簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
張俊彥 |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
以按鍵轉換派典來檢驗分類學習多元系統論 Examination for multiple category learning system view with bottom-switch paradigm |
| 指導教授： | 楊立行 |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
理學院 - 心理學系 Department of Psychology |
| 論文出版年： | 2011 |
| 畢業學年度： | 99 |
| 語文別： | 中文 |
| 論文頁數： | 90 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 分類學習 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | COVIS |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：142 下載：12 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
Ashby和Maddox(1998)提出COVIS理論，來解釋人們是如何進行分類學習。而對COVIS理論所作的研究結果，有支持的結果(Ashby, Ell,& Waldron, 2003; Ashby,Maddox, & Bohil, 2002; Maddox, Ashby, Ing, & Pickering, 2003)，但也有不支持的結果(Nosofsky, Stanton, & Zaki, 2005; Stanton & Nosofsky, 2007)，因此分類學習系統是否如同COVIS理論所主張是由雙系統所構成，還應繼續加以探討。
在Maddox等人(2007)的「操弄按鍵轉換機率」實驗中，Maddox等人以COVIS理論的觀點來解釋此實驗所得的結果。然而，此實驗結果除了以COVIS理論的觀點來解釋之外，或許也可用認知資源消耗的觀點來加以解釋。因此本研究的主要目的是嘗試檢驗認知資源消耗觀點的解釋方法可行性。實驗一的主要目的是重製Maddox等人(2007)年研究所得結果，以確保本研究所使用的刺激材料、實驗流程和實驗設計都和Maddox等人相同，並可得到相同的結果。然而實驗一所得結果和Maddox等人(2007)結果不同，並且實驗一所得結果也不支持COVIS理論所提出的雙系統想法。基於實驗一無法得到和Maddox等人(2007)相同的結果，實驗二根據認知資源消耗觀點，繼續嘗試重製出和Maddox等人(2007)相同的實驗結果，藉由在轉換階段加入序列回憶作業的
操弄手法，實驗二中得到和Maddox等人(2007)相同的結果，並且可用認知資源消耗觀點對此結果進行解釋。而本研究認為如果「Maddox等人研究中受試者的認知資源量少於本研究中受試者的認知資源量」的假設可成立的話，Maddox等人(2007)實驗所得結果是有可能可用認知資源消耗觀點的說法加以解釋。因此對於Maddox等人(2007)年的「操弄按鍵轉換機率」實驗結果，除了以COVIS理論的觀點來解釋之外，也可用認知資源消耗觀點的解釋方法來進行解釋。
文獻探討………………………………………………………………………1
多元分類學習系統………………………………………………………… 2
COVIS的神經生理證據………………………………………………………6
對於COVIS的實證研究………………………………………………………9
質疑COVIS的實證研究………………………………………………………17
對COVIS證據的探討和疑問…………………………………………………22
類別學習與工作記憶………………………………………………………24
工作記憶理論………………………………………………………………24
COVIS理論和工作記憶………………………………………………………27
實驗一A………………………………………………………………………29
方法 ……………………………………………………………………………29
受試者與實驗設備…………………………………………………………30
分類學習作業………………………………………………………………30
刺激材料……………………………………………………………………30
分類作業流程………………………………………………………………31
工作記憶作業………………………………………………………………32
實驗程序……………………………………………………………………34
結果……………………………………………………………………………34
學習正確率分析……………………………………………………………35
轉換成本分析………………………………………………………………36
「可能轉換但沒轉換」和「可能轉換且轉換」的表現分析………………37
工作記憶作業表現和工作記憶作業跟分類學習作業之間的相關………39
討論……………………………………………………………………………40
實驗一B………………………………………………………………………42
訓練區段長度的影響………………………………………………………42
實驗設計的影響……………………………………………………………42
結果……………………………………………………………………………43
訓練區段長度分析結果……………………………………………………43
第一次分類學習分析結果…………………………………………………45
討論……………………………………………………………………………48
實驗一C………………………………………………………………………49
方法……………………………………………………………………………50
受試者與實驗設備…………………………………………………………50
分類學習作業……………………………………………………………50
工作記憶作業……………………………………………………………50
實驗流程…………………………………………………………………51
結果……………………………………………………………………………51
學習正確率分析……………………………………………………………52
轉換成本分析………………………………………………………………53
「可能轉換但沒轉換」和「可能轉換且轉換」的表現分析………………54
工作記憶作業表現和工作記憶作業跟分類學習作業之間的相關………55
討論……………………………………………………………………………57
實驗二………………………………………………………………………59
方法…………………………………………………………………………60
受試者與實驗設備…………………………………………………………60
實驗設計與刺激材料………………………………………………………60
短期記憶作業………………………………………………………………60
實驗程序……………………………………………………………………61
結果……………………………………………………………………………62
序列回憶作業結果…………………………………………………………62
學習正確率分析……………………………………………………………62
轉換成本分析………………………………………………………………64
「可能轉換但沒轉換」和「可能轉換且轉換」的表現分析………………64
討論………………………………………………………………………………66
SW情境下的認知資源耗損………………………………………………68
NSW情境下的認知資源耗損……………………………………………69
綜合討論………………………………………………………………………71
未來研究方向………………………………………………………………74
結論…………………………………………………………………………75
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………76
附錄…………………………………………………………………………81
實驗一指導語………………………………………………………………81
實驗二指導語………………………………………………………………83
實驗三指導語………………………………………………………………85
反向掃視作業指導語………………………………………………………88
停止信號作業指導語………………………………………………………89
數字史楚普作業指導語……………………………………………………90
蘇曜祥（民98）。中央執行功能與類別學習的個別差異現象。碩士學位論文，國立成功大學認知科學研究所。
Ashby, F. G., & Ell, S. W. (2001). The neurobiological basis of category learning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 204-210.
