To determine whether there is a general capacity for all working memory tasks, Turner and Engle (1989) developed a task called operation-word-spanor OSPAN. In this task, participants are asked to read and verify a simple math problem (such as "Is (4/2)-1=1 ?) and then read a word after the operation (such as SNOW). After a series of problems and words has been presented, the participants recall the words that followed each operation. The number of operation-word strings in a sequence is increased and decreased to measure the participant's operation span. Operation span measures predict verbal abilities and reading comprehension even though the subjects are solving mathematical problems. Engle and his colleagues have argued that this implies a general pool of resources that is used in every type of working memory situation.
> m2h=read.table("M2H_observations.csv",sep=",",header=TRUE)
> m2h_model=lm(OBSERVATIONS~GENDER*MEDIA*WOCHENTAG*OBSERVER,m2h)
> anova(m2h_model)
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: OBSERVATIONS
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
GENDER 1 0.9 0.88 0.0347 0.8523733
MEDIA 7 15653.3 2236.18 88.1365 < 2.2e-16 ***
WOCHENTAG 3 495.5 165.17 6.5099 0.0003290 ***
OBSERVER 4 1328.1 332.02 13.0862 2.123e-09 ***
GENDER:MEDIA 7 57.7 8.25 0.3250 0.9419604
GENDER:WOCHENTAG 3 15.4 5.14 0.2026 0.8945048
MEDIA:WOCHENTAG 21 1217.0 57.95 2.2841 0.0018619 **
GENDER:OBSERVER 4 20.0 5.01 0.1973 0.9395594
MEDIA:OBSERVER 28 1636.4 58.44 2.3034 0.0005379 ***
WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 1 84.5 84.49 3.3302 0.0696387 .
GENDER:MEDIA:WOCHENTAG 21 172.8 8.23 0.3244 0.9980821
GENDER:MEDIA:OBSERVER 28 127.2 4.54 0.1790 0.9999992
GENDER:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 1 0.0 0.05 0.0018 0.9657824
MEDIA:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 7 150.1 21.44 0.8449 0.5514657
GENDER:MEDIA:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 7 60.1 8.58 0.3383 0.9355206
Residuals 184 4668.4 25.37
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Date | Topic |
---|---|
12.4 | Introduction |
19.4 | NO COURSE (Karfreitag) |
26.4 | How to read scientific articles |
3.5 | Google, Brain & co. |
10.5 | Cognitive sciences |
17.5 | Cognitive psychology |
24.5 | Abstracts |
31.5 | OPTIONAL COURSE (Christihimmelfahrt Brückentag) |
7.6 | Memetic theory |
14.6 | Theory of multiple intelligences |
21.6 | Developmental aspects |
28.6 | Socrates & Gestalt |
5.7 | Symposion |
12.7 | Summa Summarum |
In the design of experiments in statistics, the lady tasting tea is a randomized experiment devised by Ronald Fisher and reported in his book The Design of Experiments (1935).[1] The experiment is the original exposition of Fisher's notion of a null hypothesis, which is "never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation".[2][3]
The lady in question (Muriel Bristol) claimed to be able to tell whether the tea or the milk was added first to a cup. Fisher proposed to give her eight cups, four of each variety, in random order. One could then ask what the probability was for her getting the specific number of cups she identified correct, but just by chance.
Fisher's description is less than 10 pages in length and is notable for its simplicity and completeness regarding terminology, calculations and design of the experiment
Is Google Making Us Stupid? is a 2008 article written by technologist Nicholas Carr for The Atlantic, and later expanded on in a published edition by W. W. Norton. The book investigates the cognitive effects of technological advancements that relegate certain cognitive activities — namely, knowledge-searching — to external computational devices. The book received mainstream recognition for interrogating the assumptions people make about technological change and advocating for a component of personal accountability in our relationships to devices.
