PDF (PhD Thesis Susan Chipchase) - Nottingham eTheses ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The number of fixations made on different scene components was further analysed by examining the proportion of fixations made on the object as a proportion of fixations made on the entire scene (see Figure 5.13). A 3 (emotion) x 4 (experiment) ANOVA with the repeated measures factor of emotion and the between-participants factor of experiment revealed a main effect of emotion (F(2,136) = 7.65, MSe = 0.03, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .10) and a main effect of experiment (F(3,68) = 1112.28, MSe = 0.40, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .83). The interaction between emotion and experiment was not significant [F(6,136) = 0.82, MSe < 0.01, p = .56, partial eta 2 = .04]. Planned contrasts revealed this proportion was significantly greater for scenes with an emotional and neutral object (F(1,68) = 4.69, p < .05), and significantly greater proportion for scenes with a negative than positive object (F(1,68) = 11.25, p < .001). The significant main effect of experiment was further explored using post-hoc comparisons with a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. These revealed that this proportion was significantly reduced for Experiment 9 in comparison to all other Experiments, but there were no other differences (Expt 7 > Expt 9, p < .001; Expt 10 > Expt 9, p < .001; Expt 8 > Expt 9, p < .001). 251
Figure 5.13. Proportion of number of fixations on the object in comparison to scene as a whole. Average total gaze duration A 3 x 2 x 4 ANOVA was conducted on the total gaze duration for the repeated measures factors emotion and scene component and the between-participants factor of experiment. (See Figure 5.14). This revealed a significant main effect of scene component (F(1,68) = 569.24, MSe = 5.09 E7 , p < .001, partial eta 2 = .89) with longer total gaze duration on the object than background. The main effect of emotion was not significant [F(2,136) = 0.58, MSe = 468.15, p = .56, partial eta 2 = .01] and nor was the main effect of experiment [F(3,68) = 2.38, MSe = 22861.75, p = .08, partial eta 2 = .10]. The interaction between emotion and experiment was not significant [F(6,136) = 0.35, MSe = 280.93, p = .91, partial eta 2 = .02]. The interaction between scene component and experiment was significant (F(3,68) = 86.30, MSe = 7721847.53, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .79) and the interaction between emotion and scene component was significant 252
Page 1 and 2:
THE EMOTIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF MEMORY
Page 3 and 4:
the memory effects. Surprisingly, t
Page 5 and 6:
and motivation was waning. Most imp
Page 7 and 8:
Meta-analysis: Experiments 6-10…
Page 9 and 10:
negative, neutral or positive objec
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 6.2. Summary of findings fro
Page 13 and 14:
Table 3.5. Criteria for giving resp
Page 15 and 16:
avoidance task ………………
Page 17 and 18:
loved one could block their ability
Page 19 and 20:
eport, physiological response and c
Page 21 and 22:
Section 1.2. What effects do emotio
Page 23 and 24:
due to external influences. In cont
Page 25 and 26:
of naturally occurring emotions or
Page 27 and 28:
ecause mood inductions generally re
Page 29 and 30:
(e.g. Conway et al., 1994). Memory
Page 31 and 32:
alternatives (Lockhart, 2000). The
Page 33 and 34:
equired participants to distinguish
Page 35 and 36:
een found when memory is assessed b
Page 37 and 38:
peripheral elements of emotional an
Page 39 and 40:
processing of the specific content
Page 41 and 42:
failure to retrieve episodic memori
Page 43 and 44:
effects on cognitive processes, eve
Page 45 and 46:
ecollection and familiarity within
Page 47 and 48:
emotional influence on memory. In t
Page 49 and 50:
year (Dolcos et al., 2005). There a
Page 51 and 52:
e suitable for investigating memory
Page 53 and 54:
