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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

emotional and neutral object [F(1,68) = 2.30, p = .13], but did reveal a significantly greater proportion for scenes with a negative than positive object (F(1,68) = 10.93, p < .01). 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). Figure 5.15. Proportion of total gaze duration on the object in comparison to scene as a whole Average fixation duration A 4 x 3 x 2 ANOVA was conducted to examine the influence of experiment, emotion and scene component on the average fixation duration. (See Figure 5.16). An ANOVA with the repeated measures factors of emotion 255
and scene component and the between-participants factor of experiment revealed a significant main effect of experiment (F(3,68) = 9.10, MSe = 40244.92, p < .001, partial eta 2 = .28). The main effect of emotion was not significant [F(2,136) = 1.04, MSe = 516.75, p = .36, partial eta 2 = .02], nor was the main effect of scene component [F(1,68) = 1.92, MSe = 1151.24, p = .17, partial eta 2 = .03]. The interaction between scene component and experiment was significant (F(3,68) = 3.74, MSe = 2246.21, p < .05, partial eta 2 = .14). The interaction between emotion and experiment was not significant [F(6,136) = 1.61, MSe = 799.07, p = .15, partial eta 2 = .07], nor was the interaction between emotion and scene component [F(2,136) = 1.05, MSe = 587.08, p = .35, partial eta 2 = .01] and nor was the interaction between emotion, scene component and experiment (F(6,136) = 1.58, MSe = 886.03, p = .16, partial eta 2 = .07]. The significant main effect of experiment and significant interaction between scene component and experiment were further explored using Tukey’s HSD, only significant differences are reported. This revealed that average fixation durations were significantly less in Experiment 10 than in Experiments 7, 8 and 9 (q = 6.64, p < .001; q = 4.15, p < .05; q = 6.05, p < .001 respectively). The average fixation durations were significantly longer on the object and on the background for both Experiments 7 and 9 than Experiment 10 (Object: q = 4.21, p < .05; q = 4.37, p < .05, Background: q = 5.18, p < .01; q = 4.18, p < .05 respectively). There was significantly longer average fixation durations on the background than object in Experiments 7 and 8 (q = 3.64, p < .05; q = 3.00, p < .05 respectively). 256
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 256 and 257: The number of fixations made on dif
Page 258 and 259: (F(1.79,5.37) = 7.12, MSe = 232535.
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?