首页 > 最新文献

Cognitive Psychology最新文献

英文 中文
Hypothesis testing, attention, and ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgments 假设检验,注意和“相同”-“不同”的判断
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101443
Bart Farell

Logic and common sense say that judging two stimuli as “same” is the converse of judging them as “different”. Empirically, however, ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgment data are anomalous in two major ways. The fast-‘Same’ effect violates the expectation that ‘Same’ reaction time (RT) should be predictable by extrapolating from ‘Different’ RT. The criterion effect violates the expectation that RTs measured when sameness is defined by a conjunction of matching attributes should predict RTs measured when sameness is defined by a disjunction of matching attributes. The two criteria are symmetrical, yet empirically they differ greatly, disjunctive judgments being by far the slower of the two. This study sought the sources of these two effects. With the aid of a cue, a selective-comparison method deconfounded the contributions of stimulus encoding and comparisons to the two effects. The results were paradoxical. Each additional irrelevant (uncued) letter in a random string incremented RT for conjunctive judgments as much as an additional relevant letter did. Yet irrelevant letters were not compared and relevant letters had to be compared. These results appeared again in a second experiment that used words as stimuli. Contrary to intuition, a distinct comparison mechanism—the heart of relative judgment models—is not necessary in judgments of sameness and difference. It is shown here that encoding can carry out the comparison function without the operation of a separate comparison mechanism. Attention mediates the process by selecting from the set of stimulus alternatives, thereby partitioning the set into the ‘Same’ and ‘Different’ subsets. The fast-‘Same’ and criterion effects result from a structural limitation on what attention can select at any one time. With attention mediating the task, ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgments become, in effect, the outcome of a testing of a hypothesis, bridging the distinction between absolute stimulus identification and relative judgments.

逻辑和常识告诉我们,判断两种刺激为“相同”与判断它们为“不同”是相反的。然而,从经验上看,“相同”-“不同”的判断数据在两个主要方面是异常的。快速的“相同”效应违背了“相同”反应时间(RT)应该通过外推“不同”RT来预测的期望。标准效应违背了当匹配属性的结合定义相同时测量的RT应该预测由匹配属性的分离定义相同时测量的RT的期望。这两种判断标准是对称的,但在经验上却大不相同,而析取判断则是两者中较慢的一种。这项研究寻找了这两种影响的来源。在线索的帮助下,选择性比较方法解构了刺激编码和比较对这两种效应的贡献。结果是自相矛盾的。随机字符串中每增加一个不相关的(未提示的)字母,就像增加一个相关的字母一样,会增加联想判断的RT。然而,不相关的字母没有被比较,而相关的字母必须被比较。这些结果再次出现在第二个使用文字作为刺激的实验中。与直觉相反,相对判断模型的核心——独特的比较机制——在相同和差异的判断中是不必要的。这里表明,编码可以在不操作单独的比较机制的情况下执行比较功能。注意通过从刺激选项集中进行选择来调节这一过程,从而将该集合划分为“相同”和“不同”子集。快速的“相同”效应和标准效应源于注意力在任何时候可以选择的结构性限制。通过注意中介任务,“相同”-“不同”判断实际上成为假设测试的结果,弥合了绝对刺激识别和相对判断之间的区别。
{"title":"Hypothesis testing, attention, and ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgments","authors":"Bart Farell","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101443","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101443","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Logic and common sense say that judging two stimuli as “same” is the converse of judging them as “different”. Empirically, however, ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgment data are anomalous in two major ways. The fast-‘Same’ effect violates the expectation that ‘Same’ reaction time (RT) should be predictable by extrapolating from ‘Different’ RT. The criterion effect violates the expectation that RTs measured when sameness is defined by a conjunction of matching attributes should predict RTs measured when sameness is defined by a disjunction of matching attributes. The two criteria are symmetrical, yet empirically they differ greatly, disjunctive judgments being by far the slower of the two. This study sought the sources of these two effects. With the aid of a cue, a selective-comparison method deconfounded the contributions of stimulus encoding and comparisons to the two effects. The results were paradoxical. Each additional irrelevant (uncued) letter in a random string incremented RT for conjunctive judgments as much as an additional relevant letter did. Yet irrelevant letters were not compared and relevant letters had to be compared. These results appeared again in a second experiment that used words as stimuli. Contrary to intuition, a distinct comparison mechanism—the heart of relative judgment models—is not necessary in judgments of sameness and difference. It is shown here that encoding can carry out the comparison function without the operation of a separate comparison mechanism. Attention mediates the process by selecting from the set of stimulus alternatives, thereby partitioning the set into the ‘Same’ and ‘Different’ subsets. The fast-‘Same’ and criterion effects result from a structural limitation on what attention can select at any one time. With attention mediating the task, ‘Same’-‘Different’ judgments become, in effect, the outcome of a testing of a hypothesis, bridging the distinction between absolute stimulus identification and relative judgments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028521000669/pdfft?md5=c3ca913fd24d6ee67d946caaa4789411&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028521000669-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39685326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Causal invariance as a tacit aspiration: Analytic knowledge of invariance functions 作为一种隐性愿望的因果不变性:不变性功能的分析知识
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101432
Jooyong Park , Shannon McGillivray , Jeffrey K. Bye , Patricia W. Cheng

