閃光頻率辨認中的时間知觉問題

一、問題 这項研究是从“閃光信号的頻率选择实驗研究”总課題派生出来的一个問題。在进行上述研究,尤其是有关“閃光頻率辨认和等辨量表”的实驗时,許多被試口头报告曾使用数数法,帮助自己辨认閃光的頻率。經与实驗結果对照,发現在閃光頻率低于30—40周/分时,用数数法确实有效,頻率較高(例如100周/分以上)时,則漸难使用数数法了,其轉折点似在50周/分左右。由于閃光頻率与閃光每周的时距有一定的关系,閃光頻率的辨认,归根結底,主要是以时間知觉为基础的。     

开关板电表刻度线粗细、长短、间隔与观察距离的初步研究

电测量指示仪表标度盘的刻度、数字、符号等合理配置的研究,是工程心理学的一个重要组成部分。开关板电表,由于观察距离随工作现场的情况而有相当大的差别,刻度线的粗细、长短、间隔对阅读速度及准确度的影响,便显得更为重要了。本文就是有关课题的一系列研究报告之一。     

学前儿童因果思惟发展的初步实驗研究(Ⅱ)

目的 本研究是在实驗第一部分的基础上,探索学前儿童怎样从实际中掌握客体的因果依存性的特点,向理解(即推理的思惟)水平过渡。 研究的問題,包括两个主要方面:(一)学前儿童在什么条件下能使带有因果性貭的实践动作順利地向因果思惟过渡?在教学影响下,怎样实現这一过渡?在实現过渡的內化过程中,有哪些特点?(二)在学前儿童的因果思惟发展过程中,有无所謂“可逆性”?学前儿童是否如皮亚杰(J.Piaget)所說,只能有“从特殊到特殊”的所謂“轉导推理”而沒有可     

On the Differences Between Rush Rhees and Simone Weil

Rhees seems unaware that Simone Weil differed from him both in her conception of philosophy and of its relation to religion. She differed also in her view of the relation between religion and science. On her view, the aim of science is to find the laws which will allow us to apply deductive reasoning to nature. The necessities revealed had for her a religious significance. But this can be understood only given her view of the relation between God and the world. On her view, the creation of the world did not involve an extension of God's power. It involved a withdrawal of his power, so that there could be an existence independent of himself. God does not interfere in the details of the world but sustains it through a network of necessities. For this reason, these necessities can serve as a sign of God.     

光坪对同时性闪光信号辨认的影响

問題 如果在构成閃光的相互交替的亮与黑两个时相中,黑时相不是完全黑,而是亮度不同程度的变暗,人們照样能看出閃光。暗时相的光強可以低到零,这就是一般閃光;但其光強也可以象亮时相一样高,那就变成了固定灯光。我們把一切強度的暗时相統称为“光坪”或“坪”,而把亮吋相叫作“光峯”或“峯”。 关于光坪对閃光信号辨认的影响的問題,是有关业务部門提出来的。根据我們的現場調查,使用者对某些带光坪的閃光信号的試用反应良好。我們前一研究表明,在实驗給定条件下,不宜使用两个同时性閃光,作为类似該实驗所用編碼的信号;同时提出“不     

Philosophy, Solipsism and Thought

Wittgenstein's view of philosophy in the Tractatus presupposes that thought may be revealed without remainder in the use of signs. It is commonly held, however, that in the Tractatus he treated thought as logically prior to language. If this view, expressed most lucidly by Norman Malcolm, were correct, Wittgenstein would be inconsistent in holding that thought can be revealed without remainder in the use of signs. I argue that this is not correct. Thought may be prior to language in time but not in logic , for non-verbal symbols must have a logical structure in common with verbal ones. A view comparable with Malcolm's holds that Wittgenstein, under the influence of Schopenhauer, is committed to some form of solipsism. I argue that neither Schopenhauer nor Wittgenstein held any version of solipsism. For both philosophers, subject and object are correlative, so that it is incoherent to affirm the existence of the one without presupposing the existence of the other.     

The Relationship Between Diverse Components of Intelligence and Creativity

Intelligence and creativity are accounted for in terms of two different mental operations referred to as ‘convergent thinking’ and ‘divergent thinking’, respectively. Nevertheless, psychometric evidence on the relationship between intelligence and creativity has been controversial. To clarify their relationship, we characterized the relationship between diverse components of intelligence and creativity through the administration of psychometric tests on a large sample (WAIS, RPM, and TTCT‐figural: n = 215; TTCT‐verbal: n = 137). The general intelligence factor (g) score showed significant correlations with both TTCT‐figural and TTCT‐verbal scores. However, sub‐dimensional analysis demonstrated that their association was attributable to the specific components of both TTCTs (TTCT‐figural: Abstractness of Titles, Elaboration, and Resistance to Premature Closure; TTCT‐verbal: Flexibility) rather than to their common components (Fluency and Originality). Among the intelligence sub‐dimensions, crystallized intelligence (gC) played a pivotal role in the association between g and the specific components of both TTCTs. When the total sample was divided into two IQ groups, these phenomena were more evident in the average IQ group than in the high IQ group. These results suggest that the mental operation of creativity may be different from that of intelligence, but gC may be used as a resource for the mental operation of creativity.