脑功能磁共振伦理学问题初探

本文概略介绍新兴的脑功能磁共振检查原理及其对人脑运作机制、人类精神活动的研究。讨论脑功能磁共振的临床技术是否完善、现阶段普及该技术是否可能和必要,以及进行脑功能磁共振检查可能引发的隐私权、歧视等伦理学问题,并探讨解决之道。     

Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence

Recent structural and functional imaging studies have provided evidence for continued development of brain regions involved in social cognition during adolescence. In this paper, we review this rapidly expanding area of neuroscience and describe models of neurocognitive development that have emerged recently. One implication of these models is that neural development underlies commonly observed adolescent phenomena such as susceptibility to peer influence and sensitivity to peer rejection. Experimental behavioural evidence of rejection sensitivity in adolescence is currently sparse. Here, we describe a study that directly compared the affective consequences of an experimental ostracism manipulation (Cyberball) in female adolescents and adults. The ostracism condition led to significantly greater affective consequences in the adolescents compared with adults. This suggests that the ability to regulate distress resulting from ostracism continues to develop between adolescence and adulthood. The results are discussed in the context of models of neurocognitive development.     

创造力的脑结构与脑功能基础

从脑结构和脑功能两方面对创造力的脑神经基础进行了评述。就创造力的脑结构而言,尸体脑解剖研究表明创造力可能与顶叶与角回有关;活体脑结构成像研究则显示,创造力主要与额叶、扣带回以及皮下白质或灰质浓度有关。就创造力的脑功能而言,任务取向研究表明创造力任务主要激活了额叶和顶叶及少数其他皮层区域;而个体差异取向研究则表明创造力被试激活了右侧额叶、大脑皮层以及小脑的某些区域。未来研究需在加强脑结构影像研究基础上,注重从被试抽样和筛选等方面细化任务模式和个体差异模式的创造力研究,以获得更一致的结果。     

PASS理论语境中的认知过程(英文)

计划-注意-同时性加工-继时性加工,这些基本PASS概念的提出,是为了给传统上将智力作为一个笼统构念的做法提供某种替代的选择。在这一新的理论途径中,我将一般能力分解为对主要认知过程的研究,其中每个认知过程均有其行为、认知和神经心理成分,而且重要的是,每个认知过程均有相应的一组评估测量任务。PASS模型,这一理论框架能够充分包容体现于教育和组织行为中的广泛一系列认知功能。     

审美的神经机制

审美能力是人类独有的高级功能。本文介绍了审美的认知神经模型, 以及相关研究的实验范式, 对各种刺激材料和任务进行了评价。回顾了近年来脑成像研究的主要进展, ERP和MEG研究证明审美包含发生在不同时段的不同加工阶段, 与审美判断相关的ERP成分为300~400 ms 额中部负成分和440~880 ms 头皮后部晚期正成分。fMRI研究发现与审美相关的主要脑区包括尾状核、框额部皮质和扣带前回。未来研究应进一步区分审美的不同方面的神经机制之间的差别, 扩大刺激材料范围, 更深入地探讨复杂因素, 如文化因素对审美神经机制的影响。     

想象未来的认知加工成分及其脑网络

合理预期和想象未来事件或场景, 有利于个体做出适应性反应, 促进生存与发展。近年来, 研究者对想象未来的认知加工成分和神经机制进行了深入探讨, 提出了想象未来的相关概念和理论。我们首先概述了想象未来实验常用的思维采样范式和词语-线索范式, 接着介绍了想象未来的自我参照加工、心理场景构建等认知加工成分。此外, 特别介绍了想象未来的默认网络模型以及与之相关的其他大尺度脑网络, 并进一步提出了想象未来的脑网络研究框架。未来的研究可从想象未来的动态脑网络、复杂脑网络以及与疾病的关系等角度入手, 深入探究想象未来的神经机制。     

Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing

It has been a matter of debate whether the specifically human capacity to process syntactic information draws on attentional resources or is automatic. To address this issue, we recorded neurophysiological indicators of syntactic processing to spoken sentences while subjects were distracted to different degrees from language processing. Subjects were either passively distracted, by watching a silent video film, or their attention was actively streamed away from the language input by performing a demanding acoustic signal detection task. An early index of syntactic violations, the syntactic Mismatch Negativity (sMMN), distinguished between grammatical and ungrammatical speech even under strongest distraction. The magnitude of the early sMMN (at <150ms) was unaffected by attention load of the distraction task. The independence of the early syntactic brain response of attentional distraction provides neurophysiological evidence for the automaticity of syntax and for its autonomy from other attention-demanding processes, including acoustic stimulus discrimination. The first attentional modulation of syntactic brain responses became manifest at a later stage, at approximately 200ms, thus demonstrating the narrowness of the early time window of syntactic autonomy. We discuss these results in the light of modular and interactive theories of cognitive processing and draw inferences on the automaticity of both the cognitive MMN response and certain grammar processes in general.     

论神经语言学的兴起与发展

神经语言学是一门新兴的医学与语言学的交叉边缘学科。简要论述了该学科的起源,研究范围,主要研究方法以及在我国的研究现状,还探讨了它与神经哲学的关系和它的哲学思考。因此,神经语言学体现了现代科学各学科门类交叉的必然趋势,是当代学术研究的前沿,具有广阔的发展前景。     

Why Freud and Jung Can’t Speak: A Neurological Proposal

This article provides a modern neurological explanation for the theoretical differences in psychoanalytic concepts and techniques between Freud and Jung. Specifically, the article contrasts their analytic skills as arising in the left and right brain, respectively. Modern neurological techniques reveal unique brain functions that explain many of the visionary and so-called mystic phenomena discussed by Jung. Many of his psychoanalytic concepts can be traced to right brain function. Modern research and philosophic analyses also provide light on Freud’s research method and its limitations.Barbara Stevens Barnum, RN, PhD, FAAN, former editor of Nursing Leadership Forum and Nursing & Health Care, is presently a writer/consultant. Before retiring, her positions at Columbia University included holding the directorship, Division of Health Services, Sciences and Education at Teachers College, where she also held the Stewart Chair in the Department of Nursing Education. Dr. Barnum has written in areas of nursing management, theory, education, and aspects of spirtuality/holistic nursing. Her books include: Nursing theory: Analysis, application, evaluation, Spirituality in nursing: From traditional to New Age, and The New Healers: Minds and Hands in Complementary Medicine.     

QUANTUM INTERACTIVE DUALISM: AN ALTERNATIVE TO MATERIALISM

Abstract. René Descartes proposed an interactive dualism that posits an interaction between the mind of a human being and some of the matter in his or her brain. However, the classical physical theories that reigned during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are based exclusively on the material/physical part of Descartes' ontology, and they purport to give, in principle, a completely deterministic account of the physically described properties of nature, expressed exclusively in terms of these physically described properties themselves. Orthodox contemporary physical theory violates this condition in two separate ways. First, it injects random elements into the dynamics. Second, it requires psychophysical events, called Process 1 interventions by John von Neumann. Neither the content nor the timing of these events is determined, even statistically, by any known law. Orthodox quantum mechanics considers these events to be instigated by choices made by conscious agents. This quantum conception of the mind‐brain connection allows many psychological and neuropsychological findings associated with the apparent physical effectiveness of our conscious volitional efforts to be explained in a causal and practically useful way. According to this quantum approach, conscious human beings are invested with degrees of freedom denied to the mechanistic automatons to which classical physics reduced us.