For causal knowledge to be worth learning, it must remain valid when that knowledge is applied. Because unknown background causes are potentially present, and may vary across the learning and application contexts, extricating the strength of a candidate cause requires an assumption regarding the decomposition of the observed outcome into the unobservable influences from the candidate and from background causes. Acquiring stable, useable causal knowledge is challenging when the search space of candidate causes is large, such that the reasoner’s current set of candidates may fail to include a cause that generalizes well to an application context. We have hypothesized that an indispensable navigation device that shapes our causal representations toward useable knowledge involves the concept of causal invariance – the sameness of how a cause operates to produce an effect across contexts. Here, we tested our causal invariance hypothesis by making use of the distinct mathematical functions expressing causal invariance for two outcome-variable types: continuous and binary. Our hypothesis predicts that, given identical prior domain knowledge, intuitive causal judgments should vary in accord with the causal-invariance function for a reasoner’s perceived outcome-variable type. The judgments are made as if the reasoner aspires to formulate causally invariant knowledge. Our experiments involved two cue-competition paradigms: blocking and overexpectation. Results show that adult humans tacitly use the appropriate causal-invariance functions for decomposition. Our analysis offers an explanation for the apparent elusiveness of the blocking effect and the adaptiveness of intuitive causal inference to the representation-dependent reality in the mind.

为了使因果知识值得学习,它必须在应用该知识时保持有效。由于未知的背景原因可能存在,并且在不同的学习和应用环境中可能有所不同,因此提取候选原因的强度需要假设将观察到的结果分解为来自候选原因和背景原因的不可观察影响。当候选原因的搜索空间很大时,获取稳定的、可用的因果知识是具有挑战性的,因此推理器当前的候选集可能无法包括一个很好地概括到应用程序上下文的原因。我们假设,将我们的因果表象塑造成可用知识的一个不可或缺的导航设备涉及因果不变性的概念——一个原因如何在不同的背景下产生结果的一致性。在这里,我们通过使用表达两种结果变量类型(连续和二进制)的因果不变性的不同数学函数来测试我们的因果不变性假设。我们的假设预测,给定相同的先验领域知识,直觉因果判断应该根据推理者感知结果变量类型的因果不变性函数而变化。做出判断就好像推理者渴望形成因果不变的知识。我们的实验涉及两种线索竞争范式:阻塞和过度期望。结果表明,成年人默认使用适当的因果不变性函数进行分解。我们的分析为阻塞效应的明显难以捉摸和直觉因果推理对表征依赖性现实的适应性提供了解释。
{"title":"Causal invariance as a tacit aspiration: Analytic knowledge of invariance functions","authors":"Jooyong Park ,&nbsp;Shannon McGillivray ,&nbsp;Jeffrey K. Bye ,&nbsp;Patricia W. Cheng","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101432","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101432","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>For causal knowledge to be worth learning, it must remain valid when that knowledge is applied. Because unknown background causes are potentially present, and may vary across the learning and application contexts, extricating the strength of a candidate cause requires an assumption regarding the decomposition of the observed outcome into the unobservable influences from the candidate and from background causes. Acquiring stable, useable causal knowledge is challenging when the search space of candidate causes is large, such that the reasoner’s current set of candidates may fail to include a cause that generalizes well to an application context. We have hypothesized that an indispensable navigation device that shapes our causal representations toward useable knowledge involves the concept of <em>causal invariance</em> – the sameness of how a cause operates to produce an effect across contexts. Here, we tested our <em>causal invariance hypothesis</em> by making use of the distinct mathematical functions expressing causal invariance for two outcome-variable types: continuous and binary. Our hypothesis predicts that, given identical prior domain knowledge, intuitive causal judgments should vary in accord with the causal-invariance function for a reasoner’s perceived outcome-variable type. The judgments are made as if the reasoner aspires to formulate causally invariant knowledge. Our experiments involved two cue-competition paradigms: blocking and overexpectation. Results show that adult humans tacitly use the appropriate causal-invariance functions for decomposition. Our analysis offers an explanation for the apparent elusiveness of the blocking effect and the adaptiveness of intuitive causal inference to the representation-dependent reality in the mind.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101432"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028521000554/pdfft?md5=d1a550afba8d852dccc4cf55be71eb54&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028521000554-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39942582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Motivated to learn: An account of explanatory satisfaction 学习动机:解释性满意的一种解释
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101453
Emily G. Liquin, Tania Lombrozo

