It is possible that our cognitive processes all originate from the same cognitive bank, but can we truly multitask by simultaneously driving a car, chewing gum, talking on the phone, and listening to music? Perhaps our mental resources are specialized in a way that assigns different tasks varying strengths. The distribution of responsibility to different regions of the brain and how it stores memories remains unfathomable and will never be fully understood. Thankfully, technology has provided us with answers to many questions about divided attention.
Brain imaging techniques such as PET scan utilize a glucose derivative called 2-deoxyglucose. This derivative is injected into the patient’s carotid artery and is absorbed by active energy-consuming neurons similar to glucose, which serves as fuel for the brain. By using this non-metabolizing glucose derivative, researchers can pinpoint activity locations with millimeter precision. While PET scan was once the only tool for locating neurological processes, we now have fMRI which is less time consuming and messy.
Combining these imaging tools with computerized tachistoscope and educated inferences from highly educated individuals enables us to gradually gain a better understanding of the brain and its intricate processes involved in divided attention.
There are two theories that attempt to explain divided attention. The first theory suggests that all tasks rely on the same resources. The second theory proposes a more complex task-specific resource pool. According to the general resource theory, tasks compete for a limited pool of resources, regardless of their nature. The important factor to consider is the overall resource demand, which is the combined cost of all tasks at hand. If the total demand exceeds the available resources, interference occurs and tasks suffer. On the other hand, task-specific theory states that interference only happens when two similar tasks draw from the same source. If the tasks are different and involve different cognitive abilities (such as spatial vs. verbal), divided attention becomes easier to manage because they involve different regions of the brain and draw from separate resource pools. This explains divided attention. Many studies support this theory and all agree that the extent of interference depends on the nature of the tasks being performed.
The limitations of working memory and divided attention can cause delays in cognitive processes. These delays occur because effort is required for these processes, leading to tie-ups on the neurological super highway. To address these tie-ups, our brain utilizes a response-selector. Similar to a waiter taking one person’s order at a time, the response-selector can only handle one task at a time. If consecutive tasks require the response-selector, one task must wait while the selector deals with the other task. However, most tasks do not need constant assistance from the response-selector. Once you select and initiate an action, the time spent carrying out that action frees up the response-selector to take on another task. It can then come up with a solution and initiate the response for that task. This process, known as time-sharing, demonstrates that divided attention is also applicable to various tasks.
In my everyday life, I often rely on divided attention. This can be mainly attributed to automaticity. For instance, at my off-campus job at Blockbuster Video, I find the tasks very easy due to practice. I spend most of my shift on auto pilot, allowing me to engage in conversation with my colleagues and customers, often sharing my movie reviews. Initially, tasks that required my full concentration on the computer have become second nature. However, I have also noticed a challenge with divided attention. This semester, I decided to audition for a play for the first time and discovered the difficulty of doing a “cold read” – reading unfamiliar lines without instruction on proper pronunciation. While reading my lines, I found myself competing for mental resources as I tried to both accurately read the text and adjust my tone of voice and body movements to appear natural.
Before, I had a limited grasp on divided attention. However, now I possess a much deeper understanding. I feel confident in my comprehension because I was able to discuss it thoroughly with my roommate at three in the morning. I was even able to spark his interest in the other knowledge I have acquired from this class.
The significance and relationship between meaning and memory connections
The acquisition and assimilation of new material in long term memory is essential for gaining new knowledge. To convert this information into knowledge, it must be understood and linked with prior knowledge or other pieces of information to be stored in long term memory. Retrieving this information for future use requires a complex indexing process.
According to the parallel distributed theory of learning, an idea is not stored as a single entity but rather as multiple interconnected sub-units with related meanings. These connections allow one memory to activate another, creating intricate webs of understanding through neural activation spread. This has the advantage that recalling any part of the material facilitates easier retrieval of connected information.
