Invisible Stimuli,Implicit Thresholds: Why Invisibility Judgments Cannot be Interpreted in Isolation

Some studies of unconscious cognition rely on judgments of participants stating that they have “not seen” the critical stimulus (e.g., in a masked-priming experiment). Trials in which participants gave invisibility judgments are then treated as those where the critical stimulus was “subliminal” or “unconscious,” as opposed to trials with higher visibility ratings. Sometimes, only these trials are further analyzed, for instance, for unconscious priming effects. Here I argue that this practice requires implicit assumptions about subjective measures of awareness incompatible with basic models of categorization under uncertainty (e.g., modern signal-detection and threshold theories). Most importantly, it ignores the potential effects of response bias. Instead of taking invisibility judgments literally, they would better be employed in parametric experiments where stimulus visibility is manipulated systematically, not accidentally. This would allow studying qualitative and double dissociations between measures of awareness and of stimulus processing per se.     

There aren't plenty more fish in the sea: A causal network approach

The current research investigated how lay representations of the causes of an environmental problem may underlie individuals' reasoning about the issue. Naïve participants completed an experiment that involved two main tasks. The causal diagram task required participants to depict the causal relations between a set of factors related to overfishing and to estimate the strength of these relations. The counterfactual task required participants to judge the effect of counterfactual suppositions based on the diagrammed factors. We explored two major questions: (1) what is the relation between individual causal models and counterfactual judgments? Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Green et al., 1998, Br. J. Soc. Psychology, 37, 415), these judgments were best explained by a combination of the strength of both direct and indirect causal paths. (2) To what extent do people use two‐way causal thinking when reasoning about an environmental problem? In contrast to previous research (e.g., White, 2008, Appl. Cogn. Psychology, 22, 559), analyses based on individual causal networks revealed the presence of numerous feedback loops. The studies support the value of analysing individual causal models in contrast to consensual representations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in relation to causal reasoning as well as environmental psychology.     

语言理解中的预设加工

预设是指以交际双方的共同背景(共享的知识或信念)为前提的、听话者根据特定语言标记(触发标记)及其限定的对象(计算内容)而推理出的非外显意义。例如,“张明又触发标记发表了论文计算内容”引发了“张明之前发表过论文”的预设推论。理解者依赖触发标记通达交际双方的共同背景,并在计算内容上生成完整的预设;随后,理解者连接生成的预设和共同背景,更新两者之间的关系。触发标记范畴、共同背景与预设的关联度、共同背景类型,以及理解者的参与动机会影响不同阶段的预设加工。未来研究可以从三个角度进一步探讨预设加工的认知基础：(1)采用计算建模的方法,量化交际互动中听话者理解预设的过程(如观点采择);(2)采用脑成像技术,揭示预设加工过程的神经基础;(3)以特殊人群为研究对象,检验和修正预设加工的认知模型。     

神经成像读心中的认知本体论疑难

认知神经科学的研究者们在使用神经成像技术进行读心时,运用到了反向推理和大脑解码两种策略。但目前相关研究中所涉及的同一认知过程或心理功能的具体内涵并不统一,反映出认知神经科学部分术语存在定义混乱的现象。这一方面使得反向推理面临相关脑区缺乏选择性的难题,另一方面也限制了大脑解码的准确率。对此最有希望的一种解决办法是建立认知本体论,可它仍然在技术、方法以及哲学三个层面上存在疑难,这削弱了利用神经成像去读取他人思想这一做法的可靠性及合理性。

     

Integrating Fast and Frugal Heuristics with a Model of Memory‐based Cue Generation

Although the fast and frugal heuristics have been studied extensively, relatively little attention has been paid to how cues are generated to be used within the heuristics. The goal of this paper is to propose and test a memory‐based model of how cues are generated and used in cue‐based inferences. The current study advances theory by integrating the fast and frugal heuristics with HyGene, a memory‐based model of how decision makers generate and evaluate hypotheses. Using archival data in which memory retrieval variables were not directly manipulated, we demonstrate that participants' cue selection behavior is consistent with memory‐based retrieval. Further, by directly manipulating memory retrieval within a cue‐based stock‐forecasting task, we demonstrate that memory processes underlie cue use. Participants' cue use varied depending on the relationship between cue validity and the frequency with which the cues were seen during learning. The HyGene model provided the best account of the empirical data, providing further evidence for the critical role of memory in judgment and decision making. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Calibrated Bayes Factors Should Not Be Used: A Reply to Hoijtink,van Kooten,and Hulsker