Many explanations have a distinctive, positive phenomenology: receiving or generating these explanations feels satisfying. Accordingly, we might expect this feeling of explanatory satisfaction to reinforce and motivate inquiry. Across five studies, we investigate how explanatory satisfaction plays this role: by motivating and reinforcing inquiry quite generally (“brute motivation” account), or by selectively guiding inquiry to support useful learning about the target of explanation (“aligned motivation” account). In Studies 1–2, we find that satisfaction with an explanation is related to several measures of perceived useful learning, and that greater satisfaction in turn predicts stronger curiosity about questions related to the explanation. However, in Studies 2–4, we find only tenuous evidence that satisfaction is related to actual learning, measured objectively through multiple-choice or free recall tests. In Study 4, we additionally show that perceptions of learning fully explain one seemingly specious feature of explanatory preferences studied in prior research: the preference for uninformative “reductive” explanations. Finally, in Study 5, we find that perceived learning is (at least in part) causally responsible for feelings of satisfaction. Together, these results point to what we call the “imperfectly aligned motivation” account: explanatory satisfaction selectively motivates inquiry towards learning explanatory information, but primarily through fallible perceptions of learning. Thus, satisfaction is likely to guide individuals towards lines of inquiry that support perceptions of learning, whether or not individuals actually are learning.

许多解释都有一个独特的、积极的现象学:接受或产生这些解释会让人感到满足。因此,我们可以预期这种解释性满足感会加强和激励探究。在五项研究中,我们调查了解释满意度是如何发挥这一作用的:通过普遍激励和加强探究(“野蛮动机”说),或者通过有选择地引导探究来支持对解释目标的有用学习(“一致动机”说)。在研究1-2中,我们发现对解释的满意度与感知到的有用学习的几个衡量标准有关,而更高的满意度反过来又预示着对与解释相关的问题更强的好奇心。然而,在研究2-4中,我们发现只有微弱的证据表明满意度与实际学习有关,通过多项选择或自由回忆测试客观地测量。在研究4中,我们还表明,学习的感知完全解释了先前研究中研究的解释偏好的一个看似似是而非的特征:对无信息的“还原”解释的偏好。最后,在研究5中,我们发现感知学习(至少部分)是满足感的因果关系。总之,这些结果指向了我们所谓的“不完全对齐动机”解释:解释性满意度有选择地激发了对学习解释性信息的探究,但主要是通过对学习的错误感知。因此,无论个人是否真正在学习,满意度都可能引导个人走向支持学习感知的探究线。
{"title":"Motivated to learn: An account of explanatory satisfaction","authors":"Emily G. Liquin,&nbsp;Tania Lombrozo","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101453","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101453","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Many explanations have a distinctive, positive phenomenology: receiving or generating these explanations feels <em>satisfying</em>. Accordingly, we might expect this feeling of explanatory satisfaction to reinforce and motivate inquiry. Across five studies, we investigate how explanatory satisfaction plays this role: by motivating and reinforcing inquiry quite generally (“brute motivation” account), or by selectively guiding inquiry to support useful learning about the target of explanation (“aligned motivation” account). In Studies 1–2, we find that satisfaction with an explanation is related to several measures of perceived useful learning, and that greater satisfaction in turn predicts stronger curiosity about questions related to the explanation. However, in Studies 2–4, we find only tenuous evidence that satisfaction is related to actual learning, measured objectively through multiple-choice or free recall tests. In Study 4, we additionally show that perceptions of learning fully explain one seemingly specious feature of explanatory preferences studied in prior research: the preference for uninformative “reductive” explanations. Finally, in Study 5, we find that perceived learning is (at least in part) causally responsible for feelings of satisfaction. Together, these results point to what we call the “imperfectly aligned motivation” account: explanatory satisfaction selectively motivates inquiry towards learning explanatory information, but primarily through fallible perceptions of learning. Thus, satisfaction is likely to guide individuals towards lines of inquiry that support perceptions of learning, whether or not individuals actually are learning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101453"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028521000761/pdfft?md5=5aebb88d43bfa490e7cbcb9741c65ea9&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028521000761-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39699858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Robust priors for regularized regression 正则化回归的鲁棒先验
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101444
Sebastian Bobadilla-Suarez , Matt Jones , Bradley C. Love

Induction benefits from useful priors. Penalized regression approaches, like ridge regression, shrink weights toward zero but zero association is usually not a sensible prior. Inspired by simple and robust decision heuristics humans use, we constructed non-zero priors for penalized regression models that provide robust and interpretable solutions across several tasks. Our approach enables estimates from a constrained model to serve as a prior for a more general model, yielding a principled way to interpolate between models of differing complexity. We successfully applied this approach to a number of decision and classification problems, as well as analyzing simulated brain imaging data. Models with robust priors had excellent worst-case performance. Solutions followed from the form of the heuristic that was used to derive the prior. These new algorithms can serve applications in data analysis and machine learning, as well as help in understanding how people transition from novice to expert performance.

