Description of a Cognitive Model Paper

December 8, 2022

Description of a Cognitive Model Paper

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Description of a Cognitive Model Paper

[Order Now]

Much of cognitive psychology’s goal is to create and test models of cognitive processes. A model is a theoretical explanation of how the brain completes a particular process. Once a model has been hypothesized, experimental data is collected which either supports or fails to support the model. By this point in the course, you should

Be familiar with what a cognitive model is
Understand how they are developed and described
Be able to critically evaluate research that attempts to test the model
Be able to integrate findings of research with current existing models
Be able to differentiate a “phenomenon” or “results” from a model

The following assignment will put those skills to the test.

Outline a theoretical model of a cognitive process: your explanation must provide an outline of the complete model. The model must describe a cognitive process. Many of the models will have a graphical representation of the model. You may not include that graphic in your paper. Your description of the model must be in written form.

Be careful! Many of the models are developed based on a phenomenon. Although a description of the phenomenon may be important in order to fully describe your model, the phenomenon is not the model. For example, there is a phenomenon called “The Attentional Blink” and there are several models that attempt to account for (explain) this phenomenon. The goal for this paper would be to describe one of those models.

This portion of the paper should take approximately three (3) typed, double-spaced pages; however, the actual length will depend on the model chosen.

A list of possible models and their primary source are listed below. It is strongly suggested that you choose one of the models provided; however, it is possible to choose a different model. If you choose a model of your own, you must get the course instructor’s approval first. The model you choose must be recent (2000 or later) and must be one that accounts for a cognitive model.

Note: Many people in the past have tried to choose “Cognitive Behaviour Therapy” or something related to it. Even though it has the word cognitive in it, it is not a cognitive model and cannot be chosen as a topic for your paper.

APA Format

All Psychology courses (unless otherwise stated) expect you to use APA formatting when completing written work.

List of Approved Cognitive Models

Unified model of immediate serial recall, Hebb repetition learning, word form learning and recognition
Model of decay
Model of face recognition
Baddeley model of working memory
Working memory resource-sharing model
The attention cascade model and attentional blink
Model of primacy gradient
Source of Activation Confusion Model (SAC)
Model of eye movement control
SWIFT reading model
Lexical reinterpretation model
Page, M. P. A., & Norris, D. (2009). A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms. The Royal Society, 364, 3737-3753.
Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27-33.
Schweinberger, S. R., & Burton, A. M. (2003). Covert recognition and the neural system for face processing. Cortex, 39(1), 9-30.
Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2),85-97.
Barrouillet, P., Gavens, N., Vergauwe, E., Gaillard, V., & Camos, V. (2009). Working memory span development: A time-based resource-sharing model account. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 477-490.
Shih, S. I. (2008). The attention cascade model and attentional blink. Cognitive Psychology, 56(3), 210-236.
Page, M. P., & Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review, 105, 761-781.
Schunn, C. D., Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Richards, D. R., & Stroffolino, P. J. (1997). To calculate or not to calculate: A source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 329.
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157.
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777-813.
Duffy, S. A., & Keir, J. A. (2004). Violating stereotypes: Eye movements and comprehension processes when text conflicts with world knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 551-559.

Description of a Cognitive Model Paper

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.