Ashby, F. G., Ell, S. W., & Waldron, E. M. (2003a). Procedural learning in perceptual caegorization, Memory & Cognition, 31, 1114-1125.
Ashby, F. G., Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. J. (2002). Observational versus feedback raining in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory &
Cognition, 30, 666-677.
Ashby, F. G., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. T. (1999b). On the dominance of nidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1178-1199.
Ashby, F. G., & Waldron, E. M. (1999). The nature of implicit categorization.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 363-378.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a newcomponent of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. NatureReview Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. MA: OxfordUniversity Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Bressi, S., Della Sala, S., Logie, R., & Spinnler, H. (1991). The declineof working memory in Alzheimer's disease: A longitudinal study. Brain, 114(6),
2521-2542.
Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control ofaction: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 130(4), 641-657.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psyhology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: AcademicPress.
Cowan, N. (1999). Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Working Memory Capacity: Psychology Press.
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 331-335.
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30(2), 163-183.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769-786.
DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., & Beilock, S. L. (2008). Individual differences in category learning: Sometimes less working memory capacity is better than more. Cognition, 107(1), 284-294.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340.
Lewandowsky, S., Yang, L.-X, Ben R., & Kalish, M. L. (2010). Working memory capacity and erceptual ategorization, unpublished.
Maddox, W. T., Ashby, F. G., Ing, A. D., & Pickering, A. D. (2003a). Disrupting feedback processing interferes with rule-based, but not information-integration category learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 582-591.
Maddox, W. T., Ashby, F. G., & Bohil, C. J. (2003b). Delayed feedback effects on rule-based and information-integration category learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 650-662.
Maddox, W. T., Bohil, C. J., & Ing, A. D. (2004). Evidence for a procedural learning-based system in category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 945-952.
Maddox, W. T., Filoteo, J. V., Hejl, K. D., & Ing, A. D. (2004). Category number impacts rule-based but not information-integration category learning: further
evidence for dissociable categorylearning systems. Journal of Experimantal Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 227-235.
Maddox, W. T., Filoteo, J. V., & Lauritzen, J. S. (2007). Within-category discontinuity interacts with verbal rule complexity in perceptual category learning. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33(1), 197-218.
Maddox, W. T., Filoteo, J. V., Lauritzen, J. S., Connally, E., & Hejl, K. D. (2005). Discontinuous categories affect information-integration, but not rule-based category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(4), 654-669.
Maddox, W. T., & Ing, A. D. (2005). Delayed feedback disrupts the procedural-learning system but not the hypothesis testing system in perceptual category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(1), 100-107.
Maddox, W. T., Lauritzen, J. S., & Ing, A. D. (2007). Cognitive complexity effects in perceptual classification are dissociable. Memory & Cognition., 35(5), 885-894.
Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., Worthy, D. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17(11), 944-948.
Nosofsky, R. M., Stanton, R. D., & Zaki, S. R. (2005). Procedural interference in perceptual classification: Implicit learning or cognitive complexity? Memory &
Cognition, 33, 1256-1271.
Stanton, R. D., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2007). Feedback interference and dissociations of classification: Evidence against the multiple-learning-systems hypothesis. Memory &
Cognition, 35, 1747-1758.
Waldron, E. M., & Ashby, F. G. (2001). The effects of concurrent task interference on category learning: Evidence for multiple category learning systems. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 8, 168-176.
Zeithamova, D., & Maddox, W. T. (2006). Dual-task
interference in perceptual category Learning. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 387-398.
Zeithamova, D., & Maddox, W. T. (2007). The role of visuo-spatial and verbal working memory in perceptual category learning. Memory & Cognition., 35(6), 1380-1398.