归纳受益于有用的先验。惩罚回归方法,如脊回归,将权重缩小到零,但零关联通常不是一个明智的先验。受人类使用的简单而稳健的决策启发式的启发,我们为惩罚回归模型构建了非零先验,这些模型提供了跨多个任务的稳健且可解释的解决方案。我们的方法使来自约束模型的估计能够作为更一般模型的先验,从而产生一种在不同复杂性的模型之间进行插值的原则性方法。我们成功地将这种方法应用于许多决策和分类问题,以及分析模拟脑成像数据。具有鲁棒先验的模型具有优异的最坏情况性能。解决方案遵循启发式的形式,用于推导先验。这些新算法可以应用于数据分析和机器学习,也可以帮助理解人们如何从新手过渡到专家。
{"title":"Robust priors for regularized regression","authors":"Sebastian Bobadilla-Suarez ,&nbsp;Matt Jones ,&nbsp;Bradley C. Love","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101444","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101444","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Induction benefits from useful priors. Penalized regression approaches, like ridge regression, shrink weights toward zero but zero association is usually not a sensible prior. Inspired by simple and robust decision heuristics humans use, we constructed non-zero priors for penalized regression models that provide robust and interpretable solutions across several tasks. Our approach enables estimates from a constrained model to serve as a prior for a more general model, yielding a principled way to interpolate between models of differing complexity. We successfully applied this approach to a number of decision and classification problems, as well as analyzing simulated brain imaging data. Models with robust priors had excellent worst-case performance. Solutions followed from the form of the heuristic that was used to derive the prior. These new algorithms can serve applications in data analysis and machine learning, as well as help in understanding how people transition from novice to expert performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101444"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903146/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39942583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Repeated letters increase the ambiguity of strings: Evidence from identification, priming and same-different tasks 重复字母增加了字符串的模糊性:来自识别、启动和相同-不同任务的证据
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101445
Iliyana V. Trifonova , James S. Adelman

Letters are often repeated in words in many languages. The present work explored the mechanisms underlying processing of repeated and unique letters in strings across three experimental paradigms. In a 2AFC perceptual identification task, the insertion but not the deletion of a letter was harder to detect when it was repeated than when it was unique (Exp. 1). In a masked primed same-different task, deletion primes produced the same priming effect regardless of deletion type (repeated, unique; Exp. 2), but insertion primes were more effective when the additional inserted letter created a repetition than when it did not (Exp. 3). In a same-different perceptual identification task, foils created by modifying a repetition, by either repeating the wrong letter or substituting a repeated letter, were harder to reject than foils created by modifying unique letters (Exp. 4). Thus, repetition effects were task-dependent. Since considering representations alone would suggest repetition effects would always occur or never occur, this indicates the importance of modelling task-specific processes. The similarity calculations embedded in the Overlap Model (Gomez et al., 2008) appeared to always predict a repetition effect, but its decision rule for the task of Experiment 1 allowed it to predict the asymmetry between insertions and deletions. In the Letters in Time and Retinotopic Space (LTRS; Adelman, 2011) model, repetition effects arise only from briefly presented stimuli as their perception is incomplete. It was therefore consistent with Experiments 2–4 but required a task-specific response bias to account for the insertion-deletion asymmetry of Experiment 1.

在许多语言中,字母经常在单词中重复出现。本研究在三个实验范式中探讨了字符串中重复和唯一字母的加工机制。在2AFC感知识别任务中,字母的插入而非删除在重复时比在唯一时更难被检测到(实验1)。在屏蔽启动相同-不同任务中,删除启动产生相同的启动效应,无论删除类型(重复,唯一;实验2),但是当额外插入的字母产生重复时,插入启动比没有(实验3)时更有效。在相同-不同的感知识别任务中,通过修改重复产生的箔,通过重复错误的字母或替换重复的字母,比修改唯一字母产生的箔更难被拒绝(实验4)。因此,重复效应是任务依赖的。由于单独考虑表征会表明重复效应总是会发生或永远不会发生,这表明了建模任务特定过程的重要性。重叠模型(Gomez et al., 2008)中嵌入的相似性计算似乎总是预测重复效应,但其对实验1任务的决策规则允许它预测插入和删除之间的不对称性。在时间和视网膜位置空间(LTRS)中的信件Adelman, 2011)模型,重复效应只产生于短暂呈现的刺激,因为他们的感知是不完整的。因此,这与实验2-4一致,但需要任务特异性反应偏差来解释实验1的插入-删除不对称。
{"title":"Repeated letters increase the ambiguity of strings: Evidence from identification, priming and same-different tasks","authors":"Iliyana V. Trifonova ,&nbsp;James S. Adelman","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101445","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101445","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Letters are often repeated in words in many languages. The present work explored the mechanisms underlying processing of repeated and unique letters in strings across three experimental paradigms. In a 2AFC perceptual identification task, the insertion but not the deletion of a letter was harder to detect when it was repeated than when it was unique (Exp. 1). In a masked primed same-different task, deletion primes produced the same priming effect regardless of deletion type (repeated, unique; Exp. 2), but insertion primes were more effective when the additional inserted letter created a repetition than when it did not (Exp. 3). In a same-different perceptual identification task, foils created by modifying a repetition, by either repeating the wrong letter or substituting a repeated letter, were harder to reject than foils created by modifying unique letters (Exp. 4). Thus, repetition effects were task-dependent. Since considering representations alone would suggest repetition effects would always occur or never occur, this indicates the importance of modelling task-specific processes. The similarity calculations embedded in the Overlap Model (Gomez et al., 2008) appeared to always predict a repetition effect, but its decision rule for the task of Experiment 1 allowed it to predict the asymmetry between insertions and deletions. In the Letters in Time and Retinotopic Space (LTRS; Adelman, 2011) model, repetition effects arise only from briefly presented stimuli as their perception is incomplete. It was therefore consistent with Experiments 2–4 but required a task-specific response bias to account for the insertion-deletion asymmetry of Experiment 1.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39672421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Distributional social semantics: Inferring word meanings from communication patterns 分布社会语义学:从交际模式推断词义
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101441
Brendan T. Johns

