Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

PSY 119 Lecture : Psych of Gender Ch 7-9

3 views17 pages
dilly
26 Apr 2023
School
WWU, Western
Department
Psychology
Course
PSY 119
Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Controversial topic of sex differences in cognitive abilities. Lawrence summer discounted the role of discrimination at a 2005 harvard conference on the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering, and later issued a written apology and resigned from their post of president at harvard https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=c62l7wqb6do. Aarhus university in denmark suspended helmuth nyborg in 2006 for a paper on significant sex differences in general intelligence favoring men. Man skal vaere tro mod data you don"t have to be friendly. You have to be faithful to the data . Cognitive abilities: mental skills such as paying attention, reasoning, remembering, solving problems, speaking, and interpreting speech. High stakes: some cognitive abilities link to occupations with high societal value, such as those in fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) Controversial topic of sex differences in cognitive abilities: nature via nurture. The average performance of adolescent boys on standardized math tests in the us slightly exceeds that of adolescent girls.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

NEUR 3202
Final Exam
Study Guide
NEUR 3202 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Mental Rotation, Review Of General Psychology, Trends In Cognitive Sciences
scarletfly776
Psychology 1000 Chapter Notes - Chapter 10: Neuroplasticity, Twin Study, Frequency Distribution
cerisebuffalo82
PSYC 2310
Final Exam
Study Guide
PSYC 2310 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Fluid And Crystallized Intelligence, Neuroplasticity, Twin Study
orchidpug733

Related Questions

Procedural details:

  1. The continuous EEG of thirteen unique participants were recorded over 12 experimental sessions. One participant took part twice. All participants natively spoke a language that made the [tha] versus [da] distinction.
  2. Stimuli were natural productions of [tha] and [da]. Stimuli were produced by a native female speaker of North American English.
  3. There was only one experimental block. The aspirated [tha] was the repeated standard and unaspirated [da] was the infrequent deviant.
  4. Data from Fp1, Fp2, Cz and Fz were recorded.
  5. Two mastoid channels were recorded and linked in post-processing to create an average mastoid reference.
  6. The participants heard 60 repetitions of the deviant [da] and approximately 420 repetitions of the standard [tha]. This was a ratio of approximately seven standards for every deviant that was presented to the participant.
  7. Offline, the data was epoched, with 100 ms before the presentation of the stimulus and 800 ms after the presentation of the stimulus.

Questions:

 

  1. Consult EEG and speech processing. What kind of experimental design is this? How do you know? 
  2. Given the Procedural details above and course content, provide specific predictions for what you expect? Assume that the participants can contrast [tha] and [da].
    1. Do you predict there to be differences? 
    2. If so, at what time points? 
    3. Which response do you anticipate to be more negative? 
    4. What is the unit of Time measurement on the x-axis in a plot based on the experiment?
  3. Now imagine that the participants were speakers of a language that did not contrast [tha] and [da], e.g., Spanish or Russian. State explicitly your predictions along the same lines as the answer to Question 2. 
  4. According to the experiment/procedures, which predictions are met? Be specific. Make particular reference to the imaginary plot and identify any parts of the ERP responses that might be different between the two conditions.

 

 

    1. Is this in the time window that you expect?  
    2. Is it in the appropriate direction? That is, is the response that is expected to be more positive, indeed more positive and the response that is expected to be more negative, indeed more negative? Also, did you expect to observe a more pronounced peak to the standard or to the deviant? 

 

    1. Can you conclude that the particular design is tapping into phonetic or phonological representations? Make specific reference to the potential levels of sound representations (e.g., acoustic, phonetic, phonological). Explain why you can or cannot conclude that this design taps into a specific level of representation.  

 

Use references: 

  1. Kazanina, N., Phillips, C., & Idsardi, W. (2006). The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(30), 11381-11386.
  2. Phillips, et al. (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: an MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 1038-1055.