided attention: A situation in which two tasks are performed at the same time; also
known as multitasking. The ability to switch your focus back and forth between tasks that
require different cognitive demands.
3. Sustained attention: The ability to focus on one specific task for a continuous amount of
time without being distracted.
4. Alternating attention : Attention involves multitasking or effortlessly shifting attention
between two or more things with different cognitive demands.
Overt attention
Overt attention refers to the visible, physical direction of attention, where you move your eyes,
head, or body toward the object or event you want to observe.
It is the most common and natural form of attention.
How it Works
 You shift your gaze toward the object.
 The movement of eyes helps collect more information.
 Others can easily notice where your attention is directed.
Examples
 When someone calls your name, you turn and look at them.
 Watching TV and suddenly looking at the door when it opens.
COVERT ATTENTION
Covert attention is when your mind shifts attention without moving your eyes or head.
You continue looking in one direction but mentally focus elsewhere.
It is often called “paying attention out of the corner of your eye.”
How it Works
 Your gaze remains fixed.
 Your brain switches attention to another area of interest.
 Others cannot detect where your attention really is.
Examples
 A student looks at the teacher but listens to friends whispering behind.
 Looking at your phone but mentally paying attention to the TV.
SELECTION MODELS OF ATTENTION
1. Broadbent model:
Broadbent (1958) carried out experiments on divided attention, which showed that people
have difficulty in attending to two separate inputs at the same time. Broadbent explained
his findings in terms of a sequence of processing stages which could be represented as a
series of stages in a flow chart. Certain crucial stages were identified which acted as a
‘bottleneck’ to information flow, because of their limited processing capacity.

 Many inputs are competing with one another for limited processing resources, and the
inputs must be prioritized and selectively processed if an information overload is to be
avoided.
 Broadbent referred to this process as ‘selective attention’, and his theoretical model of
the ‘limited-capacity processor’
 Broadbent (1958) proposed a filter theory of attention, which states that there are limits
on how much information a person can attend to at any given time. Therefore, if the
amount of information available at any given time exceeds capacity, the person uses an
attentional filter to let some information through and block the rest.
 Only material that gets past the filter can be analyzed later for meaning.
 According to this model, many stimuli simultaneously impinge upon our receptors
creating a kind of bottleneck situation (that's why it is also known as bottleneck theory).
Moving through the sensory register, they enter the selective filter which permits only
one stimulus to get through for further processing at the higher level.
 Other impinging stimuli are thus filtered out at that moment of time. Thus, we become
aware of only that particular stimulus which gets through the selective filter while
others remain out of our conscious awareness.
 The filter permits only one channel of sensory information to proceed and reach the
process of perception. We thereby assign meaning to our sensation or other stimuli, we
will be filtered out at the sensory level and never reach the level of perception.
  There is some evidence suggesting that Broadbent theory must be wrong.

2. Treisman's filter attenuation theory

Treisman modified Broadbent's filter model to propose that the filter does not completely
block out unattended information, but instead attenuates it, or weakens it. This means that
unattended information is still processed, but it is not processed as fully as attended
information Early Selection model.
● Both Broadbent's filter model and Treisman's filter attenuation theory are considered to
be early selection models of attention.
● This means that they both propose that the selection of information occurs at an early
stage in the processing stream, before the meaning of the information has been extracted.
● In Broadbent's model, the filter selects information based on its physical characteristics,
such as pitch, color, and loudness.
● In Treisman's model, the filter attenuates information based on its semantic
characteristics, such as meaning. However, both models propose that the selection of
information occurs before the meaning of the information has been fully processed.
● This is in contrast to late selection models of attention, which propose that the selection
of information occurs at a later stage in the processing stream, after the meaning of the
information has been extracted.
● Treisman (1960) found with the shadowing task that participants sometimes said a word
that had been presented on the unattended channel. Such “breakthroughs” typically
occurred when the word on the unattended channel was highly probable in the context of
the attended message.
 ● Even in those circumstances, however, Treisman only observed breakthroughs on 6%
of trials. Such findings led Treisman (1964) to argue that the filter reduces or attenuates
the analysis of unattended information
● Treisman claimed that the location of the bottleneck was more flexible than Broadbent
had suggested. She proposed that stimulus analysis proceeds systematically through a
hierarchy, starting with analyses based on physical cues, syllable pattern and specific
words, and moving on to analyses based on grammatical structure and meaning. If there is
insufficient processing capacity to permit full stimulus analysis, tests towards the top of
the hierarchy are omitted.
● Treisman’s theory accounted for the extensive processing of unattended sources of
information that was embarrassing for Broadbent.

