Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2024-05-18
Abstract： Chinese is a writing system widely used by Chinese people worldwide and has many distinct characteristics. Due to its uniqueness, theories and models of alphabetic languages cannot be directly applied to Chinese. Previous Chinese studies lack systematic computational models for lexical and semantic processing. To address this issue, this study first plans to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous literature. Next, computational models will be constructed to simulate the processing of Chinese word presented in isolation and during natural reading. The model has the following characteristics: a) it can process both single-character and multi-character words; b) it can simulate orthographic, phonological, and semantic processing of words, as well as their interactions; c) it can simulate the impact of contextual cues on word processing during sentence comprehension. Finally, the assumptions and predictions of the model are planned to be validated in experimental studies. The established model can guide experimental research and has significant theoretical significance. The research findings will help clarify the cognitive mechanisms of Chinese reading and the dynamic process of lexical processing.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2023-09-09
Abstract： The representation and integration of social concepts is the basis of social semantic comprehension and social thinking. In recent years, it becomes a new research hotspot, bridging the gap between the neuroscience of language comprehension and social cognition. Evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies has indicated that the representation of social concepts relies on a brain network composed of the bilateral anterior temporal lobe, temporoparietal junction, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus and adjacent precuneus. Recent neuroimaging studies have indicated that the same brain areas may also support social semantic integration at different levels. Future studies should explore the semantic dimensions of social concept representation, the specific components of social semantic processing, and their impacts on human behaviors.
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Speech production studies have demonstrated cross-linguistic differences in the processing units involved in phonological encoding. It has been widely assumed a critical role of phonemes in spoken production of Indo-European languages. Phonemes are normally conceived of as abstractions of discrete segmental speech sounds which can distinguish the meaning between words. For instance, the word "big" represents a sequence of three phonemes /b/, /i/, /g/. Currently, investigations on the processing units in Chinese spoken production mainly focused on syllables, whereas only few studies concern the role of phonemes. In the present project, we propose to comprehensively tackle the role of phoneme in Chinese speech production, focusing on its psychological reality, potential factors influencing phoneme-based effects, processing mechanism and temporal properties, using both behavioral and electrophysiological techniques. Specifically, we will investigate: 1) whether phonemic processing has "psychological reality" in Chinese speech production, and whether sensitivity to phonemic representations is artificially induced by exposure to English as a second language, experience of Pinyin, or phoneme-based typing input method? 2) how we process phonemes? Specifically, we are interested in whether phoneme-based effects are phoneme-specific and position-specific, how phonemes associate together to form larger units, and the temporal properties of phonemic processing. The findings of the present project will not only improve our understanding of how Chinese speakers produce words in mind/brain, but also provide insights into the construction and development of theoretical and computational models of Chinese speech production. In addition, the findings will provide basis for cross-language comparisons, and the development of scientific teaching approaches of Chinese phonology.
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： In daily life, the use of language often occurs in a visual context. A large number of cognitive science studies have shown that visual and linguistic information processing modules do not work independently, but have complex interactions. The present paper centers on the impact of visual information on language processing, and first reviews research progress on the impact of visual information on speech comprehension, speech production and verbal communication. Secondly, the mechanism of visual information affecting language processing is discussed. Finally, computational models of visually situated language processing are reviewed, and the future research directions are prospected.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation-maximization-based theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. Substantial research has demonstrated that people do not follow the logical process suggested by expectation-maximization-based theories when making risky choices but rather rely on simplifying heuristics. From our perspective, the possible reason why mainstream decision theorists did not abandon the framework of expectation is that these theorists never doubted the validity of the expectation rule as a descriptive rule in describing decision-making under risk. We believe that expectation-maximization-based theories may capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for everyone. However, whether these theories could capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for themselves cannot be taken for granted. We thus used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one. A total of 52 college students participated in the experiment. Three risky choice tasks were conducted in the present study: a D-everyone task, a D-multiple task, and a D-single task. In the D-everyone task, participants were asked to choose the more optimal option out of two options under the assumption that their selection would be the final decision for everyone who was facing the same choice—that is, everyone would be subject to the same choice but could receive different outcomes. In the D-multiple task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied a total of 100 times. In the D-single task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied only once to themselves. The