Distributional models of lexical semantics have proven to be powerful accounts of how word meanings are acquired from the natural language environment (Günther, Rinaldi, & Marelli, 2019; Kumar, 2020). Standard models of this type acquire the meaning of words through the learning of word co-occurrence statistics across large corpora. However, these models ignore social and communicative aspects of language processing, which is considered central to usage-based and adaptive theories of language (Tomasello, 2003; Beckner et al., 2009). Johns (2021) recently demonstrated that integrating social and communicative information into a lexical strength measure allowed for benchmark fits to be attained for lexical organization data, indicating that the social world contains important statistical information for language learning and processing. Through the analysis of the communication patterns of over 330,000 individuals on the online forum Reddit, totaling approximately 55 billion words of text, the findings of the current article demonstrates that social information about word usage allows for unique aspects of a word’s meaning to be acquired, providing a new pathway for distributional model development.

词汇语义的分布模型已被证明是词义如何从自然语言环境中获得的有力解释(g nther, Rinaldi, &;的公司,2019;库马尔,2020)。这种类型的标准模型通过学习跨大型语料库的词共现统计来获取词的意义。然而,这些模型忽略了语言处理的社会和交际方面,这被认为是基于使用和适应的语言理论的核心(Tomasello, 2003;Beckner et al., 2009)。Johns(2021)最近证明,将社会和交际信息整合到词汇强度测量中,可以获得词汇组织数据的基准拟合,这表明社会世界包含对语言学习和处理重要的统计信息。通过分析在线论坛Reddit上超过33万人的交流模式,总共约550亿字的文本,本文的研究结果表明,关于单词使用的社会信息允许获得单词含义的独特方面,为分布式模型的开发提供了新的途径。
{"title":"Distributional social semantics: Inferring word meanings from communication patterns","authors":"Brendan T. Johns","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101441","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101441","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Distributional models of lexical semantics have proven to be powerful accounts of how word meanings are acquired from the natural language environment (Günther, Rinaldi, &amp; Marelli, 2019; Kumar, 2020). Standard models of this type acquire the meaning of words through the learning of word co-occurrence statistics across large corpora. However, these models ignore social and communicative aspects of language processing, which is considered central to usage-based and adaptive theories of language (Tomasello, 2003; Beckner et al., 2009). </span><span>Johns (2021)</span> recently demonstrated that integrating social and communicative information into a lexical strength measure allowed for benchmark fits to be attained for lexical organization data, indicating that the social world contains important statistical information for language learning and processing. Through the analysis of the communication patterns of over 330,000 individuals on the online forum Reddit, totaling approximately 55 billion words of text, the findings of the current article demonstrates that social information about word usage allows for unique aspects of a word’s meaning to be acquired, providing a new pathway for distributional model development.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 101441"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39534014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Word vs. World Knowledge: A developmental shift from bottom-up lexical cues to top-down plausibility 词汇vs.世界知识:从自下而上的词汇线索到自上而下的合理性的发展转变
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101442
Anthony Yacovone, Carissa L. Shafto, Amanda Worek, Jesse Snedeker

Both 5-year-old children and adults infer the structure of a sentence as they are hearing it. Prior work, however, has found that children do not always make use of the same information that adults do to guide these inferences. Specifically, when hearing ambiguous sentences like “You can tickle the frog with the feather,” children seem to ignore the aspects of the referential context that adults rely on to resolve the ambiguity—e.g., are there two frogs in the scene, one with a feather and one without? Or is there only one frog to be tickled by using a feather? The present study explored two hypotheses about children’s failure to use high-level, top-down context cues to infer the structure of these ambiguous sentences: First, children may be less likely to use any top-down cue during comprehension. Second, children may only have difficulties with top-down cues that are unreliable predictors of which syntactic structure is being used. Thus, to disentangle these hypotheses, we conducted a visual world study of adults’ and children’s ambiguity resolution, manipulating a more reliable top-down cue (the plausibility of the interpretation) and pitting it against a robust bottom-up cue (lexical biases). We find that adults’ and children’s final interpretations are influenced by both sources of information: adults, however, give greater weight to the top-down cue, whereas children primarily rely on the bottom-up cue. Thus, children’s tendency to make minimal use of top-down information persists even when this information is highly valid and dominates adult comprehension. We propose that children have a systematic propensity to rely on bottom-up processing to a greater degree than adults, which could reflect differences in the architecture of the adult and child language comprehension systems or differences in processing speed.

