嵌套词汉字位置加工的亚词边界效应

使用眼动追踪技术，采用边界范式，考察了三字嵌套词的汉字位置加工是否存在亚词边界效应。实验以三字前嵌套词（如“历史系”）和三字后嵌套词（如“核技术”）为靶子，对次字和尾字进行操纵（相同、转置和替换）。结果发现：对于前嵌套词，靶子的注视时间在替换条件显著长于转置条件，相同条件和转置条件差异不显著；对于后嵌套词，靶子的注视时间在转置条件显著长于相同条件，替换条件和转置条件差异不显著。结果表明：跨亚词边界汉字转置不影响词汇识别，而亚词首字转置干扰词汇识别。     

Absence of overshadowing and blocking between landmarks and the geometric cues provided by the shape of a test arena

In three experiments rats were required to escape from a pool of water by swimming to a submerged platform. The position of the platform was determined by the shape of the pool, which was either rectangular or triangular. A landmark that was located on the surface of the pool near the platform failed to overshadow (Experiment 1) or block (Experiment 2) learning about the position of the platform with reference to the shape of the pool. Experiment 3 revealed a similar outcome with cues outside the pool, which could be used, in addition to the shape of the pool, to identify the location of the platform. These findings imply that theories of learning that assume that stimuli must compete with each other for the control that they acquire may not apply to spatial learning based on the shape of the environment.     

大衍之数“五十有五”说补证

当代学者已从多方面论证了"大衍之数"当为"五十有五",有理有据,但尚有补证的空间。汉唐时期关于"五十有五"说的文献证据以及清人程廷祚、徐灏等人关于"五十有五"说的论证,则可以更好地补证大衍之数"五十有五"说的合理性。换言之,则可以进一步论证:通行本《系辞》所云"大衍之数五十,其用四十有九"的确存在"脱误"问题,大衍筮法从五十五根蓍草中所拿出的六根蓍草,恰好可以用来"布六爻之位",是为"自然之妙"。     

Recognition Memory in Pigeons for Stimuli Presented Repeatedly: Perceptual Learning or Reduced Associative Interference?

Todd and Mackintosh (1990) found that recognition memory of pigeons for pictures was better when the same pictures were used each session (a recency task) than when different slides were used (a novelty task); they attributed the superior performance on the recency task to perceptual learning. Three experiments explored two alternative accounts. One was that their use of a within-subject design could have allowed the strategy adopted in the recency task to influence adversely the strategy used in the novelty task. This possibility was ruled out by Experiment 1, which showed superior performance in the recency task when a between-subject design was used. A second account proposes that slide-reward associations formed (in both tasks) during first presentations of slides interfere with appropriate performance during second presentations (associative interference); in the recency task, however, the high long-term associative strength of the slides restricts the consequence of a single slide-reward pairing to a short-term effect, and associative interference occurs at short retention intervals only. This account was explored in Experiment 2, which found no evidence that increases in retention interval resulted in reduction of associative interference in the recency task, and in Experiment 3, where associative interference was shown to occur but was of comparable magnitude in the recency and novelty tasks. By elimination, the results support a perceptual learning interpretation.