3. Capacity model of attention (Daniel Kahneman)

Daniel Kahneman (1973) presented a slightly different model for what attention is. He
viewed attention as a set of cognitive processes for categorizing and recognizing stimuli.
The more complex the stimulus, the harder the processing, and therefore the more
resources are engaged. However, people have some control over where they direct their
mental resources: They can often choose what to focus on and devote their mental effort
[Link] Model depicts the allocation of mental resources to various cognitive tasks.
Analogy could be made to an investor depositing money in one or more of sev-eral
different bank accounts—here, the individual “deposits” mental capacity to one or more of
several different tasks. Many factors influence this allocation of capacity, which itself
depends on the extent and type of mental resources available.
The availability of mental resources, in turn, is affected by the overall level of arousal, or
state of alertness.
Kahneman (1973) argued that one effect of being aroused is that more cog-nitive resources
are available to devote to various tasks. Paradoxically, however,the level of arousal also
depends on a task’s difficulty. This means we are less aroused while performing easy tasks,
such as adding 2 and 2, than we are when performing more difficult tasks, such as
multiplying a Social Security number by pi. We therefore bring fewer cognitive resources
to easy tasks, which, fortunately, require fewer resources to complete.
Arousal thus affects our capacity (the sum total of our mental resources) fortasks. But the
model still needs to specify how we allocate our resources to all the cognitive tasks that
confront [Link] model predicts that we pay more attention to things we are interested in,
are in the mood for, or have judged important.
For example, opera lovers listen carefully during an operatic performance, concentrating
on nu-ances of the performance. People less interested in opera may sometimes have a
hard time even staying awake. In Kahneman’s (1973) view, attention is part of what the
layperson would call “mental effort.” The more effort expended,the more attention we are
[Link] is only one factor that influences performance on a task. Greater effort or
concentration results in better performance of some tasks—those thatrequire resource-
limited processing, performance of which is constrained by the mental resources or
capacity allocated to it (Norman & Bobrow, 1975).Taking a midterm is one such
[Link] and Bobrow pointed out that both kinds of limitations affect our ability to
perform any cognitive task.
 Multiple Resource Model
Multiple resource theories account how two simultaneous tasks will interfere each other
depending on the kind and level of resources they require. Example C.D Wickens (1980)
proposed 3 dimensions of resources.
1. He distinguished Auditory versus visual perceptual models
2. He distinguished Perceptual cognitive resources (consumed by the demands of
such as reading and mentally calculating) versus response resources (consumed
by the demands of task such as speaking and moving one’s hand)
3. He distinguished verbal versus spatial processing codes; speech and text
illustrates codes; whereas picture and diagrams illustrates codes.
 Multiple Resource theories attempt to explain how well two task can be done
concurrently by specifying the capacity or effort demands, on the one hand, and types
of resources needed, on the other. For instance, attending simultaneously to speech and
pictures should be more manageable than processing two channels of speech (Alport,
Antonis & Reynolds 1972). Attending two channels of speech should be easier when
the capacity demands of the task are low, as when the shadowed message can be
identified by pitch, than when the demands are high, as in semantic analysis (
Jhonston& Heinz, 1978)

Problem Solving
1. Introduction to Problem Solving
Daily Life Problems – We constantly face decisions (e.g., choosing clothes).
Variety of Problem Sizes – Problems range from small to large (e.g., doing a
puzzle vs. searching for a job).Cycle of Problem Solving – Includes identifying,
defining, strategizing, allocating resources, and evaluating solutions (e.g., planning
your day).Not Serial Stages – Stages often overlap (e.g., adjusting your plan while
acting).Focus of Research – Cognitive psychology studies early stages (e.g., how we
define problems).
Recognizing & Identifying Problems
Difference Between Current & Goal State – Problems arise from gaps (e.g.,
you’re hungry but have no breakfast).
Well-Defined Problems – Clear goals and rules (e.g., Sudoku).Ill-Defined Problems –
No single correct solution (e.g., deciding how to organize a day).Sudoku as Well-
Defined – Only one correct answer (e.g., filling missing numbers).Job Search as Ill-
Defined – Many paths to a goal (e.g., preparing multiple applications).