5岁的孩子和成人都能在听句子的时候推断出句子的结构。然而,先前的研究发现,儿童并不总是像成年人那样利用同样的信息来指导这些推断。具体来说,当听到像“你可以用羽毛挠青蛙”这样模棱两可的句子时,孩子们似乎忽略了成年人用来解决模棱两可的参考环境的各个方面。场景中是否有两只青蛙,一只有羽毛,一只没有?还是只有一只青蛙可以用羽毛挠痒?本研究探讨了两种关于儿童无法使用高水平、自上而下的语境线索来推断这些模棱两可句子结构的假设:第一,儿童在理解过程中可能不太可能使用自上而下的线索。其次,孩子们可能只对自上而下的线索有困难,这些线索对使用的句法结构是不可靠的预测。因此,为了解开这些假设,我们对成人和儿童的歧义解决进行了一项视觉世界研究,操纵更可靠的自上而下线索(解释的合理性),并将其与强大的自下而上线索(词汇偏见)进行比较。我们发现,成人和儿童的最终解释都受到两种信息来源的影响:然而,成人更重视自上而下的线索,而儿童主要依赖自下而上的线索。因此,儿童很少使用自上而下信息的倾向持续存在,即使这些信息是高度有效的,并主导成年人的理解。我们认为,儿童比成人更倾向于依赖自下而上的加工,这可能反映了成人和儿童语言理解系统的结构差异或加工速度的差异。
{"title":"Word vs. World Knowledge: A developmental shift from bottom-up lexical cues to top-down plausibility","authors":"Anthony Yacovone,&nbsp;Carissa L. Shafto,&nbsp;Amanda Worek,&nbsp;Jesse Snedeker","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101442","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101442","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Both 5-year-old children and adults infer the structure of a sentence as they are hearing it. Prior work, however, has found that children do not always make use of the same information that adults do to guide these inferences. Specifically, when hearing ambiguous sentences like “You can tickle the frog with the feather,” children seem to ignore the aspects of the referential context that adults rely on to resolve the ambiguity—e.g., are there two frogs in the scene, one with a feather and one without? Or is there only one frog to be tickled by using a feather? The present study explored two hypotheses about children’s failure to use high-level, top-down context cues to infer the structure of these ambiguous sentences: First, children may be less likely to use <em>any</em> top-down cue during comprehension. Second, children may only have difficulties with top-down cues that are unreliable predictors of which syntactic structure is being used. Thus, to disentangle these hypotheses, we conducted a visual world study of adults’ and children’s ambiguity resolution, manipulating a more reliable top-down cue (the plausibility of the interpretation) and pitting it against a robust bottom-up cue (lexical biases). We find that adults’ and children’s final interpretations are influenced by both sources of information: adults, however, give greater weight to the top-down cue, whereas children primarily rely on the bottom-up cue. Thus, children’s tendency to make minimal use of top-down information persists even when this information is highly valid and dominates adult comprehension. We propose that children have a systematic propensity to rely on bottom-up processing to a greater degree than adults, which could reflect differences in the architecture of the adult and child language comprehension systems or differences in processing speed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 101442"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39783913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How “is” shapes “ought” for folk-biological concepts 形状在民间生物学概念中的“应该”是怎样的
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-11-24 DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/k2sfm
Emily Foster-Hanson, T. Lombrozo
Knowing which features are frequent among a biological kind (e.g., that most zebras have stripes) shapes people's representations of what category members are like (e.g., that typical zebras have stripes) and normative judgments about what they ought to be like (e.g., that zebras should have stripes). In the current work, we ask if people's inclination to explain why features are frequent is a key mechanism through which what "is" shapes beliefs about what "ought" to be. Across four studies (N = 591), we find that frequent features are often explained by appeal to feature function (e.g., that stripes are for camouflage), that functional explanations in turn shape judgments of typicality, and that functional explanations and typicality both predict normative judgments that category members ought to have functional features. We also identify the causal assumptions that license inferences from feature frequency and function, as well as the nature of the normative inferences that are drawn: by specifying an instrumental goal (e.g., camouflage), functional explanations establish a basis for normative evaluation. These findings shed light on how and why our representations of how the natural world is shape our judgments of how it ought to be.
知道哪些特征在生物种类中是常见的(例如,大多数斑马都有条纹),可以塑造人们对类别成员是什么样的表征(例如,典型的斑马有条纹),以及对他们应该是什么样的规范性判断(例如,斑马应该有条纹)。在目前的工作中,我们提出了一个问题,即人们倾向于解释为什么特征频繁出现,这是否是一个关键机制,通过这个机制,“现状”决定了人们对“应该”是什么的信念。在四项研究中(N = 591),我们发现频繁的特征通常是通过对特征功能的吸引力来解释的(例如,条纹是用来伪装的),功能解释反过来塑造了典型性的判断,功能解释和典型性都预测了规范性判断,即类别成员应该具有功能特征。我们还确定了从特征频率和功能推断的因果假设,以及所绘制的规范性推断的性质:通过指定工具目标(例如,伪装),功能解释为规范性评估奠定了基础。这些发现揭示了我们对自然世界的描述如何以及为什么会影响我们对自然世界应该如何的判断。
{"title":"How “is” shapes “ought” for folk-biological concepts","authors":"Emily Foster-Hanson, T. Lombrozo","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/k2sfm","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k2sfm","url":null,"abstract":"Knowing which features are frequent among a biological kind (e.g., that most zebras have stripes) shapes people's representations of what category members are like (e.g., that typical zebras have stripes) and normative judgments about what they ought to be like (e.g., that zebras should have stripes). In the current work, we ask if people's inclination to explain why features are frequent is a key mechanism through which what \"is\" shapes beliefs about what \"ought\" to be. Across four studies (N = 591), we find that frequent features are often explained by appeal to feature function (e.g., that stripes are for camouflage), that functional explanations in turn shape judgments of typicality, and that functional explanations and typicality both predict normative judgments that category members ought to have functional features. We also identify the causal assumptions that license inferences from feature frequency and function, as well as the nature of the normative inferences that are drawn: by specifying an instrumental goal (e.g., camouflage), functional explanations establish a basis for normative evaluation. These findings shed light on how and why our representations of how the natural world is shape our judgments of how it ought to be.","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"139 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69647707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Evidence for multiple sources of inductive potential: Occupations and their relations to social institutions 诱导潜能的多重来源的证据:职业及其与社会制度的关系
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101422
Alexander Noyes , Yarrow Dunham , Frank C. Keil , Katherine Ritchie

