Group items tagged

Priming is a linguistic and psychological concept where a "prime" idea (word, image, etc.) is presented before a "target". The prime might influence what a viewer thinks of the target. Psychological studies use priming in tests such as a completion or lexical decision task in order to test other phenomenon. Priming is also a strategy used in marketing. Advertisers use priming to get you see appeal in their product. Perhaps this is in the form of a commercial where statistics of the product vs other companies' products is shown to enhance their own product. This can also be as simple as playing moody music in a restaurant before you sit down!

The priming effect occurs when one is exposed to words or images that subconsciously influence decision-making. For example, seeing pictures of a shower would likely influence you to fill in so__p as "soap." But, seeing pictures of bread, you would probably say "soup." A somewhat controversial study has shown that subjects who were unknowingly exposed to elderly words (like bald, gray, and wrinkle) walked more slowly toward the next experiment than the control group. Another study asked participants to lie via email and another group of participants to lie via voicemail. Those who lied on the email were more likely to purchase soap, whereas the group who lied via voicemail were more likely to buy mouthwash. This wasn't included in the article, but I suspect the reason it's easy to come up with puns is because our brains are primed to think of words within a certain theme. The article mentioned that you can use priming to help you come up with new ideas around a central idea by writing related words in a list, until you think of something appropriate.

While there's an infinite number of stimuli in our daily lives, words that prime have been heavily researched. It has been shown that priming words can cause faster recognition or identification of something and also cause later actions that are similar to the ones read about. Because one cannot control the priming that occurs in "system 1" of the subconscious mind, people often incorrectly attribute their thoughts or actions to their own emotions, thoughts, and view points. Since many regions of the brain understand both social warmth as well as physical warmth, or both rough experiences as well rough texture, priming works without us realizing it because it creates neural linkages that only seem to connect subtly.

This research article was published to the Journal of Experimental Psychology, but this experiment did include linguistics. The experiments purpose was to see if more engaged working memory could quickly determine whether a word was really a word, thus the effect of the working memory on semantic meaning. They found that a high working memory load impaired the prime and task efficiency.

McDonald's swears up and down that the little yellow "Minions" Happy Meal toy is speaking only nonsense words and not something a little more adult. Experts say the company may be right, and the curse words many hear may be tied to how our brains are primed to find words even when they're not really there. "The brain tries to find a pattern match, even when just receiving noise, and it is good at pattern recognition," says Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine. "Once the brain feels it has found a best match, then that is what you hear. The clarity of the speech actually increases with multiple exposures, or if you are primed by being told what to listen for" - as most people who heard the toy online already had been. The technical name for the phenomenon is "pareidolia," hearing sounds or seeing images that seem meaningful but are actually random. It leads people to see shapes in clouds, a man in the moon or the face of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich.

A new study shows how certain ideas are still deeply ingrained the public's minds as masculine. For example, most of the public associates the president with a man. In fact, the study showed that when articles or people used "her" or feminine pronouns people's reading times increased because of the confusion caused in their brain. Many people don't use "she" when referring to a hypothetical president. The way that language can sometimes gender certain occupations has some important implications. That is why many states and representatives are trying to change the language to make it more inclusive. For example, Kamala Harris, when she was California's attorney general, and changed all the wording of the statutes that referred to the attorney general as a man. This is because gendering occupations can lead to an ingrained bias. However, with more women in politics, biases could change. For example, in UK, where there have been 2 female prime ministers, the study was replicated and it was found that people were comfortable using "she" or "her" when stating the next prospective prime minister.

Bradley Hayes, a post-doc student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has invented @DeepDrumpf, an amusing bit of artificial intelligence. DeepDrumpf is a bot trained on the publicly available speech transcripts, tweets, and debate remarks of Donald Trump. Using a machine learning model known as a Recurrent Neural Network, the bot generates sequences of words based on priming text and the statistical structure found within its training data. Created to highlight the absurdity of this election cycle, it has amassed over 20,000 followers and has been viewed over 12 million times -- showcasing the consequences of training a machine learning model on a dataset that embodies fearmongering, bigotry, xenophobia, and hypernationalism. Here's a sample tweet: "We have to end education. What they do is unbelievable, how bad. Nobody can do that like me. Believe me."

There's new reason to believe so-called "digital natives" really do think differently in response to technology: It may be "priming" them to think more concretely and remember details-rather than the big picture-when they work on a screen. Among young adults who regularly use smartphones and tablets, just reading a story or performing a task on a screen instead of on paper led to greater focus on concrete details, but less ability to infer meaning or quickly get the gist of a problem, found a series of experiments detailed in the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Using a digital format can develop a "mental 'habit' of triggering a more detail-focused mindset, one that prioritizes processing local, immediate information rather than considering more abstract, decontextualized interpretations of information," wrote researchers Mary Flanagan of Dartmouth College and Geoff Kaufman of Carnegie Mellon University.