participants’ eye movements were recorded while they performed the tasks. Behavioral results revealed that, compared with the D-single task, participants selected more choices correctly predicted by EV and EU theories, and took a longer time to make a decision in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks. Furthermore, eye movement measurements revealed the following. (1) The scanpath patterns of the D-everyone task and D-multiple task were similar but different from those of the D-single task. (2) The depth of information acquisition and the level of complexity of information processing in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was higher than that in the D-single task. (3) The direction of information search in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was more alternative-based than that in the D-single task. (4) The eye-tracking measures mediated the relationship between the task and the EV-consistent choice. In summary, behavioral and eye movement results supported our hypotheses that participants were likely to follow an expectation strategy in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks, whereas they were likely to follow a heuristic/non- expectation strategy in the D-single task. We found that expectation-maximization-based theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. The evidence for the discrepancy between everyone and every one, which was first reported in our study, implied that the possible reason why expectation-maximization-based theories do not work is that a default compatibility between the full set (everyone) and the subset (every one) does not exist. Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of the boundaries of expectation-maximization-based theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models. Our findings may also shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-29
Abstract： Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these expectation theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. With doubts about the default compatibility between everyone (full set) and every one (subset), we used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one. We found that expectation theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition, but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the boundaries of expectation theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models, and may shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-25
Abstract：
Mainstream theorists in risky decision-making have developed various expectation-maximization-based theories with the ambitious goal of capturing everyone’s choices. However, ample evidence has revealed that these theories could not capture every individual’s (“every one’s”) actual risky choice as descriptive theories. Substantial research has demonstrated that people do not follow the logical process suggested by expectation-maximization-based theories when making risky choices but rather rely on simplifying heuristics. From our perspective, the possible reason why mainstream decision theorists did not abandon the framework of expectation is that these theorists never doubted the validity of the expectation rule as a descriptive rule in describing decision-making under risk. We believe that expectation-maximization-based theories may capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for everyone. However, whether these theories could capture risky choices when individuals make decisions for themselves cannot be taken for granted. We thus used an eye-tracking technique to explore whether a theory for everyone would work well for every one.
A total of 52 college students participated in the experiment. Three risky choice tasks were conducted in the present study: a D-everyone task, a D-multiple task, and a D-single task. In the D-everyone task, participants were asked to choose the more optimal option out of two options under the assumption that their selection would be the final decision for everyone who was facing the same choice—that is, everyone would be subject to the same choice but could receive different outcomes. In the D-multiple task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied a total of 100 times. In the D-single task, participants were asked to choose between the two options under the assumption that their selection would be applied only once to themselves. The participants’ eye movements were recorded while they performed the tasks.
Behavioral results revealed that, compared with the D-single task, participants selected more choices correctly predicted by EV and EU theories, and took a longer time to make a decision in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks. Furthermore, eye movement measurements revealed the following. (1) The scanpath patterns of the D-everyone task and D-multiple task were similar but different from those of the D-single task. (2) The depth of information acquisition and the level of complexity of information processing in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was higher than that in the D-single task. (3) The direction of information search in the D-everyone task and D-multiple task was more alternative-based than that in the D-single task. (4) The eye-tracking measures mediated the relationship between the task and the EV-consistent choice. In summary, behavioral and eye movement results supported our hypotheses that participants were likely to follow an expectation strategy in the D-everyone and D-multiple tasks, whereas they were likely to follow a heuristic/non-expectation strategy in the D-single task.We found that expectation-maximization-based theories could capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for everyone and for self in a multiple-play condition but could not capture the choice of an individual when making decisions for self in a single-play condition. The evidence for the discrepancy between everyone and every one, which was first reported in our study, implied that the possible reason why expectation-maximization-based theories do not work is that a default compatibility between the full set (everyone) and the subset (every one) does not exist. Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of the boundaries of expectation-maximization-based theories and those of heuristic/non-expectation models. Our findings may also shed light on the general issue of the classification of risky decision-making theories.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment