1 Modeling the N-back-M-pitch paradigm Ion Juvina, Michael Qin^, & Christian Lebiere *Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University ^Naval Submarine

1

Modeling the N-back-M-pitch paradigm

Ion Juvina*, Michael Qin^, & Christian Lebiere*

*Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University

^Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory

2

Outline Task

Study

Cognitive model

Discussion

Future work

Task | Study | Model | Discussion | Future

3

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)


4

Performance impairment


5

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


6

N-Back M-Pitch


7

Method Participants:

5 US Navy trained divers

Apparatus: Hyperbaric chambers to simulate diving

Conditions: Pre-dive, Dive at 190 fsw, Post-dive Pre-dive, Dive at 280 fsw, Post-dive


8

Method


9

Results Performance decreases with dive depth

The cognitive deficit associated with narcosis is temporary


10

Accuracy at 190 fsw


11

Accuracy at 280 fsw


12

Relative accuracy


13

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


14

Model description Correct performance

Perceive current sound, encode sound length Retrieve previous sound Compare perceived and retrieved sounds Respond same / different

Errors 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


15

Correct performance


Perceive current sound- Encode sound length

Retrieve previous sound

Compare sounds based on length

Respond Same / Different

16

Errors


Perceive current soundEncode sound length Encode sound pitch

Retrieve previous soundExpect matching pitchAllow partial matching



17

Deterioration at depth


Perceive current sound- Encode sound length

Retrieve previous sound



Perceive current soundEncode sound length Encode sound pitch

Retrieve previous soundExpect matching pitchAllow partial matching



:ans = 0.1; 0.2; 0.25 :mp = 1.0; 1.5; 2.0

18

Model fit


19

Model predictions


20

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


21

Future research Learning

Affective effects associated with performance decrement Anxiety, euphoria, overconfidence, etc.

Transfer and generalization

Brain imaging, brain stimulation


22

Learning Learning effects:

Accuracy Ignore the distracting feature of stimulus

No RT effect Fast paced

Wait for sounds to finish

Transfer to different tasks


23

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


24

Thank you for your attention! Questions?

Documents

1 Modeling the N-back-M-pitch paradigm Ion Juvina*, Michael Qin^, & Christian Lebiere* *Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University ^Naval Submarine

1 Modeling the N-back-M-pitch paradigm Ion Juvina, Michael Qin^, & Christian Lebiere *Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University ^Naval Submarine