Hoijtink, Kooten, and Hulsker (2016 Hoijtink, H., van Kooten, P., &; Hulsker, K. (2016). Why Bayesian psychologists should change the way they use the Bayes factor. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 1--9. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.969364.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) present a method for choosing the prior distribution for an analysis with Bayes factor that is based on controlling error rates, which they advocate as an alternative to our more subjective methods (Morey &; Rouder, 2014 Morey, R.D., &; Rouder, J.N. (2014). Bayesfactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.9. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor [Google Scholar]; Rouder, Speckman, Sun, Morey, &; Iverson, 2009 Rouder, J.N., Speckman, P.L., Sun, D., Morey, R.D., &; Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 225–237. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, &; van der Maas, 2011 Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., &; van der Maas, H. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. A comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432. doi: 10.1037/a0022790[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). We show that the method they advocate amounts to a simple significance test, and that the resulting Bayes factors are not interpretable. Additionally, their method fails in common circumstances, and has the potential to yield arbitrarily high Type II error rates. After critiquing their method, we outline the position on subjectivity that underlies our advocacy of Bayes factors.     

Using Marginal Structural Modeling for Grade Retention Effects

Vandecandelaere, Vansteelandt, De Fraine, and Van Damme (this issue) described marginal structural modeling (MSM) and used it to estimate the effects of a time-varying intervention, retention (holding back) in school grades, on students' math achievement. This commentary supplements Vandecandelaere et al. (this issue) and discusses several topics in retention studies and MSM. First, we discuss the importance of equating time-varying confounders in retention studies. Second, we discuss same-grade and same-age comparisons in retention studies. Third, we discuss one important section in the authors' overview of MSM: why standard methods (e.g., ANCOVA, propensity score analysis) cannot properly adjust for time-varying confounders. Finally, using the grade retention analyses in Vandecandelaere et al. (this issue) as an example, we provide our insights on four aspects of MSM: (a) covariate selection, (b) estimation of weights, (c) evaluation of balance properties, and (d) missing data handling.     

Evidence for Mixed Processes in Normal/Mirror Discrimination of Rotated Letters: A Bayesian Model Comparison Between Single- and Mixed-Distribution Models1

When determining whether a rotated letter is normal or mirrored, an observer mentally rotates the letter to its canonical orientation. To account for patterns of response times (RTs) for the normal/mirror discrimination of rotated letters, previous research formulated a model that postulated a mixture of trials with and without mental rotation. While this model could explain the curvilinear relationship that has been found between averaged RT and letter orientations, the curved RT function is still open to alternative explanations without assuming mixed processes. To address this issue and test the mixed-process hypothesis more directly, we analyzed trial-by-trial RT data instead of averaged RTs by employing a Bayesian model comparison technique. If rotation and non-rotation trials are mixed, trial-by-trial RTs for letters in a particular orientation should not follow a single distribution but a mixed one formed from the superposition of two separate distributions, one for rotation and one for non-rotation trials. In the present study, we compared single- and mixed-distribution models. Bayes-factor analysis showed decisive support for the mixed-distribution model over the single-distribution model. In addition, using the widely applicable information criterion (WAIC), the predictive accuracy of the mixed-distribution model was found to be as high as that of the single-distribution model. These results indicated the involvement of mixed processes in normal/mirror discrimination of rotated letters. The usefulness of statistical modeling in psychological study and necessary precautions to take in the interpretation of the parameters of unconfirmed models are also discussed.     

语言经验对概率词切分的影响

概率词切分指个体利用音节间的转换概率切分语流、发现词语边界的过程。经典的概率词切分研究多采用“学习-测试”范式, 首先要求被试切分一段无意义人工语言, 随后对切分效果进行测试。近年来, 研究者逐渐关注语言经验对概率词切分的影响, 具体包括语音经验和被试掌握的语言知识两方面。今后的研究, 一方面可以更多地关注普通话母语者的语言经验如何作用于概率词切分过程; 另一方面还可以在语言经验的分类上进行拓展, 细分群体语言经验和个体语言经验的影响。