Data Analysis Project

Introduction

Implicit memory is a type of memory that does not require conscious recollection of past
experiences that have led to that memory forming (Roediger, 1990). Implicit memory is
often demonstrated in the improvement of skills, such as performance in cognitive, motor
or perceptual tasks, where the individual can not explicitly say how this improvement has
occurred (Atkinson et al, 20003). Implicit memory can be shown in visual search tasks,
where the participant implicitly remembers where an object will be found due to the
context in which the object was last viewed. This is called the “Contextual Cueing effect”
(Chun and Jiang, 1998).
The contextual cueing paradigm was first coined by Chun and Jiang (1998) in their study
on implicit learning in a visual search task. They claimed that if an objects spatial
location remains constant across trials it will guide their spatial attention more effectively
to the correct location of the object in any following trials. In this experiment participants
took part in a visual search task in which they were either shown a display they had
already seen before (old display condition) or a new display that was unfamiliar to them.
In the old display the target object appeared in the same spatial location and there were
12 different display that could appear in this condition . In the new display the target
appeared in a novel location amongst the distracter items. The results showed that
reaction times were indeed faster in the old display trials than the new display,
demonstrating the contextual cueing effect. The visual context in which an object is
presented effects where we might look for the object later on. Other cues could include
the colour and size of an object (Chun, 2000). There are at least two separate things that
need to happen for contextual cueing to occur. There must be some learning of the spatial
location of a target when the first display is shown. If this does not happen the visual
system will not recognise the repeated displays in following conditions. Secondly the
information that is implicitly remembered must be capable of guiding the spatial attention
to the location of the target (Lleras and von Muhlenen, 2004). An example of contextual
cueing in everyday life would be if you were looking for milk in a supermarket. You
would know immediately where the object is through implicit learning of the layout of
the supermarket and the context in which the milk is found., thus it would not take long
to find the object. However if the supermarket were to change the stores layout, the
implicit memory is of no use, thus it would take longer to find the object as the context in
which the object is usually found has changed.

Implicit learning may also be affected by our emotional state. In Levine and Burgess
study (1997) participants were assigned to either a positive or negative emotions group.
The experimenters manipulated moods by randomly assigning undergraduate participants
with a grade from “A” to “D” on a surprise quiz. They were then asked to recall a
narrative and describe their emotional state. Levine and Burgess found that participants
who were in the negative mood group recalled less of the narrative than the positive
mood group. Research has shown that the negative emotion of fear causes the amygdala
to release the two stress chemicals cortisol and vasopressin. To cope with the stress the
body shuts down our higher order, top own processing, impairing the formation of
memories and our level of performance (Adolphs, 1995).

Hypothesis 1 - there will be faster reaction times in the old display condition than the
new display condition.
Hypothesis 2 - Fear will produce slower reaction times than the count only and control
mood groups.

Results
The participants mean reaction times were calculated for each display condition (old and
new) and for each mood condition (count only group, fear group and the control group).
In the control group the mean reaction time in the old condition was 1004 ± 40ms. The
mean reaction time in the new condition for the control participants was 1109 ± 50ms.
An independent samples t-test showed there to be a significant 105 ± 49ms contextual
cueing effect between old and new display reaction times. In the count only group the
mean reaction time in the old condition was 1001 ± 55ms. The mean reaction time in the
new condition for the count only participants was 1112 ± 57ms. Again using an
independent samples t test a significant 111 ± 10ms contextual cueing effect between old
and new display reaction times. For the Fear group the mean reaction time in the old
condition was 1041 ± 41ms. The mean reaction time in the new condition for the fear
group was 1112 ± 31ms. Using an independent samples t-test a significant 71 ± 49ms
contextual cueing effect between old and new display reaction times in the fear group.

Table to show the mean reaction times in each of the mood groups for the old and
new display

Mood Old Display New Display

Control 1004 1109
Count only 1001 1112
Fear 1041 1112

The data in this experiment was averaged across all participants and plotted as a function
of epoch separately for the control group, the count only group and the fear group (see
graphs below). All three graphs show that overall reaction times decreased with increased
epoch. As demonstrated earlier, reaction times were quicker during the old display type
than the new, again demonstrating the contextual cueing effect.
A factorial analysis of variance was then conducted on the data to see whether there was a
main effect for display type, mood or a display x mood interaction. The within subject
factor was the type of display (old/new). The between subjects factor was the mood of the
participants (either control/count only/fear participants). There were 5 different epoch’s.
The factorial analysis of variance showed there were significant main effects for epoch,
F(4,24) = 986.75, p < 0.05, significant main effect for display type F(1,27) = 326.53, p <
0.05. There was also a significant display x mood interaction, F(2,27) = 5.79, p < 0.05.

