Modeling the N-back-M-pitch paradigm Ion Juvina*, Michael Qin^, & Christian Lebiere* *Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University ^Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory 1 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Outline Task Study Cognitive model Discussion Future work 2 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Diving Breathing compressed air at depth Hyperbaric nitrogen narcosis lightheadedness, inattention, difficulty concentrating, poor judgment, decreased coordination Resembles ethanol intoxication Becomes noticeable at a depth of ~130 fsw (~5 ATA) 3 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Performance impairment 4 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future N-Back Auditory N-back Acute effects of ethanol N-back M-Pitch (Qin et al., 2011) Same / different duration as 1-back Added pitch as a distracting feature Pitch variation Standard pitch: 700 Hz, p = 0.7 Slightly deviant: 750 Hz, p = 0.1 Moderately deviant: 900 Hz, p = 0.1 Widely deviant: 1200 Hz, p = 0.1 ISI = ~ 1s 5 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future N-Back M-Pitch 6 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Method Participants: Apparatus: 5 US Navy trained divers Hyperbaric chambers to simulate diving Conditions: Pre-dive, Dive at 190 fsw, Post-dive Pre-dive, Dive at 280 fsw, Post-dive 7 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Method 8 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Results Performance decreases with dive depth The cognitive deficit associated with narcosis is temporary 9 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Accuracy at 190 fsw 10 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Accuracy at 280 fsw 11 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Relative accuracy 12 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Model assumptions Main challenge of the task: Maintaining focal attention in the face of distraction Distraction caused by low frequency of deviant pitches Diving reduces ability to deal with interference 13 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Model description Correct performance Errors Perceive current sound, encode sound length Retrieve previous sound Compare perceived and retrieved sounds Respond same / different Retrieval of previous sound perturbed by distracting feature of stimulus: partial matching Performance deterioration at depth Parameters Pre- and post-dive: ans=0.1 ; mp = 1.0 Dive at 190 fsw: ans = 0.2 ; mp = 1.5 Dive at 280 fsw: ans = 0.25 ; mp = 2.0 14 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Correct performance Perceive current sound - Encode sound length Retrieve previous sound Compare sounds based on length Respond Same / Different 15 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Errors Perceive current sound Encode sound length Encode sound pitch Retrieve previous sound Expect matching pitch Allow partial matching Compare sounds based on length Respond Same / Different 16 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Deterioration at depth :ans = 0.1; 0.2; 0.25 Perceive current sound - Encode sound length Compare sounds based on length Respond Same / Different Retrieve previous sound :mp = 1.0; 1.5; 2.0 Perceive current sound Encode sound length Encode sound pitch Retrieve previous sound Expect matching pitch Allow partial matching Compare sounds based on length Respond Same / Different 17 | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Model fit Performance relative to pre-dive 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 Ratio Task 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 Pre-dive Dive 190 fsw Dive 280 fsw 18 | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Model predictions Error rate by pitch 0.6 0.5 0.4 Error rate Task 0.3 0.2 widely deviant 0.1 moderately deviant slightly deviant 0 prev. standard prev. slightly deviant standard prev. moderately deviant prev. widely deviant 19 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Discussion Why 2 parameters and not just one Only activation noise (ans): No correlation pitch deviation – accuracy Only mismatch penalty (mp): No errors in standard pitch condition Needs data to check predictions What does the model tell us? Need to explain parameter change in mechanistic terms 20 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Future research Learning Affective effects associated with performance decrement Anxiety, euphoria, overconfidence, etc. Transfer and generalization Brain imaging, brain stimulation 21 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Learning Learning effects: Accuracy Ignore the distracting feature of stimulus No RT effect Fast paced Wait for sounds to finish Transfer to different tasks 22 Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future Acknowledgements Data collection study funded by ONR Modeling study funded by NSMRL Thanks to Dan Bothell for changes to the ACT-R auditory module Thanks to Dario Salvucci and Frank Ritter for introducing me to Michael Qin 23 Thank you for your attention! Questions? 24
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