. Defining & Representing Problems

Mental Representation Matters – How we picture a problem influences solutions (e.g.,
imagining your schedule visually).Understanding Constraints – Rules must be noted to
solve correctly (e.g., scheduling around fixed class times). Recognizing Operations –
Identify what actions can change your situation (e.g., going to the store for milk).Good
Representation Helps – Proper framing reveals solutions (e.g., imagining a route on a
map).Poor Representation Hurts – Wrong framing hides solutions (e.g., viewing a 3D
problem in 2D).Functional [Link] – Only seeing an object’s usual use
(e.g., screwdriver is “only” for screws).Functional Fixedness Blocks Solutions – It
limits thinking (e.g., not using a book as a doorstop).Overcoming It Helps Insight –
Seeing new uses solves problems (e.g., using screwdriver as a weight).Classic Example
– Candle problem (e.g., using a matchbox as a shelf).Daily Example – Using a phone
flashlight as a lamp in a dark room.

Developing Solutions: Approaches & Strategies

Associationist (Trial-and-Error) Approach

Trying Solutions Until One Works – Simple method (e.g., trying keys to unlock a
door).Works for Small Sets of Options – Few choices = easy (e.g., trying 3 shirts).Fails
When Possibilities Are Huge – Too many combinations (e.g., guessing Sudoku numbers
randomly).Based on Past Associations – Old solutions reused (e.g., using a recipe you
know).Often Inefficient – Can take too long (e.g., trying random gym machines for best
workout).

B. Gestalt Approach
.Focus on Structure & Insight – Solutions through reorganizing thinking (e.g., realizing
puzzle pieces form a pattern).Not Gradual but Sudden – “Aha!” moments (e.g., figuring
out a riddle suddenly).New Representation Helps – Changing how you “see” the
problem (e.g., rotating a puzzle piece mentally).Avoids Meaningless Errors –
Encourages understanding, not guessing (e.g., analyzing a puzzle before
attempting).Insight Often Emerges After Break – Incubation helps (e.g., solving a
problem after a walk).Insight Problem Solving .Sudden Solution Realization – Without
step-by-step (e.g., idea to store clothes in a cooler).Often After Failure – Happens when
stuck (e.g., can’t solve puzzle, then answer pops up).
Selective Encoding – Seeing previously ignored info as relevant (e.g., noticing colors
in a puzzle).
Selective Combination – Putting pieces together in a new way (e.g., thinking in 3D
instead of 2D).
Selective Comparison – Connecting new to old knowledge (e.g., recalling a similar
riddle).

Mental Set
Definition – Using old solutions repeatedly (e.g., same math method every
time).Causes Missed Better Solutions – Blocks simpler ideas (e.g., using a long method
when a shortcut exists).Based on Habit – Recent solutions bias thinking (e.g., repeating
a strategy from a previous problem).Example: Water Jug Problems – Using the long
formula over the simple addition (e.g., B–2C–A instead of A+C).Occurs in Daily Life
– Taking usual route even when a shorter one exists.

Analogical Transfer
Applying Old Solutions to New Problems – When structure is similar (e.g., using a
strategy from a past project).Requires Recognizing Deep Similarities – Surface features
differ (e.g., army story helps radiation problem).Strengthens With Good Example
Stories – Better analogies = better transfer (e.g., instructions using relatable
examples).Fails When Analogies Are Weak – Wrong structure misleads (e.g.,
comparing unrelated problems).Used in Everyday Thinking – Fixing a new device
using knowledge of a similar old one.