空间注意系统中的动物特异性模块

Human being’s visual attentional system is the direct results of millions of years of evolutionary selection. As an adaptation to the environment, the most prominent function of attentional system is to facilitate the effective selection and subsequent processing of the most critical information and events from the environment with the aim of enhancing a given individual’s chance of passing his/her gene to the next generation. In the living environment of ancestral human beings, animals were undoubtedly one of those stimulus categories of great evolutionary significance. Since the process of animal-related information had life-or-death consequences for ancestral human beings, some researchers proposed a so-called animate monitoring hypothesis which states that there exists a category-specific module in the attentional system of human beings which specializes in the detection and frequent re-inspection of animal stimuli. Drawing on the available findings and theories regarding the inhibition-of-return effect, the present study utilized several variants of the spatial cueing paradigm to test the two main predictions of animate monitoring hypothesis：（1） animal stimuli in the environment are capable of summon attention in a reflexive way; （2） the inhibitory effect of attentional process on animal stimuli is less pronounced when compared to stimuli of other categories. The results of the present study provide supportive evidence to the existence of a category-specific module for animals in the attentional system. The present study contributes to the further understanding of the important role played by attentional mechanism in solving the critical adaptive problem faced by ancestral human beings during the course of evolution.

相同知识背景下技能之间迁移机制的研究

Since the middle of 1980's, the mechanisms of transfer of training between cognitive subskills rest on the same body of declarative knowledge has been highly concerned. The dominant theory is theory of common element (Singley & Anderson, 1989) which predict that there will be little or no transfer between subskills within the same domain when knowledge is used in different ways, even though the subskills might rest on a common body of declarative knowledge. This idea is termed as "principle of use specificity of knowledge" (Anderson, 1987). Although this principle has gained some empirical evidence from different domains such as elementary geometry (Neves & Anderson, 1981) and computer programming (McKendree & Anderson, 1987), it is challenged by some research (Pennington et al., 1991; 1995) in which substantially larger amounts of transfer of training was found between substills that rest on a shared declarative knowledge but share little procedures (production rules). Pennington et al. (1995) provided evidence that this larger amounts of transfer are due to the elaboration of declarative knowledge. Our research provide a test of these two different explanation, by considering transfer between two subskills within the domain of elementary geometry and elementary algebra respectively, and the inference of learning method ("learning from examples" and "learning from declarative-text") and subject ability (high, middle, low) on the amounts of transfer. Within the domain of elementary geometry, the two subskills of generating proofs" (GP) and "explaining proofs" (EP) which are rest on the declarative knowledge of "theorems on the characters of parallelogram" share little procedures. Within the domain of elementary algebra, the two subskills of "calculation" (C) and "simplification" (S) which are rest on the declarative knowledge of "multiplication of radical" share some more procedures. The results demonstrate that: 1. Within the domain of elementary geometry, although little transfer was found between the two subskills of GP and EP within the total subjects, different results occurred when considering the factor of subject's ability. Within the high level subjects, significant positive transfer was found from EP to GP, while little transfer was found on the opposite direction (i. e. from GP to EP). Within the low level subjects, significant positive transfer was found from EP to GP, while significant negative transfer was found on the opposite direction. For the middle level subject, little transfer was found between the two subskills. 2. Within the domain of elementary algebra, significant positive transfer was found from S to C, while significant negative transfer was found on the opposite direction (i. e. from C to S), when considering the total subjects. The same pattern of transfer occurred within the middle level subjects and low level subject. Within the high level subjects, no transfer was found between the two subskills. 3. Within theses two domains, different learning methods yield little influence on transfer of training between subskills. Apparently, these results can not be attributed to either common procedures or elaboration of declarative knowledge. A kind of synthetic inspection is essential to construct a reasonable explanation of these results which should take into account the following three elements: (1) relations between the procedures of subskills; (2) elaboration of declarative knowledge; (3) elaboration of procedural knowledge. 排Excluding the factor of subject, transfer of training between subskills can be predicted and explained by analyzing the relations between the procedures of two subskills. However, when considering some certain subjects, the explanation of transfer of training between subskills must include subjects' elaboration of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, especially the influence of the elaboration on performing the other subskill. The fact that different learning methods yield little influence on transfer of training between subskills can be explained by the fact that these two methods did not effect the level of declarative knowledge. Protocol analysis provided evidence to support these hypothesis. From this research, we conclude that in order to expound the mechanisms of transfer of training between cognitive subskills rest on the same body of declarative knowledge, three elements must be considered synthetically which include: (1) relations between the procedures of subskills; (2) elaboration of declarative knowledge; (3) elaboration of procedural knowledge.