There are a number of ways experts think differently from novices (in their area of expertise). A new study involving 72 college-age typists with about 12 years of typing experience and typing speeds comparable to professional typists indicates that our idea that highly skilled activities operate at an unconscious level is a little more complex than we thought.

In three experiments, these skilled typists typed single words shown to them one at a time on a computer screen, while occasionally the researchers inserted errors in the words they typed, or corrected errors they made. When asked to report errors, typists took credit for corrected errors and accepted blame for inserted errors, claiming authorship for the appearance of the screen. Not surprising in the first experiment, when the typists weren’t told what the researchers were doing. But even in the later experiments, when they knew some of the errors and some of the corrections weren’t theirs, they still tended to take responsibility for what they saw.

Nevertheless, regardless of what they saw and what they thought, their typing rate wasn’t affected by inserted errors. Only when the typists themselves made errors, regardless of whether or not the researchers corrected them, did their fingers slow down.

In other words, it wasn’t the feedback of the look of the word on the screen that triggered the finger slow-down, but the ‘knowledge’ the fingers had as to what they had done.

But it was the appearance of the words on the screen that governed the typists’ reporting of errors, leading the researchers to propose two error detection processes: an outer loop that supports conscious reports and an inner loop process that slows keystrokes after errors.

In a study involving 15 young adults, a very small electrical current delivered to the scalp above the right anterior temporal lobe significantly improved their memory for the names of famous people (by 11%). Memory for famous landmarks was not affected. The findings support the idea that the anterior temporal lobes are critically involved in the retrieval of people's names.

A follow-up study is currently investigating whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) will likewise improve name memory in older adults — indeed, because their level of recall is likely to be lower, it is hoped that the procedure will have a greater effect. If so, the next question is whether repeating tDCS may lead to longer lasting improvement. The procedure may offer hope for rehabilitation for stroke or other neurological damage.

This idea receives support from another recent study, in which 15 students spent six days learning a series of unfamiliar symbols that corresponded to the numbers zero to nine, and also had daily sessions of (tDCS). Five students were given 20 minutes of stimulation above the right parietal lobe; five had 20 minutes of stimulation above the left parietal lobe, and five experienced only 30 seconds of stimulation — too short to induce any permanent changes.

The students were tested on the new number system at the end of each day. After four days, those who had experienced current to the right parietal lobe performed as well as they would be expected to do with normal numbers. However, those who had experienced the stimulation to the left parietal lobe performed significantly worse. The control students performed at a level between the two other groups.

Most excitingly, when the students were tested six months later, they performed at the same level, indicating the stimulation had a durable effect. However, it should be noted that the effects were small and highly variable, and were limited to the new number system. While it may be that one day this sort of approach will be of benefit to those with dyscalculia, more research is needed.

In an experiment to investigate why testing might improve learning, 118 students were given 48 English-Swahili translation pairs. An initial study trialwas followed by three blocks of practice trials. For one group, the practice trial involved a cued recall test followed by restudy. For the other group, they weren’t tested, but were simply presented with the information again (restudy-only). On both study and restudy trials, participants created keywords to help them remember the association. Presumably the 48 word pairs were chosen to make this relatively easy (the example given in the paper is the easy one of wingu-cloud). A final test was given one week later. In this final test, participants received either the cue only (e.g. wingu), or the cue plus keyword, or the cue plus a prompt to remember their keyword.

The group that were tested on their practice trials performed almost three times better on the final test compared to those given restudy only (providing more evidence for the thesis that testing improves learning). Supporting the hypothesis that this has to do with having more effective keywords, keywords were remembered on the cue+prompt trials more often for the test-restudy group than the restudy-only group (51% vs 34%). Moreover, providing the keywords on the final test significantly improved recall for the restudy-only group, but not the test-restudy group (the implication being that they didn’t need the help of having the keywords provided).

The researchers suggest that practice tests lead learners to develop better keywords, both by increasing the strength of the keywords and by encouraging people to change keywords that aren’t working well.

Following a monkey study that found training in spatial memory could raise females to the level of males, and human studies suggesting the video games might help reduce gender differences in spatial processing (see below for these), a new study shows that training in spatial skills can eliminate the gender difference in young children. Spatial ability, along with verbal skills, is one of the two most-cited cognitive differences between the sexes, for the reason that these two appear to be the most robust.

This latest study involved 116 first graders, half of whom were put in a training program that focused on expanding working memory, perceiving spatial information as a whole rather than concentrating on details, and thinking about spatial geometric pictures from different points of view. The other children took part in a substitute training program, as a control group. Initial gender differences in spatial ability disappeared for those who had been in the spatial training group after only eight weekly sessions.

Previously:

A study of 90 adult rhesus monkeys found young-adult males had better spatial memory than females, but peaked early. By old age, male and female monkeys had about the same performance. This finding is consistent with reports suggesting that men show greater age-related cognitive decline relative to women. A second study of 22 rhesus monkeys showed that in young adulthood, simple spatial-memory training did not help males but dramatically helped females, raising their performance to the level of young-adult males and wiping out the gender gap.

Another study showing that expert video gamers have improved mental rotation skills, visual and spatial memory, and multitasking skills has led researchers to conclude that training with video games may serve to reduce gender differences in visual and spatial processing, and some of the cognitive declines that come with aging.

Why are other people’s phone conversations so annoying? A new study suggests that hearing only half a conversation is more distracting than other kinds of conversations because we're missing the other side of the story and so can't predict the flow of the conversation. This finding suggests that driving a car might be impaired not only by the driver talking on the phone, but also by passengers talking on their phones.

It also tells us something about the way we listen to people talking — we’re actively predicting what the person is going to say next. This helps explain something I’ve always wondered about. Listen to people talking in a language you don’t know and you’re often amazed how fast they talk. See an audio recording of the soundwaves, and you’ll wonder how people know when one word starts and another begins. Understanding what people are saying is not as easy as we believe it is — it takes a lot of experience. An important part of that experience, it seems, is learning the patterns of people’s speech, so we can predict what’s going to come next.

The study showed that people overhearing cell phone conversations did more poorly on everyday tasks that demanded attention, than when overhearing both sides of a cell phone conversation, which resulted in no decreased performance. By controlling for other acoustic factors, the researchers demonstrated that it was the unpredictable information content of the half-heard conversation that was so distracting.