对注意的再思考:一个注意的强化学习模型

本文在分析总结现有注意理论的基础上,假设注意是一种信息选择现象,而非心理结构或资源。通过借鉴人工智能领域强化学习算法的思想,笔者提出了一种可以表现出注意现象的人类强化学习模型。该模型描述了人与环境交互的过程:人接受环境的反馈,根据自身心理状态调整行为策略,以最大化所获收益。该过程中,注意体现为高价值信息逐渐获得优先加工的现象。因此,本文对注意的本质进行了重新思考,为未来注意研究提供了新思路。     

社会交流中人际神经同步的认知机制

近年来,许多研究者开始关注社会交流中的人际神经同步机制,并将人际神经同步作为研究社会交流的一个神经指标,这对于揭示社会交流的本质和规律具有重要意义。本文从心理理论和镜像神经系统的角度,分析社会交流中神经同步的认知机制及其影响因素。未来的研究应关注这两套机制是否因交流目的、对象、形式或内容的不同,而在不同的脑区表现出神经同步,进而引发了不同认知机制的争议;以及这两套机制各自或协同工作适用的情景和任务。     

如何过上有意义的生活?——基于生命意义理论模型的整合

在整个生命历程中,个体没有停止过对自身生命意义的探寻。生命意义是个体从其生活经历或经验中萃取的生活的目标和重要性,它根源于个体对自己、世界以及自己与世界关系的理解。生命意义具有促进身心健康的作用,具体表现为增进身体健康,提升幸福感与生活满意度,引发积极应对方式,促进人际和谐,提高学习与工作绩效,以及修复心理创伤促进心理成长等。生命意义形成的理论模型主要包括寻找意义模型、应对与成长模型、整合模型、双系统模型、五"A"模型和层次模型等6种。这些模型主要包含情境性意义和一般性意义这两种意义形态,并认为它们之间的不一致性是意义构建的动力。基于此,本文进一步推论这种不一致性所带来的心理需求未满足感才是意义构建的根本动力。未来研究将更加注重生命意义内涵的整合和作用的挖掘,验证基本心理需求是否满足与生命意义形成之间的关系,以及推进生命意义的认知神经机制及跨文化比较研究。     

心理弹性的心理社会及生物学机制

心理弹性是个体在经历急性压力、创伤或者更多不同形式的慢性压力时成功应对、积极适应的动态过程,对心理弹性机制的研究有心理社会及生物学两种研究取向.探索了心理弹性的个人、家庭、社会环境、神经生物、分子遗传学因素以及它们的作用机制过程,并对今后的研究进行了展望.     

阿奎那关于存在与本质相区分的思想

中世纪哲学家托马斯.阿奎那在秉承亚里士多德和波埃修等人相关思想的基础上,提出了以存在论为核心的形而上学学说。阿奎那首先界定了"存在"的含义及其在对存在者的认识中所具有的首要的和基础性的地位;进而对"存在"和"本质"做出了明确的区分,认为它们是构成不同存在者的基本原则,是区分存在者(实体)三种基本类型——复合实体、受造的理智实体和第一存在——所赖以展开的基础。阿奎那的形而上学存在论虽然在中世纪的语境中具有明显的神学意蕴,但他关于存在与本质真实区分的观点、关于存在先于本质的看法,则对以往的形而上学认识模式产生了非常重要的变革作用,并对随后的形而上学存在论思想形成了深刻的影响。     

概率贴现和时间贴现在人脑中的分离

本研究运用ERP技术来检验概率贴现和时间贴现是否反映了相同的神经机制过程。在本研究中,我们在一个刺激中同时操纵概率贴现（风险vs.安全）和时间贴现（1个月后vs.今天）水平。通过对两个过程上的ERN以及全时间段的ERP分析来确定它们是否反映了相同的认知过程。结果发现,这两者在ERN上存在差异,同时这两个效应在ERP的时程和出现的电极点上都存在差异。这些差异表明这两者可能包含着不同的神经机制过程。     

马克思“对象性存在”问题与其经济学说的形成

<正>在对劳动与资本的关系及资本主义生产过程进行全面分析的基础上,马克思提出资本主义的生产过程本质上乃是剩余价值的形成过程,从而形成新的经济学说。在创立这一具有划时代意义的经济学说的过程中,"对象性存在"问题起着奠基性的作用。在资本主义生产条件下,由劳动的物化、对象     

抑郁症的心理神经免疫学研究：细胞因子的作用

免疫系统在一些心理精神障碍中具有重要作用,抑郁症可看作是一种心理神经免疫紊乱性疾病。生理应激和心理应激能激活免疫系统,导致细胞因子的产生,从而影响中枢神经系统的多个方面,包括神经递质代谢、神经内分泌功能、神经可塑性以及与行为改变有关的信息过程。细胞因子不仅由免疫活性细胞分泌,也能被神经胶质细胞和神经细胞合成和分泌,它在抑郁症中的作用可能会在揭示抑郁障碍机制上有新突破,并可能作为今后药物治疗的靶点进入临床领域     

语言转换的认知及其神经机制

语言转换是双语研究领域的焦点问题之一,抑制控制模型、语言特异性选择模型、任务设置惯性模型和序列难度效应模型从不同的角度解释了语言转换的认知机制。认知神经科学的一些研究发现,语言转换与任务转换具有类似的神经机制,说明语言转换代价与任务转换代价的本质可能是相同的。抑制控制和语言熟练程度如何影响语言的转换,语言转换代价与任务转换代价的本质是否相同,一般领域的抑制机制是否可以迁移到语言转换领域等问题是未来需要进一步研究的问题。     