Carr begins the essay by saying that his recent problems with concentrating on reading lengthy texts, including the books and articles that he used to read effortlessly, stem from spending too much time on the Internet. He suggests that constantly using the Internet might reduce one’s ability to concentrate and reflect on content. He introduces a few anecdotes taken from bloggers who write about the transformation in their reading and writing habits over time. In addition, he analyzes a 2008 study by University College London about new “types” of reading that will emerge and become predominant in the information age. He particularly refers to the work of Maryanne Wolf, a reading behavior scholar, which includes theories about the role of technology and media in learning how to write new languages. Carr argues that while speech is an innate ability that stems directly from brain structure, reading is conscious and taught. He acknowledges that this theory has a paucity of evidence so far, but refers to such works as Wolf’s Proust and the Squid, which discusses how the brain’s neurons adapt to a creature’s environmental demands to become literate in new problem areas. The Internet, in his opinion, is just another kind of environment that we will uniquely adapt to.
Carr discusses how concentration might be impaired by Internet usage. He references the historical example of Nietzsche, who used a typewriter, which was new during his time in the 1880s. Allegedly, Nietzsche’s writing style changed after the advent of the typewriter. Carr categorizes this example as demonstrative of neuroplasticity, a scientific theory that states neural circuits are contingent and in flux. He invokes the idea of sociologist Daniel Bell that technologies extend human cognition, arguing that humans unconsciously conform to the very qualities, or kinds of patterns, involved in these devices’ functions. He uses the clock as an example of a device that has both improved and regulated human perception and behavior.
Carr argues that the Internet is changing behavior at unprecedented levels because it is one of the most pervasive and life-altering technologies in human history. He suggests that the Internet engenders cognitive distractions in the form of ads and popups. These concentration-altering events are only worsened by online media as they adapt their strategies and visual forms to those of Internet platforms to seem more legitimate and trick the viewer into processing them.
Carr also posits that people’s ability to concentrate might decrease as new algorithms free us from knowledge work; that is, the process of manipulating and synthesizing abstract information into new concepts and conclusions. He compares the Internet with industrial management systems, tracing how they caused workers to complain that they felt like automata after the implementation of Taylorist management workflows. He compares this example with the modern example of Google, which places its computer engineers and designers into a systematized knowledge environment, creating robust insights and results at the expense of creativity. Additionally, Carr argues that the Internet makes its money mainly by exploiting users’ privacy or bombarding them with overstimulation, a vicious cycle where companies facilitate mindless browsing instead of rewarding sustained thinking.
Carr ends his essay by tracing the roots of the skeptic trend. He discusses events where people were wary about new technologies, including Socrates’s skepticism about the use of written language and a fifteenth-century Italian editor’s concern about the shift from manually written to printed works. All of these technologies indelibly changed human cognition, but also led to mind-opening innovations that endure today. Still, Carr concludes his argument on an ambivalent note, citing a quote by Richard Foreman that laments the erosion of educated and articulate people. Though Google and other knowledge-finding and knowledge-building technologies might speed up existing human computational processes, they might also foreclose the human potential to easily create new knowledge.
[Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Google_Making_Us_Stupid%3F#Synopsis ]
Date | Topic |
---|---|
12.4 | Introduction |
19.4 | NO COURSE (Karfreitag) |
26.4 | How to read scientific articles |
3.5 | Google, Brain & co. |
10.5 | Cognitive sciences |
17.5 | Cognitive psychology |
24.5 | Abstracts |
31.5 | OPTIONAL COURSE (Christihimmelfahrt Brückentag) |
7.6 | Memetic theory |
14.6 | Theory of multiple intelligences |
21.6 | Developmental aspects |
28.6 | Socrates & Gestalt |
5.7 | Symposion |
12.7 | Summa Summarum |
ACHTUNG :: Today's session will be most probably the most difficult one.
