Week 6 - Dual Task Effects on Speech Fluency

Hello Everyone, 

Please read the the Eichorn et al. (2016) article on the role that working memory might play in speech fluency and write a discussion board post by 9PM Monday, September 26th. I additionally included a brief supplemental article on Baddeley's conception of working memory because I thought Naomi's article assumed a lot about the reader's knowledge of the construct. So, although we won't discuss Baddeley directly, do read this too if you want to know more about working memory, perhaps reading it first to serve as a primer for Naomi's article. 

Naomi will present on this research so your discussion posts can lead you to ask questions in the class portion, but also in directing questions towards Naomi in the public presentation. 

Remember that a good portion of the grade for this class is based on your participation, not just in terms of posting a response to the readings (10%), but also in terms of the in-person discussion (15%). Whereas some students are more willing to openly discuss the topics, still others are relatively silent in the course. Please consider it a safe space to discuss your ideas openly. 

I am interested to discuss the ideas with you at 3PM on Wednesday, September 28th. 

Hope you are all well!

Best, 

Dr. Braasch 

Week 5 - Doing Science: Culture, Institution, and Individual

Hello All, 

Thanks so much for your thoughtful posts and interesting discussion last week! 

In preparration for Dr. Hsueh's talk this week, please read "A cultural perspcetive on professional beliefs of childcare teachers" (Hsueh & Barton, 2006) and write a discussion board post by 9PM Monday, September 19th. This article was recently chosen by Hsueh as a primer for his talk. It is a descriptive study looking at cultural differences. It is far less intense that the previous two weeks. 

In keeping with the general theme of replication, please think about and post on the following ideas:

 In what ways would replicating cognitive science research across cultures be beneficial for understanding our constructs of interest?

What challenges might cognitive scientists face when they attempt to do this?

Do you think there are any limitations/drawbacks to studying cognitive science topics across cultures?

Can you think of any examples, from your own research or research you know about, in which extending effects to other cultures might provide some useful insight into a construct of interest? 

Please post your discussion as a response to this article. Afterwards, feel free to reply to others' posts. 

One important note: In light of getting this paper recently, we will NOT have a group discussion. As such, you are only required to come to the public presentation at 4PM on Wednesday, September 21st. The remainder of the talks this semester will be "business as usual" (discussion post, in-person discussion, public presentation). 

I will be available in our room at 3PM in case anyone wants to bring by any ideas they might have for their paper, just to get some initial feedback. Again, this is not required though. 

Have a nice weekend!

Best, 

Week 4 - Recommended (brief!) Discussion Reading

Hello Cog. Sci. Cohort.

As one discussion leader this week, along with Lauren Dahlke, I am posting some links to content related to this week's article in ways that I find very interesting.

For the purpose of discussion, it would be great if you read the two abstracts for the studies I am including, and just a few paragraphs of the wikipedia article ("Libet Experiment"). 

Of course, you are in no way responsible for doing so, but it is all very, very quick and minimal, and I think would really help facilitate discussion. I value your opinions on these things, not only as fellow persons, but also since I am by no means an expert in cognitive science!

If you read nothing else, and if you're not familiar with it already, please read the three short paragraphs on "Libet Experiments" I am linking to on wikipedia. The criticism section is also very interesting, but more lengthy, and I don't want to ask you to spend your time on that. I emphasize this content over the others because of how brief and easy to digest it is. But, I also think it's really interesting.

So:

The Libet Experiments utilized fMRI EEG* technology for chronometric purposes in motor tasks. Some people have taken the results - that there is neural buildup (purportedly) prior to sensation of "will" or "intent" - to constitute proof against the existence of free will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#The_Libet_experiment

The following two persons had severely limited brain mass - they were just missing massive portions of their brains (well, at least one of them was; I'm a bit confused by the technical language in the other). Still, they were both seemingly normal people who could do normal things and live normal lives; one even had a math degree! These two studies, along with the notion of "neuroplasticity," may challenge Menon and Kim's supposition that the brain is "functionally segmented," or that certain areas are responsible (or even "are substrata") for certain cognitive functions.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61127-1/fulltext
http://rifters.com/real/articles/Oliveira-et-al-2012-RevisitingHydrocephalus.pdf

I look forward to an enlightening discussion on Wednesday!

*I was informed by Lauren that the Libet cases were performed with EEG not fMRI. The article, as I read it, is essentially about chronometry and fMRI. Chronometry is the central theme of the Libet experiments, but, since they do not utilize fMRI, a lot of the relevance to this article may be lost. Still, though, this difference in tech may be relevant to Lauren's point in her discussion post about fMRI just not being great at temporal resolution.

Week 4 - Spatial and temporal limits in cognitive neuroimaging with fMRI (Menon & Kim, 1999)

Hello Everyone, 

Thanks so much for your thoughtful posts!

Please read the Menon & Kim (1999) article on cognitive neuroimaging and write a discussion board post by 9PM Monday, September 12th. This article was chosen by Gavin Bidleman as a primer to start to understand a neuorscientific approach, which he will discuss in more detail on Wednesday and tie into replication. 

Please reflect on the approach with reference to replication, e.g., what novel insight might a neuroscientific approach provide when studying topics in cognitive science? This is another article in which I hope you focus on the big ideas without getting lost in the minutiae of it (although this may be a more palatable article compared to last week). 

Please post your discussion as a response to this article. Afterwards, feel free to reply to others' posts. There are plenty of interesting ideas in this article; I am interested to discuss them with you at 3PM on Wednesday, September 14th. 

Hope you are all well!

Best, 

Dr. Braasch 

Week 3 - Language as a dynamical system (Elman, 1995)

Hello Everyone, 

Thanks so much for your thoughtful posts! I hope you feel the two articles were a nice introduction to considerations of replication, why they-re important for cognitive science and this course specifically. 

Please read the Elman (1995) article on language as a dynamical system and write a discussion board post by 9PM Monday, September 5th. This article was chosen by Andrew Olney. At least from my perspective, it may be one of the more difficult articles we will read this semester. Please focus on the "big ideas" an think about them in relation to theme of replication; do not get lost in the minutiae of it. 

In case it is helpful, I here reproduce (no pun intended) some possible discussion points from the syllabus. 

- the theoretical grounding presented in the articles

- the rigor of the experimental methods

- the appropriateness of the statistical analyses

- the clarity/novelty/theoretical import of the results

- important connections to other theories, experimental manipulations, results  we may have discussed 

- the study’s ecological validity (do experiences represent the “real world?”)

- other questions/discussion points that may arise from your analysis of the 

  article(s)

Please post your discussion as a response to this article. Afterwards, feel free to reply to others' posts. There are plenty of interesting ideas in this article; I am interested to discuss them with you on Wednesday, September 7th. 

Also, as a reminder, we will meet at 2:20, first discussing the replication articles and then saving time to discuss the Elman. 

Hope you are all well!

Best, 

Dr. Braasch