Several current theories have essences as primary drivers of inductive potential: e.g., people infer dogs share properties because they share essences. We investigated the possibility that people take occupational roles as having robust inductive potential because of a different source: their position in stable social institutions. In Studies 1–4, participants learned a novel property about a target, and then decided whether two new individuals had the property (one with the same occupation, one without). Participants used occupational roles to robustly generalize rights and obligations, functional behaviors, personality traits, and skills. In Studies 5–6, we contrasted occupational roles (via label) with race/gender (via visual face cues). Participants reliably favored occupational roles over race/gender for generalizing rights and obligations, functional behaviors, personality traits, and skills (they favored race/gender for inferring leisure behaviors and physiological properties). Occupational roles supported inferences to the same extent as animal categories (Studies 4 and 6). In Study 7, we examined why members of occupational roles share properties. Participants did not attribute the inductive potential of occupational roles to essences, they attributed it to social institutions. In combination, these seven studies demonstrate that any theory of inductive potential must pluralistically allow for both essences and social institutions to form the basis of inductive potential.

目前的一些理论认为,本质是归纳电位的主要驱动因素:例如,人们推断狗有共同的属性,因为它们有共同的本质。我们调查了人们扮演具有强大诱导潜能的职业角色的可能性,因为一个不同的来源:他们在稳定的社会机构中的地位。在研究1-4中,参与者了解了一个目标的新特性,然后决定两个新个体是否具有该特性(一个具有相同的职业,一个没有)。参与者使用职业角色来概括权利和义务、功能性行为、人格特征和技能。在研究5-6中,我们将职业角色(通过标签)与种族/性别(通过视觉面部线索)进行了对比。在概括权利和义务、功能行为、人格特征和技能方面,参与者更倾向于职业角色,而不是种族/性别(在推断休闲行为和生理特性方面,他们更倾向于种族/性别)。职业角色支持推理的程度与动物类别相同(研究4和6)。在研究7中,我们研究了为什么职业角色的成员共享属性。参与者没有将职业角色的诱导潜能归因于本质,他们将其归因于社会制度。综上所述,这七项研究表明,任何归纳电位理论都必须多元地考虑到构成归纳电位基础的本质和社会制度。
{"title":"Evidence for multiple sources of inductive potential: Occupations and their relations to social institutions","authors":"Alexander Noyes ,&nbsp;Yarrow Dunham ,&nbsp;Frank C. Keil ,&nbsp;Katherine Ritchie","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101422","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101422","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Several current theories have essences as primary drivers of inductive potential: e.g., people infer dogs share properties because they share essences. We investigated the possibility that people take occupational roles as having robust inductive potential because of a different source: their position in stable social institutions. In Studies 1–4, participants learned a novel property about a target, and then decided whether two new individuals had the property (one with the same occupation, one without). Participants used occupational roles to robustly generalize rights and obligations, functional behaviors, </span>personality traits, and skills. In Studies 5–6, we contrasted occupational roles (via label) with race/gender (via visual face cues). Participants reliably favored occupational roles over race/gender for generalizing rights and obligations, functional behaviors, personality traits, and skills (they favored race/gender for inferring leisure behaviors and physiological properties). Occupational roles supported inferences to the same extent as animal categories (Studies 4 and 6). In Study 7, we examined why members of occupational roles share properties. Participants did not attribute the inductive potential of occupational roles to essences, they attributed it to social institutions. In combination, these seven studies demonstrate that any theory of inductive potential must pluralistically allow for both essences and social institutions to form the basis of inductive potential.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 101422"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101422","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39392825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Mind the gap: How incomplete explanations influence children’s interest and learning behaviors 注意差距:不完整的解释如何影响孩子的兴趣和学习行为
IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421
Judith H. Danovitch , Candice M. Mills , Kaitlin R. Sands , Allison J. Williams