In this article, it talks about the psychology behind storytelling. For many of us, when reading over an informational article, we happen to miss a lot of facts and we tend to "glaze over it" without retaining much of what was said. This is very common and psychologists have found that subtly putting information in to a story will increase the reader/listener's chances of learning the material. A prime example of this was done by the University of Washington when hinting at climate change in the form of a story.

In one of the most viral Twitter stories of 2018, people listened to the same acoustically-degraded audio clip of a word, and hotly debated which was the correct word: laurel or yanny. What's the reason for the diametrically-opposed discrepancy? The poor quality of the audio, likely re-recorded multiple times, makes it more open to interpretation by the brain, says Brad Story, a professor of speech, language and hearing sciences at the University of Arizona. Primary information that would be present in a high-quality recording or in person is "weakened or attenuated," Story says, even as the brain is eagerly looking for patterns to interpret. "And if you throw things off a little bit, in terms of it being somewhat unnatural, then it is possible to fool that perceptual system and our interpretation of it," says Story. Story says the two words have similar patterns that easily could be confused. He carried out his own experiment by analyzing a waveform image of the viral recording and compared it to recordings of himself saying "laurel" and "yanny." He noticed similarities in the features of these words, which you can see below. Both words share a U-shaped pattern, though they correspond to different sets of frequencies that the vocal tract produces, Story explains. Britt Yazel, a neuroscience post-doctoral student at UC Davis, also provides more reasons for why people are hearing different things. Some people have greater sensitivity to higher frequencies or lower frequencies, Yazel says. "But not only that, the brains themselves can be wired very differently to interpret speech," he says. For example, if you hear the sounds in either "yanny" or "laurel" more in your everyday life, you might be more likely to hear them here. In other words, your brain may be primed and predisposed to hearing certain sounds, due to environmental exposure.

This article essentially describes how research has shown that 18-24 months of age is the prime time to help their verbal communication skills in later years.

It's well established that people express different aspects of their personalities when speaking different languages. Now, researchers are suggesting that a much subtler linguistic shift can have a meaningful impact on the way we interpret the world: Just listening to a voice with a foreign accent can prime people to see a situation according to the values of the foreign culture, if they have ties to it-or it can reinforce the standards of their own culture, if they're "monocultural."

The Maori language has been in decline for the past few decades in New Zealand. In an attempt to help revive the language, New Zealand's Prime Minister will have her daughter learn the Maori.

"Change has occurred so rapidly for our species that now we are equipped with brains that are super sensitive to threat but also super capable of planning, thinking, forecasting and looking ahead," said Ahmad Hariri, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. "So we essentially drive ourselves nuts worrying about things because we have too much time and don't have many real threats on our survival, so fear gets expressed in these really strange, maladaptive ways." Dr. Hariri studies the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that has been called the seat of fear (there's one in each hemisphere of the brain). But it's really the seat of anticipation. The amygdala primes you to react - your pulse quickens, your muscles tense and your pupils dilate - even before other parts of your brain can figure out if you need to be scared or not. Nowadays, our amydalas can be overactive, thanks to 24/7 awareness of disasters around the world and/or stress/instability in one's personal and professional life. Remaining in this state of wary hypervigilance can contribute to issues like social anxiety, hypochondria, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia and all manner of phobias. It also plays a role in racial and religious intolerance because fearful people are more inclined to cling to the familiar and denigrate the unfamiliar. If you can sense and appreciate your fear - be it of flying, illness or social rejection - as merely your amygdala's request for more information rather than a signal of impending doom, then you are on your way to calming down and engaging more conscious, logic-dominated parts of your brain. At that point, you can assess the rationality of your fear and take steps to deal with it.

Almost every language on the planet includes words that sound like the things they describe. Crash, yawn, glug… speech is just full of these onomatopoeias. And because they have their root in real things they're often easy to identify. Even a non-native speaker might recognise the Hindi "achhee" (a sneeze) or the Indonesian "gluk" (glug). Because these onomatopoeias are so widely encountered, easy to pick up, and convey information might they be the first form of language? That's the argument presented in a recent paper published in Animal Cognition. It points out that our ancestors would have begun encountering more and more noises that we could repeat. Tool use/ manufacture in particular, with its smashes and crashes, would be a prime source of onomatopoeias. Mimicking these sounds could have allowed early humans to "talk" about the objects; describing goals, methods, and objects. Might handing someone a rock and going "smash" been a way to ask them to make a tool? Perhaps different noises could even refer to different tools. Humans are good at extracting information from mimicked sounds. These sounds also trigger "mirror neurons" - parts of the brain that fire when we observe other people doing something - allowing us to repeat those actions. Seeing someone hold a rock a certain way and saying "smash" could have helped our ancestors teach the proper way to smash. But the biggest benefit would be the fact that you can communicate about these objects without seeing them. Having a sound for a tool would allow you to ask someone for it, even if they didn't have it on them. Given these advantages, it's easy to imagine how evolution would have favoured people who mimicked noises. Over time, this would have driven the development of more and more complex communication; until language as we recognise it emerged. Following this narrative, you can see (or maybe hear) how an a human ancestor with almost no language capability gradual