Effective memorization occurs when we perceive and comprehend the entire picture, enabling better organization. Organizing material simplifies learning by reducing the amount of information that needs to be memorized through comprehension. Instead of considering the elements of an idea as separate components, we view them as constituents of a connected whole, incorporating the entire package into memory. As a result, integrating and unifying the information with previous knowledge reduces the effort required to remember necessary information.
Having acquired this knowledge, I have finally resolved a question that had puzzled my grade school teachers: “Why do we need to learn this?” Previously, I would have welcomed an informed answer, but regrettably, none was provided. Nevertheless, it has become evident to me that the knowledge gained during my grade school years laid the groundwork for what I learned in high school and ultimately established a foundation for my comprehension of the subjects I am presently studying in college.
The topic of state dependent memory intrigued me greatly. Initially, I had a basic understanding of it, but upon reading our book’s detailed description, I truly grasped the concept. This concept made me contemplate its correlation with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in soldiers and their challenges when transitioning to civilian life. According to the text, stimuli resembling war-related elements could trigger state dependent memory of wartime events. I have a close friend whose father served in Vietnam and suffers from PTSD. Many nights have been spent listening to his war stories while sharing drinks, as his recollections are incredibly vivid. Eventually, I plan to incorporate these experiences into a book. He has mentioned that during moments of extreme stress, he loses awareness and feels transported back into battle. I believe this connection between stress and state dependent memory allows him to relive the traumatic war experiences encoded in his long-term memory during that emotional state.
Evidence of state dependent memory is the improved recall and faster processing of information when consuming coffee. I always have a cup of coffee when studying at night, which suggests that coffee affects me in various ways, including through smell, taste, and mood arousal caused by caffeine.
The explanation of how eyewitness testimony can be tainted with errors is both intriguing and disturbing. It is fascinating to see how old information can blend with new information, creating a perception of the true event even if the new information was acquired later. These pieces of information become integrated into a cohesive whole. The manipulation of adjectives also plays a captivating role in altering one’s perception of an event. People often draw inferences and assume the presence of an object, even when it is not there.
Eyewitness testimony holds immense importance as it contributes to wrongfully convicting many innocent individuals. Prosecutors are well aware of tactics they can employ, carefully selecting questions and manipulating adjectives, to elicit fabrications or exaggerated versions of the truth from witnesses. In most cases, witnesses themselves are unaware that their statements differ from the actual truth. Leading witnesses with specific questions often undermines objections raised by the defense.
I distinctly remember watching a 20/20 episode where researchers observed a man entering a room full of children through a two-way mirror. He interacted with them by playing games, reading them stories, and engaging in some roughhousing. Some children accurately described his actions based on what actually occurred.
However, other children were asked leading questions about whether they remembered being touched by the manThe children were asked to indicate when they started feeling uncomfortable from his touch and explain the actions that caused this unease. At first, the majority of the children gave honest descriptions of what occurred. However, a week later, their statements became unbelievable and hard to trust after being influenced by details about inappropriate touching. I still harbor uncertainty regarding the dependability of that specific information.
Activation Levels and Response threshold
I am interested in the fact that some neurons are easier to activate than others, but I am confused from a biological standpoint. I know that the resting potential of a neuron is -70mv and it jumps to +50mv when activated. The firing of neurons is mainly due to charged isotopes sodium and potassium passing in and out of channels, which sends a weak electric impulse down the neuron’s axon. The axon is covered by a myelin sheath, which is a phospholipid bi-layer that acts as a semi-conductor, allowing the impulse to travel long distances in the neuro-network. An excited neuron quickly decreases its charge. However, I do not understand how different detectors have different response thresholds. The book explains it well, but I need to better parallel this knowledge with my biological understanding. According to the book, detectors that have fired recently will have a higher baseline level, but I am unsure about the time frame for this increase in baseline level. Additionally, detectors that have fired frequently in the past gradually gain a higher baseline level, potentially due to more dense connections or strengthening of connections. I do understand their explanation of these phenomena when it comes to priming, but in other aspects, I do not fully comprehend.