mid-15c., cognicioun, "ability to comprehend, mental act or process of knowing," from Latin cognitionem(nominative cognitio) "a getting to know, acquaintance, knowledge," noun of action from past participle stem of cognoscere "to get to know, recognize," from assimilated form of com"together" (see co-) + gnoscere "to know," from PIE root *gno- "to know." In 17c. the meaning was extended to include perception and sensation.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/cognition
To determine whether there is a general capacity for all working memory tasks, Turner and Engle (1989) developed a task called operation-word-spanor OSPAN. In this task, participants are asked to read and verify a simple math problem (such as "Is (4/2)-1=1 ?) and then read a word after the operation (such as SNOW). After a series of problems and words has been presented, the participants recall the words that followed each operation. The number of operation-word strings in a sequence is increased and decreased to measure the participant's operation span. Operation span measures predict verbal abilities and reading comprehension even though the subjects are solving mathematical problems. Engle and his colleagues have argued that this implies a general pool of resources that is used in every type of working memory situation.
> m2h=read.table("M2H_observations.csv",sep=",",header=TRUE)
> m2h_model=lm(OBSERVATIONS~GENDER*MEDIA*WOCHENTAG*OBSERVER,m2h)
> anova(m2h_model)
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: OBSERVATIONS
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
GENDER 1 0.9 0.88 0.0347 0.8523733
MEDIA 7 15653.3 2236.18 88.1365 < 2.2e-16 ***
WOCHENTAG 3 495.5 165.17 6.5099 0.0003290 ***
OBSERVER 4 1328.1 332.02 13.0862 2.123e-09 ***
GENDER:MEDIA 7 57.7 8.25 0.3250 0.9419604
GENDER:WOCHENTAG 3 15.4 5.14 0.2026 0.8945048
MEDIA:WOCHENTAG 21 1217.0 57.95 2.2841 0.0018619 **
GENDER:OBSERVER 4 20.0 5.01 0.1973 0.9395594
MEDIA:OBSERVER 28 1636.4 58.44 2.3034 0.0005379 ***
WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 1 84.5 84.49 3.3302 0.0696387 .
GENDER:MEDIA:WOCHENTAG 21 172.8 8.23 0.3244 0.9980821
GENDER:MEDIA:OBSERVER 28 127.2 4.54 0.1790 0.9999992
GENDER:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 1 0.0 0.05 0.0018 0.9657824
MEDIA:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 7 150.1 21.44 0.8449 0.5514657
GENDER:MEDIA:WOCHENTAG:OBSERVER 7 60.1 8.58 0.3383 0.9355206
Residuals 184 4668.4 25.37
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Abstract. Non-moderate smartphone usage may induce diverse pathological states and behaviors which may potentially result in an array of syndromes and illnesses. Digital devices built for education rather than consumption and entertainment should not neglect intricacies of human physiology, ergonomy and cognition. For this reason, we present first four properties of an idealized ”digital primer” artefact which could maximize the human and cultural potential of a normal elementary school pupil by means of holistic, semi-supervised interaction. Properties addressed and defined in this article are: ”speech-based”, ”narrative”, ”circa-temporal” and ”habit-disrupting”.
Key-words. digital primer, speech-based, circa-temporal, narrative, habit-disrupting, smartphone epidemic
For children younger than 18 months, use of screen media other than video-chatting should be discouraged.
Parents of children 18 to 24 months of age who want to introduce digital media should choose high-quality programming/apps and use them together with children, because this is how toddlers learn best. Letting children use media by themselves should be avoided.
For children older than 2 years, media limits are very appropriate. Limit screen use to no more than 1 hour or less per day of high-quality programming. Co-view or co-play with your children, and find other activities for to do together that are healthy for the body and mind (e.g., reading, teaching, talking, and playing together).
All children and teens need adequate sleep (8-12 hours, depending on age), physical activity (1 hour), and time away from media. Designate media-free times together (e.g., family dinner) and media-free zones (e.g., bedrooms). Children should not sleep with devices in their bedrooms, including TVs, computers, and smartphones.