# data[].attributes.body
1) Who were the participants?
2) Give a statsitical result of study 2
3) Give a conclusion of Moray's findings
4) What experiment design did Moray use?
5) What were the aims of the Moray core study?

# data[].attributes.body
-Messages interspersed with words towards end of message (experimental)
-Similar messages had no digits (control)
-Participants either heard 2 experimentals or 1 experimental and 1 control.
-Independent measures design
-Participants always shadowed experimental but 1 group forewarned they'd be asked questions about shadowed content, group 2 told they should remember all the numbers they could (IV)
-DV: mean number of digits in message and mean number of digits reported calculated

# data[].attributes.body
-Mean no. of digits reported when participants were forewarned about content/when told to listen for digits, not significantly different
--> Participants couldnt be primed to respond to digits heard in the rejected message, unlike spontaneous recognition of own name ( study 2)
-This stimulus not 'important' enough to penetrate attentional barrier.

# data[].attributes.body
-T-test (parametric statistical test) showed difference between non/affective instructions highly significant
-Data indicates clearly that name presence is able to break through the attentional barrier

# data[].attributes.body
-showed no evidence of recognition of rejected message words, as mean recognition much lower than shadowed, and even lower than for unmentioned words

# data[].attributes.body
-Participants shadowed 10 short light fiction passages, each a different condition with a different set of instructions, at start or in the passage (2 conditions participants forewarned) or both.
-Participants told responses would be recorded, their aim was 'to try to score as few mistakes as possible'
-3/6 conditions began instruction with own name
-All experienced all 10 conditions
-IV: whether instructions in message were preceeded with own name (affective) or not (non affective)
-DV: frequency with which the instruction was heard

# data[].attributes.body
-Participants heard a short list of simple words repeated 35 times in unattended ear whilst shadowing a prose message in attended ear
-Word list faded in after shadowing began and faded out as attended message ended.
-Repeated measures design
-3 IV conditions:
1) shadowed message
2) rejected message
3) control
-Dv measured in 2 ways:
1) participant asked to recall all they could from unattended message
2) recognition test (included words from shadowed message, rejected and control set of unmentioned word)

# data[].attributes.body
PROS:
-Lab experiment --> EVs controlled e.g. volume in each ear same to the individual --> higher validity
-Quantitative data --> statistical analysis --> easier comparison
-Participants had practice sessions & task unlikely to cause distress --> Few ethical issues
-Dichotic listening task found in everyday life e.g. following a convo while ignoring a distracting noise --> somewhat ecologically valid
- Controlling variables e.g. use of headphones --> higher reliability
- Standardised procedure --> allows replication
-Sample included both genders --> more representative

CONS:
-Quantitative data --> No detailed analysis on why they failed or succeeded in detecting certain stimuli
-Listening to and repeating the message again and again --> low ecological validity
-Only students and research workers chosen --> not very representative sample
-Only tested in one language/culture, in mostly (presumably) monolingual speakers --> ethnocentric sample

# data[].attributes.body
1) When the participant directs attention to the message in one ear, rejecting the message in the other ear, almost all of the verbal content of the rejected message is blocked
2) This rejection is apparent even when the message is repeated many times: there is no trace of a short list of simple words presented many times being remembered
3) Subjectively important messages, such as one's own name, can penetrate the block: so we may hear instructions containing our own name even in the rejected message
4) It is very difficult to make neutral material important enough to penetrate the block

# data[].attributes.body
-Lab experiment with 3 separate studies
-Dichotic listening task
-Messages were recorded onto tape in same male voice at 130-150 words per min
-Control 1) rejected message played at same volume as shadowed
-Control 2) two messages played through headphones directing the separate messages to each ear individually
-Participant had 4 practice prose passages to shadow

# data[].attributes.body
Study 1- not recorded
Study 2- 12 participants
Study 3- two groups of 14 participants
All- undergraduates/research workers including both males and females

# data[].attributes.body
To test Cherry's dichotic listening findings in relation to:
1) the amount of information recognised in the rejected message
2) the effect of hearing one's own name in the unattended message
3) the effect of instructions to identify a specific target in the rejected message