群体过程与互动分析系统

群体过程由各种行动和行为反应组成,具有动态性和复杂性。以往研究根据群体均衡理论、功能观点或时间理论等分别开发了各种基于研究者视角的群体互动过程观察分析系统。但很多研究结论并不一致,主要原因在于各个分析系统的关注点不同。本研究从信效度、理论基础、分析对象以及编码难易等角度总结了各个系统的优点和不足,并进一步提出未来研究可能的方向：构建适当的群体决策动态实验任务、明确群体过程作用机制、以及开发运用于实践的群体互动过程分析系统。     

旋转任务中3～5岁儿童空间物体位置编码的研究

本实验探讨3~5岁儿童在对空间物体位置进行编码时,能否有效采用心理旋转策略或根据物体"位置关系"来判断物体方位。实验采用3×4混合设计,在旋转条件下研究上述问题。结果表明:(1)在策略方面,儿童对心理旋转的使用要显著优于利用位置关系进行判断;(2)随着年龄增长,心理旋转的能力不断提高,5岁时进步尤其明显;(3)3~5岁儿童均不能自动利用位置关系对物体位置进行编码,但5岁儿童经提示后可采用此策略。     

Prospective coding in event representation

A perceived event such as a visual stimulus in the external world and a to-be-produced event such as an intentional action are subserved by event representations. Event representations do not only contain information about present states but also about past and future states. Here we focus on the role of representing future states in event perception and generation (i.e., prospective coding). Relevant theoretical issues and paradigms are discussed. We suggest that the predictive power of the motor system may be exploited for prospective coding not only in producing but also in perceiving events. Predicting is more advantageous than simply reacting. Perceptual prediction allows us to select appropriate responses ahead of the realization of an (anticipated) event and therefore, it is indispensable to flexibly and timely adapt to new situations and thus, successfully interact with our physical and social environment.     

小学生对无性别事物的性别编码

采用拟人化配声和对形容词进行性别倾向评定的方法,对小学生对无性别事物的性别编码进行了研究。结果表明：（1）小学生对无性别事物存在着性别编码倾向,而且相当稳定。这种倾向一年级时已经基本形成,传统文化和生活经验会加强这种倾向。（2）小学生对无性别事物的性别编码总体趋势一致,但也存在一定的年级差异。随年级增长,将雌性倾向事物划分为女性的比率在增长,将雄性倾向事物划分为男性的比率也在增长。（3）小学生对无性别事物的性别编码也具有性别差异。男生和女生存在以自身性别为中心的倾向。男生更多地看到中性事物的男性特征,女生更多地注意到中性事物的女性特征。与男生相比,女生性别编码的倾向更强些。     

双作业的信息编码方式对作业绩效的影响

采用单作业和双作业操作,探讨了不同信息编码方式对双作业操作绩效的影响。实验结果证明：若采用相同的信息编码方式,同时操作的两种作业就会产生相互干扰,降低双作业操作绩效;相反,若同时操作的两种作业采用不同信息编码方式将有效地减小双作业操作的相互干扰,使双作业操作的绩效得到提高。     

学习困难学生语义分类编码策略的研究

通过对３８名学习困难学生与４８名学习优秀学生使用语义编码策略的比较研究,发现学习困难学生不能像学习优秀学生那样自觉地在学习的信息加工过程中使用学习策略;学习困难学生不使用学习策略的机械学习成绩与学习优秀学生无显著差异;教育训练有助于学习困难学生将语义编码之类的活动运用于信息加工过程而促进学习。     

语言线索对空间关系表征的影响及其机制

语言的获得会对空间认知产生深刻的影响。关于语言与空间认知,近些年来,不仅有大量的相关研究发现语言能力跟空间认知能力之间存在着密切的关联,还出现了实验研究,来试图直接揭示语言对空间关系表征的影响。研究发现,在一系列涉及不同空间关系的任务中,相较于非语言线索,语言线索提示的效果明显更好。在此基础上,从语言编码的特点和加工过程等方面进一步分析语言的作用机制,发现在空间表征中语言主要起到了选择和整合的作用,语言的作用过程是即时性的。建议未来研究在空间任务和语言表述形式上有更多的变式,从而更全面地来揭示语言的作用。     

言语编码和视空编码在时间—空间联结中的作用

时间和空间存在反应编码联合效应（spatial—temporal association of response codes effect, STEARC）,该效应的编码是视觉空间性还是言语性还存在争议。本研究借鉴Georges（2015）的研究方式,以2秒内的时距为刺激,实验1采用言语反应和空间反应,词语和空间与时距的关系分为一致和不一致。结果发现言语反应时,短时距用“左边”反应快,长时距用“右边”反应快,空间反应时,时距和空间的一致性效应消失,表明言语编码参与两种反应形式的STEARC效应。实验2将词语改为箭头朝向（视觉编码条件）,发现视觉编码和空间编码存在于相对应的反应形式中。研究表明时空关系的编码形式与具体任务要求有关。     

Time engineering in the schizophrenias

Temporal conceptualisation and investigation of brain-mind functioning, in health and in neuro-psychiatric disease, is a relatively new field in neuroscience. The cerebellum has long been suspected as the centre for the organization of timing in the brain. This article examines endophenotypes for temporal coding in schizophrenia, centring on aberrant, neuronal, input connectivity to the cerebellum.     

Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding,selection, and inhibition: Evidence from repetition effects under task switching

The coding of stimuli and responses is crucial for human behaviour. Here, we focused primarily on the response codes (or response categories). As a method, we applied a combined dual-task and task-switch paradigm with a fixed task-to-hand mapping. Usually, negative effects (i.e., costs) are observed for response category repetitions under task switching. However, in several previous studies it has been proposed that such repetition effects do not occur, if the stimulus categories (e.g., “odd” if digits have to be classified according to their parity feature) are unequivocally mapped to specific responses. Our aim was to test this hypothesis. In the present experiments, we were able to distinguish between three different types of possible response codes. The results show that the participants generally code their responses according to abstract response features (left/right, or index/middle finger). Moreover, the spatial codes were preferred over the finger-type codes even if the instructions stressed the latter. This preference, though, seemed to result from a stimulus–response feature overlap, so that the spatial response categories were primed by the respective stimulus features. If there was no such overlap, the instructions determined which type of response code was involved in response selection and inhibition.