http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/275
"Involuntary Attention and Physiological Arousal Evoked by Structural Features and Emotional Content in TV Commercials
ANNIE LANG
Structural features of television elicit involuntary physiological attentional responses in viewers. Mild emotional content in televised messages intensifies these responses, possibly through mediation of emotion-elicited arousal, which was also demonstrated. Heart rate data were collected and analyzed using novel techniques to show both short-term attentional responses and longer term arousal in subjects viewing commercial messages."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orienting_response
"Orienting response, also called orienting reflex, is the reflex that causes an organism to respond immediately to a change in its environment. The phenomenon was first described by Russian physiologist Sechenov in the 1850s in his book Reflexes of the Brain, and the term was coined by Ivan Pavlov, who also referred to it as the "What is it?" reflex. The orienting response is a reaction to novelty. Later, in the 1950s, the orienting response was studied systematically by the Russian scientist Eugene Sokolov who documented the phenomenon called "habituation", referring to a gradual "familiarity effect" and reduction of the orienting response with repeated stimulus presentations.
When people see a bright flash or light or hear a sudden loud noise, they orient their attention to it even before they identify what is is. This orienting reflex seems to be present from birth. It is adaptive in helping people react quickly to events that call for immediate action.
This reflex can be controlled by the cortex, but more typically it is controlled by subcortical brain regions."
(triggered also by cuts and scene changes in TV/movies. Thats why its nearly impossible to not pay attention to even a silent TV screen in a bar, pub, public space etc.)
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2840548
"Résumé / Abstract
Purpose: Seizures provoked by television viewing may be triggered by patterns in the television image or by flicker from the display itself. We examined the incidence of EEG abnormalities elicited by patterns displayed on television sets with two different frame rates to evaluate the likely contribution of photosensitive and pattern-sensitive mechanisms to television- and video-game epilepsy. Methods: Televisions with frame rates of 50 and 100 Hz were used to present 35 patients who were photosensitive or pattern-sensitive with grating patterns. These patterns comprised vertical square-wave and sine-wave gratings of 90% contrast, and the spatial frequency was varied between 0.25-7 cycles/degree. EEGs were analysed for laboratory sensitivity to patterned and unpatterned intermittent photic stimulation (IPS). Results: Significantly fewer EEG abnormalities were elicited by patterns displayed on the 100 Hz frame-rate television than on the 50-Hz frame-rate television. No abnormalities were observed in response to the blank screens of either television. Thirty-three patients showed abnormalities in response to patterned IPS but only 15 in response to diffuse flash. Two patients showed no laboratory evidence of photosensitivity. Patients who were sensitive to patterned IPS at 50 Hz were significantly more likely to demonstrate abnormalities to patterns displayed on the 100-Hz frame-rate television than were patients who were not sensitive to 50-Hz patterned IPS. Conclusions: We suggest that for many patients, the combination of high-contrast patterns and screen flicker may elicit the observed EEG abnormalities. For patients with sensitivity to screen flicker, the use of a high frame-rate television may be beneficial in reducing the risk of seizures."
http://www.msi.org/publications/publication.cfm?pub=240
Alwitt relates EEG responses to specific events within the commercials. The events are categorized as physical events (e.g., zooms, cuts), brand and message events (brand name mention, visual of brand in use), viewer reactions (seeing an emotional moment), and communication medium (voice over, speaker on screen).
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lcavedon/finalpdfs/porzel.pdf
"How Entrainment Increases Dialogical Effectiveness" Linguistic / Usability study with computers
http://koasas.kaist.ac.kr/bitstream/102 ... 20Hyun.pdf
"Predicting Memory for Components. of TV Commercials from EEG. MICHAEL L. ROTHSCHILD. YONGJ. HYUN*. Subjects watched television while EEG was being recorded ..."
http://pages.prodigy.net/unohu/brainwaves.htm
""Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) [slow] rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high frequency alpha waves [sic] does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland’s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.
