Answering questions

2-A. Recently, a comedian on a television show remarked that he thought it was funny that people turn the car radiocommunication off when they be looking for a house figure of speech in a strange neighborhood. What hypothesis of fear is this comedian adhering to?The comedian based his remarks on the theory of split up attention. This theory states that attention fag be divided into two separate states, wherein one can attend to two things or stimuli at the same time, without sacrificing the quality of attention given to either of the two stimuli (Reisberg, 2001). Thus to the comedian, one can pass listening to the radio and at the same time look for the house number, and it perfectly makes sense to him that a person can do both of it since it does non really require an intense concentration.However, a slip of paper in point is that looking for a house number in a long line of houses may be quite a challenging task, one that requires concentration and selective attention. Yes, it can be utter that keeping the radio on would not make any difference but to those who pick to look closely and to be able to do so safely would naturally turn their radios off. precisely imagine yourself driving slowly in a street you are unfamiliar with and keeping the radio on would mask the noise of incoming traffic or even pedestrians.Besides, when a person is gnarly in one task, like looking for a house, then one instinctively attends to it and disregards the other sounds, sights and disturbances in the immediate environment. Divided attention is very real, we engage it once in a while particularly if we multi-task but we could do so in a limited period, for example think of how you can perhaps manage to entertain questions from an officemate at your table and at the same time talk to someone on the foretell, you could do both for a maximum of 2 minutes, but eventually one stimuli takes greater attention and we must give our full attention to it.On the other hand , with training, anybody can make use of divided attention, but its contributions and benefits in engaging in it remains to be appearn since much research has to be make in this area.2-B. Based on what you pack learned most perception and attention, do you think its safefor people to talk on cellular phones while they are driving?Learning about how we perceive the world around us gives us a interrupt way of understanding how compound the human mind is and how even a faculty that we often take for granted can have a profound impact in our daily lives. Perception refers to a complex process of how we produce a stimuli, how our brain process the stimuli, and how our mind tells us what to do and how to react to the stimuli (Reisberg, 2001).It can be said that a disruption of any of the lines of our perception may have adverse consequences sometimes it can be bizarre, like when a person cannot recognize the face of love one but instead are able to say that they look like a family member. Taking our study of perception into our daily activities, a debated issue like is it safe to talk on the cell phone while driving is better explained.I still believe that it is not safe to talk on the cellular phones while driving. control already entails a number of processes and is quite demanding of our attention, like when you are in the freeway, one has to be informed of incoming traffic, cars at you back, the speed limit of the highway, and even looking out for possible mishaps in the road, on top of which, the driver must be conscious of the cars fuel level, brake fluid and tire conditions. So how could anybody be able to talk on the phone while driving?Talking on the phone excessively demands attention we have to perceive and process what the other person is saying, and to even think of the seize response to what they are saying. Theories on perception have stated that our mind works overtime on the nose to process and be able to respond to external stimuli, and that each part of the brain is involve in different ways just to come up with the correct processing of information (Reisberg, 2001), like existence able to recognize faces of family members.Perceptual illusions demonstrate that what we see may not be true or real, hence while driving we may not be able to accurately tell how further we are from the car ahead of us or how near we are to the railings without our full concentration. Reports have shown that galore(postnominal) people die on the road or in car accidents than any disease. Perceptual pluck conks when we drive and talk on the phone, based on previous researches (Reisberg, 2001), perceptual overload makes us wrong perceive our surroundings and hence we may see what is not there, or we may not see what is really there.When we overload our senses it would mean that one part of the brain or our faculties might be sacrificed to underwrite for the attention we give to another stimulus. And in an activity like driving whi ch in itself is a unsound behavior, we need complete control of our faculties, thus talking on the cell phone is not advisable.2-C. bring through a 200 word summary and critical analysis on Rayners term. Discuss what the article is basically about, its strong and weak points, how convincing (or unconvincing) you find its arguments, and how it might be followed up (e.g., if you think the article suggests any promising, new ideas for future research, describe what they are and how they might best be pursued.)The article midriff Movements in Reading Recent Developments by Keith Rayner (1993) presents the latest development in the study of eye travail in the reading process. The strength of the article is that it gives a background of what has been discovered so far in the field of study, the article argues that studying eye movement is important for it help build theory and also used to infer perceptual and cognitive processes during reading thus the objective of the article. It also presents a number of theories that have used new methods in studying eye movement.What was weak about the article was that it was not able to connect how the new methods of studying would contrite to a better understanding of the cognitive processes that occur during reading. The article basically was not convincing when the author says that much remains to be seen when researchers realize how kindle a research data eye movement can be. The article does not arouse this liaison and simply goes on to say that eye movement is a natural consequence of reading, which contradicts his claims earlier in the introduction part. The article was also too technical for the average reader even if the reader is enkindle in eye movement.ReferencesRayner, K. (1993). Eye movements in reading Recent developments. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 2 (3) 81-85Reisberg, D. (2001). Cognition Exploring the science of the Mind, 2nd ed. New York W.W.Norton & Company, Inc.