Electrophysiological difference between the representations of causal judgment and associative judgment in semantic memory

Causally related concepts like “virus” and “epidemic” and general associatively related concepts like “ring” and “emerald” are represented and accessed separately. The Evoked Response Potential (ERP) procedure was used to examine the representations of causal judgment and associative judgment in semantic memory. Participants were required to remember a task cue (causal or associative) presented at the beginning of each trial, and assess whether the relationship between subsequently presented words matched the initial task cue. The ERP data showed that an N400 effect (250–450 ms) was more negative for unrelated words than for all related words. Furthermore, the N400 effect elicited by causal relations was more positive than for associative relations in causal cue condition, whereas no significant difference was found in the associative cue condition. The centrally distributed late ERP component (650–750 ms) elicited by the causal cue condition was more positive than for the associative cue condition. These results suggested that the processing of causal judgment and associative judgment in semantic memory recruited different degrees of attentional and executive resources.     

Two simple approximations to the distributions of quadratic forms

Many test statistics are asymptotically equivalent to quadratic forms of normal variables, which are further equivalent to with z_i being independent and following N(0,1). Two approximations to the distribution of T have been implemented in popular software and are widely used in evaluating various models. It is important to know how accurate these approximations are when compared to each other and to the exact distribution of T. The paper systematically studies the quality of the two approximations and examines the effect of the λ_i and the degrees of freedom d by analysis and Monte Carlo. The results imply that the adjusted distribution for T can be as good as knowing its exact distribution. When the coefficient of variation of the λ_i is small, the rescaled statistic is also adequate for practical model inference. But comparing T_R against will inflate type I errors when substantial differences exist among the λ_i, especially, when d is also large.     

情绪取向理论建构及实证

该研究尝试用一种新的视角一取向研究视角,对以往情绪理论进行整合研究,建构一种与社会情境结合更紧密,更具概括性的情绪取向理论.情绪取向理论的假设建构模型包括四个维度:理性取向、感性取向、积极取向和消极取向.根据理论模型编制情绪取向量表,以779名被试为研究对象,运用探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析方法对该理论模型进行实证研究.结果证明了该理论建构的存在,理论建构中各维度的因素负荷和拟合指数良好,情绪取向量表具有良好的信度和建构效度.     

汉字输入中认知技能与动作技能的分离

通过20名大学生在采用目光注视屏幕上的键盘完成汉字输入任务的眼动研究,将汉字输入中的认知技能与动作技能实现分离,从而探究关于键盘布局图式的认知技能的发展.结果发现:(1)在标准键盘显示下,汉字输入技能水平高分组与低分组在完成时间上没有显著差异,而空白键盘显示下高分组的完成时间显著快于低分组;(2)两种键盘显示方式下,低分组的眼动指标都没有显著差异,而高分组在空白键盘显示下的平均注视时间要显著多于标准键盘显示下的.     

杏仁核对感觉刺激的情绪性加工:自动化过程和注意调控过程的整合

利用有限的认知资源应对多变的环境刺激,选择性注意和情绪加工一个重要的共同机制是优先化关键信息的加工。尽管情绪性刺激(特别是威胁刺激)能够影响注意资源的分配,但一些关键脑区(如杏仁核)的对情绪性刺激的加工是自动化过程还是受到注意调节一直是个有争议的问题。最新的结合高时间分辨率和高空间分辨率的神经生理记录研究表明,情绪加工的重要核团,杏仁核,对情绪性刺激的加工包含早期快速的不依赖于注意资源和认知加工负荷的自动化加工成分和晚期受到额-顶叶皮层自上而下的注意调控成分,这种功能整合证实杏仁核情绪性加工存在并行的皮层下和皮层通路。     

意外考试悖论的博弈分析

本文从博弈的角度分析了意外考试悖论,指出了以往解决方案的不足,给出了一种新的方案。根据这个新方案,考试悖论的推理中使用了倒推法和弱下策反复剔除法。本文接着讨论了这些博弈推理方法的不足。然后把这个新的博弈方案用到卡片悖论和方格悖论这些考试悖论的变种里。最后指出,在考试悖论里,比起倒推法,弱下策剔除法是引起悖论的更根本的原因。     

在押毒品犯人格的基本特征及其相关因素的研究

本研究以 3 78名在押毒品犯为被试 ,以CPI为测量工具 ,探讨了在押毒品犯的基本特征和类型特征 ,并采用方差分析技术研究了影响毒品犯人格的若干因素。结果发现 ,与对照组相比 ,在押毒品犯除了在“自我控制”分量表上未发现显著差异外 ,其余的 1 9个分量表上均有显著差异 ;在押毒品犯在四种人格类型上的分布不平衡 ,主要集中在Delta类型 ;年龄、关押时间对毒品犯的人格特征的变异有一定影响 ,而减刑次数的影响不显著     

多动症儿童与认知事件相关电位的实验研究

本研究通过对29名多动症(MBD)儿童与正常儿童认知事件相关电位各成份的比较,结果发现多动症组与正常儿童组在反映大脑认知功能P300潜伏期有明显的差异,从而说明P300可以作为检测多动症儿童的参考性的客观指标。     

IAT效应在不同目标概念水平上的差异研究

采用IAT实验设计,考察大学生对不同概念词的内隐态度之间的差别。结果发现,八组实验材料都产生了显著的IAT效应;不同性别的测验材料的IAT效应间不存在显著差异,不同喜好程度的测验材料的IAT效应间存在显著差异,且两个因素存在显著的交互作用。研究表明,IAT效应既可在上位概念水平上产生,亦可在下位概念水平上产生。     

小学生表征数学应用题策略的实验研究

通过一个2(成功与否)×2(提示与否)×2(题型)的混合实验设计,对小学五年级学生解决和差应用题的表征策略进行了研究.结果表明:(1)与比较应用题的表征相类似,小学生对和差应用题的表征也存在着直译策略和问题模型策略;(2)不成功组解题者在表征和差应用题时倾向于运用直译策略,而成功组的解题者更倾向于运用问题模型策略,这导致了成功者与不成功者在列式上的差异,特别是在不一致题型上表现得更明显;(3)在读题前给以“请注意理解这道题的意思”这样简单的提示,对不成功的解题者对和差问题的正确表征并不能起到作用;(4)成功的和差应用题解题者和不成功的解题者在列式正确性的自我评价上存在显著差异.