|
|
- 2017
类别归纳中具体与一般结论任务的ERP特征比较
|
Abstract:
研究采用事件相关电位技术（ERPs），比较了具体结论类别归纳推理（例如，前提条件：苹果X1，推论结论条件：梨子X1?，即梨子是否也具有属性X1）与一般结论类别归纳推理（例如，前提条件：苹果X1，推论结论条件：水果X1?，即水果是否也具有属性X1）的ERP特征差异.实验结果显示：与基线条件相比（例如，前提条件：苹果X1，推论结论条件：苹果X1?），具体和一般条件诱发了更大的P2，反映了具体与一般结论增加的汉字正字法的表征分析过程；同时具体和一般结论条件比基线条件诱发了更大的N2成分，反映了知觉匹配.另外，具体结论条件比一般结论条件诱发了更小的P3b成分，反映了具体结论条件比一般结论条件需要更多的工作记忆或有更低水平的推理预期满意程度.最后，具体结论条件比一般结论条件诱发了更大的N400成分，表明具体结论条件比一般结论条件需要更多的认知努力整合信息.这些发现表明，在类别归纳推理中，具体结论与一般结论条件在ERP特征上是存在差异的.
In an experiment reported here, the event-related potential responses to specific conclusions (e.g. inference from apples having property X to bananas having property X) and general conclusions (e.g. inference from apples having property X to fruits having property X) were compared to reveal the implicit categorization in semantic memory by demonstrating the conclusion-specificity effects during category-based induction. The results showed that specific-and general-conclusion tasks elicited larger P2 amplitudes than did identical-conclusion tasks (e.g. inference from apples having property X to apples having property X), reflecting the analysis of orthographic representations for Chinese words. Specific-and general-conclusion tasks also elicited larger N2 and N400 components than did identical-conclusion tasks, reflecting perceptual mismatches. Moreover, the results showed that specific-conclusion arguments elicited smaller P3b than did general-conclusion tasks, reflecting higher load on working memory or lower degree of expectation satisfaction for specific-conclusion arguments during reasoning. Furthermore, the results showed that specific-conclusions elicited larger N400 components than did general-conclusions, suggesting the increasing cognitive effort for semantic integration for specific-conclusion arguments. These findings indicated that there were different event-related potential responses between specific-and general-conclusion arguments during category-based induction
| [1] | SLOUTSKY V M. The Role of Similarity in the Development of Categorization[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(6): 246-251. DOI:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00109-8 |
| [2] | WANG X, TAO Y, TEMPEL T, et al. Categorization Method Affects the Typicality Effect:ERP Evidence from a Category-Inference Task[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, 7: 184. |
| [3] | MCDONALD J, FRANK D M, SAMUELS M, et al. Categorical Induction as Hypothesis Assessment[J]. The Psychological Record, 2003, 53(1): 121-142. |
| [4] | HSU C H, TSAI J L, LEE C Y, et al. Orthographic Combinability and Phonological Consistency Effects in Reading Chinese Phonograms:an Event-Related Potential Study[J]. Brain and Language, 2009, 108(1): 56-66. DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.002 |
| [5] | LEE C Y, TSAI J L, CHAN W H, et al. Temporal Dynamics of the Consistency Effect in Reading Chinese:an Event-Related Potentials Study[J]. Neuroreport, 2007, 18(2): 147-151. DOI:10.1097/WNR.0b013e328010d4e4 |
| [6] | POLICH J. Updating P300:an Integrative Theory of P3a and P3b[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2007, 118(10): 2128-2148. DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 |
| [7] | BONNEFOND M, VAN DER HENST J B. Deduction Electrified:ERPs Elicited by the Processing of Words in Conditional Arguments[J]. Brain and Language, 2013, 124(3): 244-256. DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.011 |
| [8] | FOLSTEIN J R, VAN PETTEN C. Influence of Cognitive Control and Mismatch on the N2 Component of the ERP:a Review[J]. Psychophysiology, 2008, 45(1): 152-170. |
| [9] | FINNIGAN S, HUMPHREYS M S, DENNIS S, et al. ERP 'old/new' Effects:Memory Strength and Decisional Factor (s)[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2002, 40(13): 2288-2304. DOI:10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00113-6 |
| [10] | KEMP C, JERN A. A Taxonomy of Inductive Problems[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21(1): 23-46. |
| [11] | LONG C, LI J, CHEN A, et al. Event-Related Potential Responses to Letter-String Comparison Analogies[J]. Experimental Brain Research, 2015, 233(5): 1563-1573. DOI:10.1007/s00221-015-4230-z |
| [12] | OSHERSON D N, SITH E E, WILKIE O, et al. Category-Based Induction[J]. Psychological Review, 1990, 97(2): 185-200. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.185 |
| [13] | MCDONALD J, SAMUELS M, RISPOLI J. A Hypothesis-Assessment Model of Categorical Argument Strength[J]. Cognition, 1996, 59(2): 199-217. DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00702-4 |
| [14] | KOK A. On the Utility of P3 Amplitude as a Measure of Processing Capacity[J]. Psychophysiology, 2001, 38(3): 557-577. DOI:10.1017/S0048577201990559 |