possible that having to distinguish
Page 55 and 56:
of photographs of people, animals a
Page 57 and 58:
Retrieval phase: Participants then
Page 59:
y the ANOVA’s. These are only rep
Page 62 and 63:
Table 2.1: Experiments 1 and 2: Res
Page 64 and 65:
In these experiments the influence
Page 66 and 67:
We found evidence of recognition me
Page 68 and 69:
For the recognition test, which was
Page 70 and 71:
Section 5. Experiments 2A and 2B: P
Page 72 and 73:
items that had been seen previously
Page 74 and 75:
Section 7. Experiment 2E: Recogniti
Page 76 and 77:
Table 2.2. Experiment 2: Results of
Page 78 and 79:
For the ‘know’ responses the ma
Page 80 and 81:
Section 8. Experiment 2 - General D
Page 82 and 83:
Presentation of stimuli in blocked
Page 84 and 85:
It is possible that the act of maki
Page 86 and 87:
enhancement can be influenced by re
Page 88 and 89:
levels of memory between the positi
Page 90 and 91:
the performance of any subsequent t
Page 92 and 93:
experiment to provide a set of targ
Page 94 and 95:
Experimental stimuli were presented
Page 96 and 97:
Recognition performance in all thre
Page 98 and 99:
Analysis of RKG responses We analys
Page 100 and 101:
Further signal detection analysis o
Page 102 and 103:
stimuli, which corresponded with mo
Page 104 and 105:
could be generalised to the real-wo
Page 106 and 107:
paradigm was first introduced by Tu
Page 108 and 109:
The nature of recognition memory an
Page 110 and 111:
The relation between Remember/Know/
Page 112 and 113:
We proposed that a Remember respons
Page 114 and 115:
to either the RKN or SSN memory tas
Page 116 and 117:
change in a dimension (e.g., a ligh
Page 118 and 119:
were prompted to indicate by key pr
Page 120 and 121:
When you think the picture was not
Page 122 and 123:
conducted to further analyse the ma
Page 124 and 125:
interactions in the ANOVAs were fou
Page 126 and 127:
Table 3.9. Same/Similar/New task: N
Page 128 and 129:
Orthogonal contrasts revealed that
Page 130 and 131:
Table 3.11. Remember/Know/New task:
Page 132 and 133:
suitable responses were not equable
Page 134 and 135:
We found that more ‘remember’ r
Page 136 and 137:
say that context is easier to remem
Page 138 and 139:
Levine & Bluck, 2004; Storbeck & Cl
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 4.1. Examples of pairs of ne
Page 142 and 143:
Familiarity i) Word frequency and w
Page 144 and 145:
were not sure if there was going to
Page 146 and 147:
Table 4.1. Experiment 5: Proportion
Page 148 and 149:
memory for positive stimuli. These
Page 150 and 151:
whether visual specificity for posi
Page 152 and 153:
Figure 4.3. Examples of stimuli. St
Page 154 and 155:
0.59 (-1.65 to 2.55; 0.98) respecti
Page 156 and 157:
Section 3.3. Results The data for t
Page 158 and 159:
Figure 4.4. Mean average specific a
Page 160 and 161:
The possibility of a response bias
Page 162 and 163:
Section 4. Experiment 7: Biases in
Page 164 and 165:
of an attentional encoding explanat
Page 166 and 167:
esults will be found as for Experim
Page 168 and 169:
of one second was displayed before
Page 170 and 171:
Table 4.3. Mean responses (SE) for
Page 172 and 173:
greater recognition for the objects
Page 174 and 175:
Table 4.4. Mean average (SE) number
Page 176 and 177:
eveal a significantly longer total
Page 178 and 179:
difference between scenes with a ne
Page 180 and 181:
of memory for positive objects was
Page 182 and 183:
independent of attention, which is
Page 184 and 185:
lack of a central-peripheral trade-
Page 186 and 187:
to a detriment in memory for periph
Page 188 and 189:
Alternative measures of memory: Ass
Page 190 and 191:
associative binding (Touryan et al,
Page 192 and 193:
greatly diminish or disappear with
Page 194 and 195:
Factors unrelated to intrinsic emot
Page 196 and 197:
faces or places (Puri & Wojciulik,
Page 198 and 199:
We predict that the pattern of memo
Page 200 and 201:
ackground they had seen in the stud
Page 202 and 203:
component (F(2,34) = 5.45, MSe = 0.