言语活动的神经机制问题

言语活动是利用语言交流思想的过程,是人脑的高级功能。言语活动对人的一切心理活动都有影响,因而研究人的言语活动的神经机制,对了解人的心理活动的本质是有重大意义的。现在,就有关言语活动神经机制的一些问题简述如下。一、大脑中是否有言语中枢与这个问题有关的科学事实主要是来自对失语症病人的临床观察。     

Theoretical implications of quantitative properties of interval timing and probability estimation in mouse and rat

Although theoretical discussions typically assume that positive and negative reinforcement differ, the literature contains little unambiguous evidence that they produce differential behavioral effects. To test whether the two types of consequences control behavior differently, we pitted money‐gain positive reinforcement and money‐loss‐avoidance negative reinforcement, scheduled through identically programmed variable‐cycle schedules, against each other in concurrent schedules. Contingencies of response‐produced feedback, normally different in positive and negative reinforcement, were made symmetrical. Steeper matching slopes were produced compared to a baseline consisting of all positive reinforcement. This free‐operant differential outcomes effect supports the notion that that stimulus‐presentation positive reinforcement and stimulus‐elimination negative reinforcement are functionally “different.” However, a control experiment showed that the feedback asymmetry of more traditional positive and negative reinforcement schedules also is sufficient to create a “difference” when the type of consequence is held constant. We offer these findings as a small step in meeting the very large challenge of moving negative reinforcement theory beyond decades of relative quiescence.     

Negative effects of positive reinforcement

Procedures classified as positive reinforcement are generally regarded as more desirable than those classified as aversive-those that involve negative reinforcement or punishment. This is a crude test of the desirability of a procedure to change or maintain behavior. The problems can be identified on the basis of theory, experimental analysis, and consideration of practical cases. Theoretically, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement has proven difficult (some would say the distinction is untenable). When the distinction is made purely in operational terms, experiments reveal that positive reinforcement has aversive functions. On a practical level, positive reinforcement can lead to deleterious effects, and it is implicated in a range of personal and societal problems. These issues challenge us to identify other criteria for judging behavioral procedures.     

AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF “SPILLOVER” EFFECTS ON THE SOCIAL INTERACTION OF BEHAVIORALLY HANDICAPPED PRESCHOOL CHILDRENsp1

The effects of prompting and social reinforcement directed to target subjects on their social behavior and that of peers who never received prompting and reinforcement for positive social behavior, were examined. In a combined reversal and multiple-baseline design, three behaviorally handicapped preschool boys who exhibited divergent social behavior repertoires and varied histories with social reinforcement events, were sequentially exposed to intervention conditions in order to investigate “spillover” of treatment effects. Prompting and reinforcement increased positive social behavior and decreased negative social behavior emitted by all target subjects. The results also demonstrated a “spillover” effect on two target subjects, who at various times were not under intervention, and on the peers as well. The findings suggest that: (a) the direct and indirect effects of intervention procedures may be enhanced by designing treatment based on the social repertoire and reinforcement histories of the subjects; and (b) the treatment “spillover” effect may be increased by applying procedures to two children at once, rather than to one at a time.     

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.     

AVERSIVE CONTROL: A SEPARATE DOMAIN?

Traditionally, aversive control has been viewed as a separate domain within behavior theory. Sometimes this separateness has been based upon a distinction between reinforcement and punishment, and sometimes upon a distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. The latter is regarded here as the more compelling basis, due to some inherent procedural asymmetries. An approach to the interpretation of negative reinforcement is presented, with indication of types of experiments that support it and that also point to promising directions for further work. However, most of the interpretive issues that arise here are relevant to positively reinforced behavior as well. These include: possible reformulation of the operant/respondent distinction; the place of emotional concepts in behavior analysis; the need for simultaneous, complementary analysis on differing time scales; the understanding of behavioral situations with rewarding or aversive properties that depend as much upon the contingencies that the situations involve as upon the primary rewarding or aversive stimuli that they include. Thus, an adequate understanding of this domain, which has been traditionally viewed as distinct, has implications for all domains of behavior-analytic theory.     

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.     

Discriminative stimulus location as a determinant of positive and negative behavioral contrast in the pigeon

Four pigeons were exposed to a series of two-component multiple schedules of reinforcement that ordinarily yield positive and negative behavioral contrast. The stimuli that signalled the component schedules were sometimes located on the response key and sometimes off. Positive behavioral contrast was observed only when the stimuli were on the key. Negative contrast was observed independent of stimulus location. These data suggest that positive and negative contrast may be causally unrelated, and support an account of contrast in terms of the summation of key pecks that are separately controlled by response-reinforcer and stimulus-reinforcer dependencies.     

Evaluating the separate and combined effects of positive and negative reinforcement on task compliance

Positive and negative reinforcement are effective for treating escape-maintained destructive behavior. The current study evaluated the separate and combined effects of these contingencies to increase task compliance. Results showed that a combination of positive and negative reinforcement was most effective for increasing compliance.     

Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

The effects of response cost in the treatment of aberrant behavior maintained by negative reinforcement

Positive reinforcement contingencies can sometimes be used to decrease problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement (e.g., escape). In the current study, we evaluated the extent to which response cost (i.e., contingent removal of a preferred stimulus) would compete with the negative reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior. The response cost contingency reduced destructive behavior by 87% from baseline levels even though the negative reinforcement contingency (i.e., escape) remained in place.