| [15] | KOUNIOS J, HOLCOMB P J. Structure and Process in Semantic Memory:Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials and Reaction Times[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 1992, 121(4): 459-479. DOI:10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.459 |
| [16] | HEIT E, ROTELLO C M. Relations Between Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2010, 36(3): 805-812. DOI:10.1037/a0018784 |
| [17] | ROTELLO C M, HEIT E. Modeling the Effects of Argument Length and Validity on Inductive and Deductive Reasoning[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2009, 35(5): 1317-1330. DOI:10.1037/a0016648 |
| [18] | CHEN A, LUO Y, WANG Q, et al. Electrophysiological Correlates of Category Induction:PSW Amplitude as an Index of Identifying Shared Attributes[J]. Biological Psychology, 2007, 76(3): 230-238. DOI:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.08.007 |
| [19] | BONNEFOND M, CASTELAIN T, CHEYLUS A, et al. Reasoning from Transitive Premises:An EEG Study[J]. Brain and Cognition, 2014a, 90(4): 100-108. |
| [20] | LIANG P, ZHONG N, LU S, et al. ERP Characteristics of Sentential Inductive Reasoning in Time and Frequency Domains[J]. Cognitive Systems Research, 2010, 11(1): 67-73. DOI:10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.10.001 |
| [21] | 李婧, 陈安涛, 陈杰, 等. 词语型类别属性归纳中分类与属性推理过程的时间特征[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1410-1422. |
| [22] | TENENBAUM J B, GRIFFITHS T L, KEMP C. Theory-Based Bayesian Models of Inductive Learning and Reasoning[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006, 10(7): 309-318. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.009 |
| [23] | HEIT E, ROTELLO C M. The Pervasive Effects of Argument Length on Inductive Reasoning[J]. Thinking & Reasoning, 2012, 18(3): 244-277. |
| [24] | BONNEFOND M, VAN DER HENST J B. What's Behind an Inference? An EEG Study with Conditional Arguments[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2009, 47(14): 3125-3133. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.014 |
| [25] | KUTAS M, FEDERMEIER K D. Electrophysiology Reveals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2000, 4(12): 463-470. DOI:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6 |
| [26] | NUNEZ-PENA M I, HONRUBIA-SERRANO M L. N400 and Category Exemplar Associative Strength[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2005, 56(1): 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.09.006 |
| [27] | KUTAS M, FEDERMEIER K D. Thirty Years and Counting:Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event Related Brain Potential (ERP)[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2011, 62: 621-647. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 |
| [28] | BLANCHETTE I, EI-DEREDY W. An ERP Investigation of Conditional Reasoning with Emotional and Neutral Contents[J]. Brain and Cognition, 2014, 91: 45-53. DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.08.001 |
| [29] | KOUNIOS J, HOLCOMB P J. Structure and Process in Semantic Memory:Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials and Reaction Times[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 1992, 121(4): 459-479. DOI:10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.459 |
| [30] | MURPHY G L. The Downside of Categories[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(12): 513-514. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.011 |
| [31] | HEIT E. A Bayesian Analysis of Some forms of Inductive Reasoning[J]. Rational Models of Cognition, 1998: 248-274. |
| [32] | BENNETT M A, DUKE P A, FUGGETTA G. Event-Related Potential N270 Delayed and Enhanced by the Conjunction of Relevant and Irrelevant Perceptual Mismatch[J]. Psychophysiology, 2014, 51(5): 456-463. DOI:10.1111/psyp.2014.51.issue-5 |
| [33] | HILL H, OTT F, WEISBROD M. SOA-Dependent N400 and P300 Semantic Priming Effects Using Pseudoword Primes and a Delayed Lexical Decision[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2005, 56(3): 209-221. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.12.004 |
| [34] | SLOMAN S A. Feature-Based Induction[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25(2): 231-280. DOI:10.1006/cogp.1993.1006 |
| [35] | COLLINS A M, LOFTUS E F. A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing[J]. Psychological Review, 1975, 82(6): 407-428. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 |
| [36] | SCHUMACHER R, WIRTH M, PERRIG W J, et al. ERP Correlates of Superordinate Category Activation[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2009, 72(2): 134-144. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.006 |