I should note that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the 'light hypnotic' state used by hypno-therapists for suggestion therapy." "
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -3,00.html
An increasing number of studies suggest that the main danger of television may not be the message, but the medium itself, just looking at TV. In Bedford, Mass., Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland and Peter Crown, a professor of television and psychology at Hampshire College, have attached electrodes to the heads of children and adults as they watched TV. Mulholland thought that kids watching exciting shows would show high attention. To his surprise, the reverse proved true. While viewing TV, the subjects' output of alpha waves increased, indicating they were in a passive state, as if they were "just sitting quietly in the dark." The implication: TV may be a training course in the art of inattention. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory
"Explanation of the theory
Inoculation theory states that to prevent persuasion it is necessary to strengthen preexisting attitudes, beliefs, or opinions. First, the receiver must be warned of an impending attack. This establishes threat (or a recognition of vulnerability) and initiates defenses to future attacks. Therefore, the idea is that when weak argument is presented in the inoculation message their process of refutation will prepare for stronger persuasion later. It is critical that the attack is strong enough to keep the receiver defensive, but weak enough to not actually change those preexisting ideas. This will hopefully make the receiver actively defensive and allow them to create arguments in favor of their preexisting thoughts. The more active the receiver becomes in his or her defense the more it will strengthen their own attitudes, beliefs, or opinions (McGuire, 1964).
[edit] Key components
There are two basic key components to successful inoculation. The first is threat, which provides motivation to protect one's attitudes or beliefs (Pfau, 1997a). Refutational preemption is the second component . Refutational preemption is the cognitive part of the process. It is the ability to activate one's own argument for future defense and strengthen their existing attitudes through counterarguing. (Pfau, 1997)
[edit] Refutational same & refutational different
While there are many studies that have been conducted comparing different treatments of inoculation, there is one specific comparison that is mentioned throughout various studies. This is the comparison between what is known as refutational same and refutational different messages. A refutational same message is an inoculation treatment that refutes specific potential counterarguments that will appear in the subsequent persuasion message, while refutational different treatments are refutations that are not the same as those present in the impending persuasive message (Pfau et al., 1990). Pfau and his colleagues (1990) developed a study during the 1988 United States presidential election. The Republicans were claiming that the Democratic candidate was known to be lenient when it came to the issue of crime. The researchers developed a refutational same message that stated that while the Democratic candidate was in favor of tough sentences, merely tough sentences could not reduce crime. The refutational different message expanded on the candidate's platform and his immediate goals if he were to be elected. The study showed comparable results between the two different treatments. Importantly, as McGuire and others had found previously, inoculation was able to confer resistance to arguments that were not specifically mentioned in the inoculation message."
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_theory
"Interference theory (also known as retrieval interference (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006)) refers to the idea that forgetting occurs because the recall of certain items interferes with the recall of other items. In nature, the interfering items are said to originate from an overstimulating environment.
In the late 1950s two groups of researchers published very similar methods that demonstrated the interference theory, a husband and wife team, Peterson and Peterson and another researcher, Brown.
In one study done by Peterson and Peterson participants were asked to recall trigrams (string of three letters) at different time intervals after the presentation of the last letter in the trigram. To make the trigrams impossible to pronounce the investigator used only consonants (e.g., BWV). The participants were asked to count backwards to allow no time for rehearsal and for the numbers to interfere with the recall of trigrams. Each of the participants were tested eight times at each of the six delay intervals which totaled to 48 trials. The percentage of recalls decays over time due to interference of the numbers they had to count backwards. From this study Peterson and Peterson concluded that short term memory exists for a few seconds if the participant does not make an active effort to retain the information."
This theory along with the decay theory have been proposed as reasons for why people forget. Evidence for this theory comes from paired associate learning, as well as from Jenkins and Dallenbach's 1924 experiment where they researched forgetting in two students over the period of eight hours."
Proactive interference
Underwood (1957) provided early evidence that things you've learned before encoding a target item can worsen recall of that target item. In a meta-analysis of multiple experiments, he showed that the more lists one had already learned, the more trouble one had in recalling the most recent one. This is proactive interference, where the prior existence of old memories makes it harder to recall newer memories.
"Proactive interference can be potently demonstrated with the Brown-Peterson paradigm (Brown, 1958; Peterson & Peterson, 1958). A single Brown-Peterson trial consists of a study list, a retention interval and then a recall period. The study list might consist of a handful of related items (such as a handful of animals or occupations), presented individually every few seconds. For the duration of a short retention interval, subjects are then asked to perform an engaging distractor task such as counting backwards in sevens (to minimize rehearsal). Finally, subjects are asked to recall the items from this study list.
Usually, subjects' back side recollection is nearly perfect for the first trial, but perform increasingly poorly on subsequent trials that use study lists drawn from the same category. This is the proactive interference effect described earlier. In other words, even though the lists from previous trials are now irrelevant, the fact that they were studied at all is somehow making it harder for subjects to recall the most recent list."
Hows that?