Two follow up one way analysis of variances were then conducted separately for the old
and new display types to explore whether reaction times differ significantly across the 3
mood groups. For the old display there was a statistically significant difference at the p
< .05 level in reaction times across the three mood groups: F(2,27) = 10.31, p < .05. Post
- hoc comparisons, using Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean scores for the control
group (M = 1004.7, SD = 19.54) was significantly different from the fear group (M =
1041.44, SD = 16.997). The Count only group (M = 1000.74, SD = 28.2) did not differ
significantly from either the control group or the fear group. A second one-way analysis
of variance was carried out on the data from the new display. For the new display there
was not a statistically significant difference in the reaction times across the three mood
groups.

Discussion
The results showed a significant main effect for display type. The old display condition
produced significantly quicker reaction times than the new condition. This concurs with
the first research hypothesis and further demonstrates the contextual cueing effect. It
shows that participants had implicitly remembered where the target had first appeared,
thus they knew where to look for the object when the familiar context arose. The results
also showed that the participants who were experiencing fear had slower reaction times
than the other two mood groups. This too supports my second hypothesis, showing that
fear actually impaired performance.

On flaw of the study is the extent to which fear was actually induced. For some the task
could have seemed menial, they may have got bored or distracted therefore affecting the
validity of their level of fear. Other participants may have been very confident in their
ability to do this task, thus would not be feeling much, if any fear. This begs the question
of how much fear would a counting task produce? It certainly would not produce the
same amount of fear and anxiety as doing a bungee jump. This then questions the validity
of the task as it is possible that not all participants in that condition went through that
emotion. On the other hand it could have produced an unethical amount of fear. The
participants were told that their performance was related to intelligence and that their
reaction times would be compared with other participants. This could have produced an
unhealthy amount of fear and participants with a low self esteem may have reacted badly.
The majority of participants in this study were male (21 out of 30 participants). These
results cannot be generalised to the female population. It could be that males are
better/worse at visual search tasks than women, thus these results would not be valid.
Also, women have been found to be more emotional than men (Barrett et al, 1998), so it
could be that they were more affected (i.e. felt more fear) than the men in the fear group.
The size of the sample is also questionable. There were only 30 participants in the
experiment. It would be hard to generalise such a small number to the rest of the
population. Also the mean age on the participants was quite young (23.7 years), again
making it hard to generalise. It could be that younger people are better/worse at visual
search tasks or that they would be more/less effected by someone trying to induce fear
into them.

The experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting. This allows for experimental
control making this type of experiment more reliable and consistent. However this
environment lacks ecological validity and cannot be generalised to everyday life in an
everyday setting. Being in a laboratory with experimenters could have induced anxiety in
the participants who were in the control or count only group, thus affecting the validity of
the results. It could be that all participants felt some kind of fear, therefore making the
results for the control and count only group irrelevant.

Conclusion
This study illustrates how implicit learning and contextual cues can affect performance in
a visual search task. It also demonstrates that when you feel anxious or fearful your
performance in such a task will be impaired. This study instigates the investigation of
emotions on implicit learning. Further studies could address the impact of positive
emotions (excitement), on implicit memory. Would this too impair performance? Or
would positive emotions bring about better performance in visual search tasks.

References
.Adolphs, R.,Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Damasio, A, R. (1995). Fear and the human
amygdala. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 5879 - 5891.
. Atkinson, R.L., Hilgard, E, R., Smith, E. E., Hoeksema, S. N., Fredrickson, B., Loftus,
G.R. (2003). Introduction to psychology (14th ed.). Australia, London. Wadworths,
Thomson Learning
.Barrett, L, F., Robin, L., Pietromaco, P, R., Eyssell, K, M. (1998). Are Women the “More
Emotional” Sex? Evidence from Emotional Experiences in Social Context. Cognition
and emotion, 12, 555 - 578.
.Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 4, 170-178.
.Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of
visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28-71.
. Levine, L, J., Burgess, S, L. (1997). Beyond general arousal: Effects of specific
emotions on memory. Social Cognition, 15, 157 - 181.
.Lleras, A., & von Mühlenen, A. (2004). Spatial context and top-down strategies in visual
search. Spatial Vision, 17, 465-482.
.Roediger, H, L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American
Psychologist, 45, 1043 - 1056.