Children rely on others’ explanations to learn scientific concepts, yet sometimes the explanations they receive are incomplete. Three studies explore how receiving incomplete or complete explanations influences children’s subsequent interest and engagement in learning behaviors to obtain additional information about a topic. Children ages 7–10 (N = 275; 49% female, 51% male; 55% white) viewed question-and-answer exchanges about animal behaviors that included either a complete causal explanation of the behavior or an explanation that was missing a key step. Children rated how knowledgeable they felt after hearing the explanation (Study 1) or how much information was missing from the explanation (Studies 2 and 3) and reported how interested they were in learning more about the topic. They also completed two measures of learning behaviors: a book choice task (all studies) and a card choice task (Studies 1 and 2). In the book choice task, children opted to learn about the topics of the incomplete explanations more frequently than the topics of the complete explanations. However, there was no evidence of selective learning behaviors in the card choice task and children’s self-reported interest in learning more about each animal behavior was not directly related to the type of explanation they had received. Individual differences in children’s interest and learning behaviors were linked to verbal intelligence and domain-specific biological knowledge. Implications for the information-gap theory of learning and children’s learning in multiple contexts are discussed.

孩子们依靠别人的解释来学习科学概念,但有时他们得到的解释是不完整的。三项研究探讨了接受不完整或完整的解释如何影响儿童随后对学习行为的兴趣和参与,以获得有关主题的额外信息。7-10岁儿童(N = 275;女性49%,男性51%;55%白人)观看了关于动物行为的问答交流,其中包括对行为的完整因果解释或缺少关键步骤的解释。孩子们在听到解释(研究1)或解释中缺少多少信息(研究2和3)后对自己的知识程度进行了评分,并报告了他们对更多地了解该主题的兴趣程度。他们还完成了两项学习行为测试:选书任务(所有研究)和选卡任务(研究1和2)。在选书任务中,孩子们选择学习不完整解释的主题比学习完整解释的主题更频繁。然而,在卡片选择任务中没有选择性学习行为的证据,儿童自我报告的对学习每种动物行为的兴趣与他们收到的解释类型没有直接关系。儿童兴趣和学习行为的个体差异与语言智力和特定领域的生物知识有关。讨论了信息缺口学习理论和儿童多情境学习的启示。
{"title":"Mind the gap: How incomplete explanations influence children’s interest and learning behaviors","authors":"Judith H. Danovitch ,&nbsp;Candice M. Mills ,&nbsp;Kaitlin R. Sands ,&nbsp;Allison J. Williams","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Children rely on others’ explanations to learn scientific concepts, yet sometimes the explanations they receive are incomplete. Three studies explore how receiving incomplete or complete explanations influences children’s subsequent interest and engagement in learning behaviors to obtain additional information about a topic. Children ages 7–10 (<em>N</em> = 275; 49% female, 51% male; 55% white) viewed question-and-answer exchanges about animal behaviors that included either a complete causal explanation of the behavior or an explanation that was missing a key step. Children rated how knowledgeable they felt after hearing the explanation (Study 1) or how much information was missing from the explanation (Studies 2 and 3) and reported how interested they were in learning more about the topic. They also completed two measures of learning behaviors: a book choice task (all studies) and a card choice task (Studies 1 and 2). In the book choice task, children opted to learn about the topics of the incomplete explanations more frequently than the topics of the complete explanations. However, there was no evidence of selective learning behaviors in the card choice task and children’s self-reported interest in learning more about each animal behavior was not directly related to the type of explanation they had received. Individual differences in children’s interest and learning behaviors were linked to verbal intelligence and domain-specific biological knowledge. Implications for the information-gap theory of learning and children’s learning in multiple contexts are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 101421"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101421","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39337515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
期刊
Cognitive Psychology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1