麻醉诱导期右美托咪定滴鼻在患儿中的镇静及躁动研究

探究麻醉诱导期右美托咪定滴鼻对患儿术中及术后的镇静效果。择期手术患儿60例,随机分为3组,D1组、D2组和C组,麻醉诱导期分别给予1.0μg/kg右美托咪定滴鼻,2.0μg/kg右美托咪定滴鼻和等量生理盐水滴鼻。结果三组滴鼻前时刻T0血流动力学无差异（P〉0.05）,滴鼻后45min时刻（T1）和拔出导管或喉罩时刻（T2）D1组与D2组较C组心率和血压低（P〈0.05）,但在允许范围内;T1、T2时刻,D1组与D2组差异不明显（P〉0.05）;术后躁动评分,D1组与D2组较C组低（P〈0.05）,D2组较D1组低（P〈0.05）;术后疼痛评分,D1组与D2组较C组低（P〈0.05）,D1组与D2组差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;术后镇痛需求,D1组与D2组较C组少（P〈0.05）;不良反应无差异（P〉0.05）。麻醉诱导期右美托咪定滴鼻起到有效镇静作用,减少麻醉苏醒期躁动,减轻疼痛。2.0μg/kg的右美托咪定剂量麻醉诱导期滴鼻减少术后躁动效果更明显,不增加不良反应的发生。     

Non-response to sad mood induction: implications for emotion research

Experimental induction of sad mood states is a mainstay of laboratory research on affect and cognition, mood regulation, and mood disorders. Typically, the success of such mood manipulations is reported as a statistically significant pre- to post-induction change in the self-rated intensity of the target affect. The present commentary was motivated by an unexpected finding in one of our studies concerning the response rate to a well-validated sad mood induction. Using the customary statistical approach, we found a significant mean increase in self-rated sadness intensity with a moderate effect size, verifying the “success” of the mood induction. However, that “success” masked that, between one-fifth and about one-third of our samples (adolescents who had histories of childhood-onset major depressive disorder and healthy controls) reported absolutely no sadness in response to the mood induction procedure. We consider implications of our experience for emotion research by (1) commenting upon the typically overlooked phenomenon of nonresponse, (2) suggesting changes in reporting practices regarding mood induction success, and (3) outlining future directions to help scientists determine why some subjects do not respond to experimental mood induction.     

大学生学科问题类比迁移的实验研究

考察了单个和两个源问题条件下大学生学科问题类比迁移的情况。实验1考察表面特性对学科问题迁移成绩的影响,以及个体的时间控制、解题策略。实验2考察两个源问题表面相似关系和思路归纳关系对迁移成绩的影响。结果表明：1)表面相似性对迁移成绩影响显著,同领域学科问题之间更容易迁移;2)依据表面和依据结构来激活源问题都是有效策略．源问题学习时间与迁移效果之间不存在显著关系;3)思路归纳对迁移成绩影响显著。     

个体归纳推理能力的发展及其机制研究展望

归纳推理是从特定事件或事实向一般的事件或事实推论的过程。当前归纳推理研究主要集中在三个领域：归纳论断力度的判断、个体归纳推理能力的发展、归纳推理能力的神经基础。诸多研究所涉及到的主要是对已经形成的归纳论断能够成立的可能性大小进行判断,并未真正揭示归纳的心理过程．也未能阐明归纳过程的心理机制。以后将结合知识丰富问题和知识贫乏问题、儿童概念形成问题、归纳推理的心理效应问题、归纳推理的神经基础、归纳推理的计算模型等方面进一步深入开展研究。     

Popper versus Wittgenstein on Truth, Necessity, and Scientific Hypotheses

Most philosophers of science maintain Confirmationism's central tenet, namely, that scientific theories are probabilistically confirmed by experimental successes. Against this dominant (and old) conception of experimental science, Popper's well-known, anti-inductivistic Falsificationism (’Deductivism’) has stood, virtually alone, since 1934. Indeed, it is Popper who tells us that it was he who killed Logical Positivism. It is also pretty well-known that Popper blames Wittgenstein for much that is wrong with Logical Positivism, just as he despises Wittgenstein and Wittgensteinian philosophers for abdicating philosophy's true mission. What is not well-known, however, especially because Popper neglected to tell us in 1934, is that Wittgenstein is very much an ally. It was Wittgenstein who rejected induction in the strongest possible terms as early as 1922, and it was Wittgenstein who similarly rejected Confirmationism approximately four years prior to Popper. The aims of this paper are to illuminate the substantial agreements between Popper and Wittgenstein and, by doing so, to clarify their important disagreement regarding the status of “strictly universal,” scientific theories (or hypotheses). This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

不同归因方式的诱导对自尊不同学生失败后测验成绩的影响

采用2×2两因素被试间设计检验了不同归因方式的诱导对自尊不同学生失败后测验成绩的影响。结果表明:(1)总体上,高自尊组在失败后的测验成绩显著优于低自尊组;(2)内部归因后,高自尊组的后继测验成绩非常显著地优于低自尊组;外部归因后,高、低自尊组的后继测验成绩无显著差异;(3)对于高自尊组,内部归因后的后继测验成绩优于外部归因后的成绩,但未达到显著性水平;对于低自尊组,外部归因后的成绩显著优于内部归因后的成绩。     

Resistance to extinction versus extinction as discrimination

The hypothesis that response strength might be measured by persistence of responding in the face of extinction was discredited in the 1960s because experiments showed that responding persists longer following intermittent reinforcers than following continuous reinforcers. Instead, researchers proposed that the longer persistence following intermittent reinforcers arises because intermittent reinforcement more closely resembles extinction—a discrimination theory. Attention to resistance to extinction revived because one observation seemed to support the persistence hypothesis: Following training on a multiple schedule with unequal components, responding usually persisted longer in the formerly richer component than in the formerly lean component. This observation represents an anomaly, however, because results with single schedules and concurrent schedules contradict it. We suggest that the difference in results arises because the multiple-schedule procedure, while including extensive training on stimulus discrimination, includes no training on discrimination between food available and food unavailable, whereas comparable single- and concurrent-schedule procedures include such training with repeated extinction. In Experiment 1, we replicated the original result, and in Experiment 2 showed that when the multiple-schedule procedure includes training on food/no-food discrimination, extinction following multiple schedules contradicts behavioral momentum theory and agrees with the discrimination theory and research with single and concurrent schedules.     

Developmental Changes in Strategies for Gathering Evidence About Biological Kinds

How do people gather samples of evidence to learn about the world? Adults often prefer to sample evidence from diverse sources—for example, choosing to test a robin and a turkey to find out if something is true of birds in general. Children below age 9, however, often do not consider sample diversity, instead treating non-diverse samples (e.g., two robins) and diverse samples as equivalently informative. The current study (N = 247) found that this discontinuity stems from developmental changes in standards for evaluating evidence—younger children chose to learn from samples that best approximate idealized views of what category members are supposed to be like (e.g., the fastest cheetahs), with a gradual shift across age toward samples that cover more within-category variation (e.g., cheetahs of varying speeds). These findings have implications for the relation between conceptual structure and inductive reasoning, and for the mechanisms underlying inductive reasoning more generally.