Page 204 and 205:
Associative Memory In the associati
Page 206 and 207: The number of fixations made were a
Page 208 and 209: longer total gaze duration on the e
Page 210 and 211: .54], nor on backgrounds of scenes
Page 212 and 213: the background when presented later
Page 214 and 215: Section 3.1. Introduction Section 3
Page 216 and 217: were then shown, preceded by a 20 s
Page 218 and 219: 2.56, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .71
Page 220 and 221: (negative, neutral, positive) and s
Page 222 and 223: object in a scene. There was no sig
Page 224 and 225: eradication of any emotional enhanc
Page 226 and 227: possible that the emotional stimuli
Page 228 and 229: central-peripheral trade off in the
Page 230 and 231: Section 3.3. Results Results of the
Page 232 and 233: Planned contrasts revealed the impa
Page 234 and 235: component (object, background) inte
Page 236 and 237: ackground of the scene. There was n
Page 238 and 239: Section 3.4. Discussion There was e
Page 240 and 241: identify with eye movement recordin
Page 242 and 243: Table 5.7. Average ratings (standar
Page 244 and 245: emotional influence on the results
Page 246 and 247: Figure 5.7. Specific and general re
Page 248 and 249: ecognition of positive and negative
Page 250 and 251: Figure 5.9. Specific and General Re
Page 252 and 253: Section 5.3. Eye movement results T
Page 254 and 255: .01). Post-hoc Tukey’s HSD were u
Page 258 and 259: (F(1.79,5.37) = 7.12, MSe = 232535.
Page 260 and 261: emotional and neutral object [F(1,6
Page 262 and 263: Figure 5.16. Experiments 7 - 10: Av
Page 264 and 265: may be that the scenes were easier
Page 266 and 267: Chapter 6. Discussion In the final
Page 268 and 269: In chapter 4 I extended the experim
Page 270 and 271: Figure 6.3 Summary of findings from
Page 272 and 273: alternative measures of attention h
Page 274 and 275: distribution of visual attention re
Page 276 and 277: designing and conducting experiment
Page 278 and 279: contributed to the difficulty in cr
Page 280 and 281: whether these perceptual difference
Page 282 and 283: Richardson-Klavehn, 2005) with the
Page 284 and 285: High Threshold Theory (Macmillan &
Page 286 and 287: participant and the artificial prod
Page 288 and 289: References Adolphs, R. (2002). Reco
Page 290 and 291: Buchanan, T. W. (2007). Retrieval o
Page 292 and 293: Davidson, R. J. (1994). On emotion,
Page 294 and 295: Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., & Ric
Page 296 and 297: James, W. (1884). What is an emotio
Page 298 and 299: Levine, L. J., & Bluck, S. (2004).
Page 300 and 301: components. Journal of Experimental
Page 302 and 303: Rowe, G., Hirsh, J. B., & Anderson,
Page 304 and 305: Talmi, D., Schimmack, U., Paterson,
Page 306 and 307:
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal e
Page 308 and 309:
Appendix 2.2. ANOVA Analyses for Ex
Page 310 and 311:
Table 2.2.4. Experiment 1: Separate
Page 312 and 313:
Appendix 3.2. Contamination of Retr
Page 314 and 315:
Appendix 4.1 Analysis of Same, Simi
Page 316 and 317:
Scene component* emotion* response
Page 318 and 319:
Section 4.1.2 Analysis for Experime
Page 320 and 321:
Emotion* Response type F(4,68) = 0.
Page 322 and 323:
esponse F(1,17) = 0.25, New respons
Page 324 and 325:
Scene component* Response type Tuke
Page 326 and 327:
Same response Similar response New
Page 328 and 329:
Effect ANOVA result Response type F
Page 330 and 331:
Similar response New response Same
Page 332 and 333:
Tukey’s post hocs: For objects Sa
Page 334 and 335:
esponse F(1,17) = 1.95, Similar res
show all

PDF (PhD Thesis Susan Chipchase) - Nottingham eTheses ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?