心理科学进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (11): 1829-1843.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01829
张湘一, 吴一琳
收稿日期:
2024-02-28
出版日期:
2024-11-15
发布日期:
2024-09-05
通讯作者:
张湘一, E-mail: xiangyizhang@hunnu.edu.cn
ZHANG Xiangyi, WU Yilin
Received:
2024-02-28
Online:
2024-11-15
Published:
2024-09-05
摘要: 视觉注意作为一种信息选择和认知资源分配机制, 不仅是信息加工和认知功能的基础, 也是完成各种社会行为的重要条件。大量研究证实视觉注意影响了个体的决策偏好。本文在全面回顾以往研究的基础上, 从知觉决策、偏好决策和其他社会决策三个方面梳理了视觉注意对决策的影响; 并且, 总结了简单暴露效应(mere exposure effect)、注视层叠假说(gaze cascade hypothesis)、序列抽样模型(sequential sampling model)和自适应注意表征模型(adaptive attention representation model)对视觉注意影响三种决策作用机制的解释。未来研究可以考虑设置具有不同偏好程度的选项、决策情境或视觉环境的调节因素、其他类型的注意在决策中的作用以深化关于视觉注意对决策的影响及其作用机制问题的理解。
中图分类号:
张湘一, 吴一琳. (2024). 视觉注意对决策的影响及其作用机制. 心理科学进展 , 32(11), 1829-1843.
ZHANG Xiangyi, WU Yilin. (2024). The impact of visual attention on decision-making and its mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(11), 1829-1843.
[1] 陈诗婷, 杨文登. (2023). 嗅觉影响社会判断与决策的作用与机制. 心理科学进展, 31(10), 1899-1911. [2] 黄元娜, 江程铭, 刘洪志, 李纾. (2023). 风险、跨期和空间决策的决策策略共享:眼动和主观判断的证据. 心理学报, 55(6), 994-1015. [3] 刘洪志, 李兴珊, 李纾, 饶俪琳. (2022). 基于期望值最大化的理论何时失效:风险决策中为自己-为所有人决策差异的眼动研究. 心理学报, 54(12), 1517-1531. [4] 刘洪志, 杨钘兰, 李秋月, 魏子晗. (2023). 跨期决策中的维度差异偏好:眼动证据. 心理学报, 55(4), 612-625. [5] Amasino D. R., Sullivan N. J., Kranton R. E., & Huettel S. A. (2019). Amount and time exert independent influences on intertemporal choice. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(4), 383-392. [6] Anders R., Van Maanen L., & Alario F.-X. (2019). Multi- factor analysis in language production: Sequential sampling models mimic and extend regression results. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 36(5-6), 234-264. [7] Bhatnagar, R., & Orquin, J. L. (2022). A meta-analysis on the effect of visual attention on choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(10), 2265-2283. [8] Bigné E., Ruiz-Mafé C., & Badenes-Rocha A. (2023). The influence of negative emotions on brand trust and intention to share cause-related posts: A neuroscientific study. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113628. [9] Bornstein, R. F., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 545-552. [10] Brady W. J., Gantman A. P., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 746-756. [11] Brüns, J. D., & Meissner, M. (2023). Show me that you are advertising: Visual salience of products attenuates detrimental effects of persuasion knowledge activation in influencer advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107891. [12] Callaway F., Rangel A., & Griffiths T. L. (2021). Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling. Plos Computational Biology, 17(3), e1008863. [13] Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484-1525. [14] Carrasco, M., & Barbot, A. (2019). Spatial attention alters visual appearance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 56-64. [15] Castagna P. J., van Noordt S., Sederberg P. B., & Crowley M. J. (2023). Modeling brain dynamics and gaze behavior: Starting point bias and drift rate relate to frontal midline theta oscillations. NeuroImage, 268, 119871. [16] Cavanagh J. F., Wiecki T. V., Kochar A., & Frank M. J. (2014). Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1476-1488. [17] Cavanagh S. E., Malalasekera W. M. N., Miranda B., Hunt L. T., & Kennerley S. W. (2019). Visual fixation patterns during economic choice reflect covert valuation processes that emerge with learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(45), 22795-22801. [18] Chang, S., & Egeth, H. E. (2019). Enhancement and suppression flexibly guide attention. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1724-1732. [19] Chang S. H., Dube B., Golomb J. D., & Leber A. B. (2023). Learned spatial suppression is not always proactive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(7), 1031-1041. [20] Chapman A. F., Chunharas C., & Störmer V. (2023). Feature-based attention warps the perception of visual features. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6487. [21] Cheadle S., Wyart V., Tsetsos K., Myers N., de Gardelle V., Castanon S. H., & Summerfield C. (2014). Adaptive gain control during human perceptual choice. Neuron, 81(6), 1429-1441. [22] Chen X. W., Xu B., Chen Y. Z., Zeng X. Q., Zhang Y., & Fu S. M. (2023). Saliency affects attentional capture and suppression of abrupt-onset and color singleton distractors: Evidence from event-related potential studies. Psychophysiology, 60(8), e14290. [23] Chun M. M., Golomb J. D., & Turk-Browne N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73-101. [24] De Freitas, J., & Alvarez, G. A. (2018). Your visual system provides all the information you need to make moral judgments about generic visual events. Cognition, 178, 133-146. [25] Effron, D. A. (2022). The moral repetition effect: Bad deeds seem less unethical when repeatedly encountered. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(10), 2562-2585. [26] Eum B., Dolbier S., & Rangel A. (2023). Peripheral visual information halves attentional choice biases. Psychological Science, 34(9), 984-998. [27] Evans N. J., Holmes W. R., Dasari A., & Trueblood J. S. (2021). The impact of presentation order on attraction and repulsion effects in decision-making. Decision, 8(1), 36-54. [28] Fisher, G. (2021). Intertemporal choices are causally influenced by fluctuations in visual attention. Management Science, 67(8), 4961-4981. [29] Fontanesi L., Gluth S., Spektor M. S., & Rieskamp J. (2019). A reinforcement learning diffusion decision model for value-based decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1099-1121. [30] Galdo M., Weichart E. R., Sloutsky V. M., & Turner B. M. (2022). The quest for simplicity in human learning: Identifying the constraints on attention. Cognitive Psychology, 138, 101508. [31] Gehrer N. A., Zajenkowska A., Bodecka M., & Schönenberg M. (2021). Attention orienting to the eyes in violent female and male offenders: An eye-tracking study. Biological Psychology, 163, 108136. [32] Ghaffari, M., & Fiedler, S. (2018). The power of attention: Using eye gaze to predict other-regarding and moral choices. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1878-1889. [33] Glickman, M., & Usher, M. (2019). Integration to boundary in decisions between numerical sequences. Cognition, 193, 104022. [34] Gluth S., Hotaling J. M., & Rieskamp J. (2017). The attraction effect modulates reward prediction errors and intertemporal choices. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(2), 371-382. [35] Gluth S., Kern N., Kortmann M., & Vitali C. L. (2020). Value-based attention but not divisive normalization influences decisions with multiple alternatives. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 634-645. [36] Gluth S., Spektor M. S., & Rieskamp J. (2018). Value-based attentional capture affects multi-alternative decision making. eLife, 7, e39659. [37] Gwinn R., Leber A. B., & Krajbich I. (2019). The spillover effects of attentional learning on value-based choice. Cognition, 182, 294-306. [38] Hamblin-Frohman Z., Chang S., Egeth H., & Becker S. I. (2022). Eye movements reveal the contributions of early and late processes of enhancement and suppression to the guidance of visual search. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 84(6), 1913-1924. [39] He L. S., Wall D., Reeck C., & Bhatia S. (2023). Information acquisition and decision strategies in intertemporal choice. Cognitive Psychology, 142, 101562. [40] Hedger, N., & Chakrabarti, B. (2021). Autistic differences in the temporal dynamics of social attention. Autism, 25(6), 1615-1626. [41] Heffernan E. M., Adema J. D., & Mack M. L. (2021). Identifying the neural dynamics of category decisions with computational model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(5), 1638-1647. [42] Hirmas, A., & Engelmann, J. B. (2023). Impulsiveness moderates the effects of exogenous attention on the sensitivity to gains and losses in risky lotteries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 95, 102600. [43] Huber J., Payne J. W., & Puto C. P. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98. [44] Ito T., Wu D. A., Marutani T., Yamamoto M., Suzuki H., Shimojo S., & Matsuda T. (2014). Changing the mind? Not really-activity and connectivity in the caudate correlates with changes of choice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(10), 1546-1551. [45] Jangard S., Lindström B., Khemiri L., Pärnamets P., Jayaram-Lindström N., & Olsson A. (2022). Alcohol use disorder displays trait-related reductions in prosocial decision making. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 7(9), 925-934. [46] Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2022). A self-supervised domain-general learning framework for human ventral stream representation. Nature Communications, 13(1), 491. [47] Krajbich, I. (2019). Accounting for attention in sequential sampling models of decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 6-11. [48] Krajbich I., Armel C., & Rangel A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292-1298. [49] Krajbich I., Mitsumasu A., Polania R., Ruff C. C., & Fehr E. (2021). A causal role for the right frontal eye fields in value comparison. eLife, 10, e67477. [50] Lee, D. G., & Usher, M. (2023). Value certainty in drift-diffusion models of preferential choice. Psychological Review, 130(3), 790-806. [51] Liao J. J., Chen Y. J., Lin W. J., & Mo L. (2021). The influence of distance between decoy and target on context effect: Attraction or repulsion? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 432-447. [52] Liu H. Z., Lyu X. K., Wei Z. H., Mo W. L., Luo J. R., & Su X. Y. (2020). Exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze to bias intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 419-431. [53] Liu H. Z., Zhou Y. B., Wei Z. H., & Jiang C. M. (2020). The power of last fixation: Biasing simple choices by gaze-contingent manipulation. Acta Psychologica, 208, 103106. [54] Marini M., Ansani A., & Paglieri F. (2020). Attraction comes from many sources: Attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(5), 704-726. [55] Martinovici A., Pieters R., & Erdem T. (2023). Attention trajectories capture utility accumulation and predict brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(4), 625-645. [56] McColeman C., Barnes J., Chen L., Meier K., Walshe R., & Blair M. (2014). Learning-induced changes in attentional allocation during categorization: A sizable catalog of attention change as measured by eye movements. PloS One, 9(1), e83302. [57] Mohn J. L., Downer J. D., O'Connor K. N., Johnson J. S., & Sutter M. L. (2021). Choice-related activity and neural encoding in primary auditory cortex and lateral belt during feature selective attention. Journal of Neurophysiology. 125(5), 1920-1937. [58] Molter F., Thomas A. W., Huettel S. A., Heekeren H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2022). Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour. PLoS Computational Biology, 18(7), e1010283. [59] Montoya R. M., Horton R. S., Vevea J. L., Citkowicz M., & Lauber E. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 459-498. [60] Mormann, M., & Russo, J. E. (2021). Does attention increase the value of choice alternatives? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(4), 305-315. [61] Newell, B. R., & Pelley, M. E. L. (2018). Perceptual but not complex moral judgments can be biased by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(3), 409-417. [62] Nguyen, Q. N., & Reinagel, P. (2022). Different forms of variability could explain a difference between human and rat decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16, 794681. [63] Nosofsky, R. M., & Hu, M. J. (2023). Category structure and region-specific selective attention. Memory & Cognition, 51(4), 915-929. [64] Nuiten S. A., De Gee J. W., Zantvoord J. B., Fahrenfort J. J., & van Gaal S. (2023). Catecholaminergic neuromodulation and selective attention jointly shape perceptual decision- making. eLife, 12, RP87022. [65] O’Connell, R. G., & Kelly, S. P. (2021). Neurophysiology of human perceptual decision-making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 44(1), 495-516. [66] Omyan S., Mazidi M., & Khatibi A. (2023). Selective attention to pain and empathy: Studying frequent blood donors. Brain and Behavior, 13(1), e2841. [67] Orquin J. L., Lahm E. S., & Stojić H. (2021). The visual environment and attention in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 597-617. [68] Palacios-Ibáñez A., Marín-Morales J., Contero M., & Alcañiz M. (2023). Predicting decision-making in virtual environments: An eye movement analysis with household products. Applied Sciences, 13(12), 7124. [69] Pärnamets P., Johansson P., Hall L., Balkenius C., Spivey M. J., & Richardson D. C. (2015). Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(13), 4170-4175. [70] Perkovic S., Schoemann M., Lagerkvist C. J., & Orquin J. L. (2023). Covert attention leads to fast and accurate decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(1), 78-94. [71] Pleskac T. J., Yu S. L., Grunevski S., & Liu T. S. (2023). Attention biases preferential choice by enhancing an option's value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 993-1010. [72] Rangelov, D., & Mattingley, J. B. (2020). Evidence accumulation during perceptual decision-making is sensitive to the dynamics of attentional selection. NeuroImage, 220, 117093. [73] Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59-108. [74] Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333-367. [75] Rhilinger J. P., Xu C. L. X., & Rose N. S. (2023). Are irrelevant items actively deleted from visual working memory?: No evidence from repulsion and attraction effects in dual-retrocue tasks. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 85(5), 1499-1516. [76] Rich, A. S., & Gureckis, T. M. (2018). The limits of learning: Exploration, generalization, and the development of learning traps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1553-1570. [77] Roberts, I. D., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2019). Affect and decision making: Insights and predictions from computational models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(7), 602-614. [78] Roberts I. D., Teoh Y. Y., & Hutcherson C. A. (2022). Time to pay attention? Information search explains amplified framing effects under time pressure. Psychological Science, 33(1), 90-104. [79] Rose L., Kovarski K., Caetta F., Makowski D., & Chokron S. (2024). Beyond empathy: Cognitive capabilities increase or curb altruism in middle childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 239, 105810. [80] Rosner A., Schaffner M., & von Helversen B. (2022). When the eyes have it and when not: How multiple sources of activation combine to guide eye movements during multiattribute decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(6), 1394-1418. [81] Saito T., Motoki K., Nouchi R., & Sugiura M. (2023). Facilitating animacy perception by manipulating stimuli exposure time. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1017685. [82] Sharma, S. N., & Khan, A. (2022). Self-other differences in intertemporal decision making: An eye-tracking investigation. Consciousness and Cognition, 102, 103356. [83] Shevlin, B. R. K., & Krajbich, I. (2021). Attention as a source of variability in decision-making: Accounting for overall-value effects with diffusion models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 105, 102594. [84] Shevlin B. R. K., Smith S. M., Hausfeld J., & Krajbich I. (2022). High-value decisions are fast and accurate, inconsistent with diminishing value sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(6), e2101508119. [85] Shimojo S., Simion C., Shimojo E., & Scheier C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1317-1322. [86] Smith, P. L., & Lilburn, S. D. (2020). Vision for the blind: Visual psychophysics and blinded inference for decision models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(5), 882-910. [87] Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Attention and choice across domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1810-1826. [88] Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. (2019). Gaze amplifies value in decision making. Psychological Science, 30(1), 116-128. [89] Spektor M. S., Bhatia S., & Gluth S. (2021). The elusiveness of context effects in decision making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(10), 844-857. [90] Spektor M. S., Kellen D., & Hotaling J. M. (2018). When the good looks bad: An experimental exploration of the repulsion effect. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1309-1320. [91] Spektor M. S., Kellen D., & Klauer K. C. (2022). The repulsion effect in preferential choice and its relation to perceptual choice. Cognition, 225, 105164. [92] Spering, M. (2022). Eye movements as a window into decision-making. Annual Review of Vision Science, 8, 427-448. [93] Stephensen M. B., Schulze C., Landro M., Hendrikx J., & Hetland A. (2021). Should I judge safety or danger? Perceived risk depends on the question frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(3), 485-502. [94] Stojić H., Orquin J. L., Dayan P., Dolan R. J., & Speekenbrink M. (2020). Uncertainty in learning, choice, and visual fixation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(6), 3291-3300. [95] Sullivan, N. J., & Huettel, S. A. (2021). Healthful choices depend on the latency and rate of information accumulation. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1698-1706. [96] Teigen, K. H. (2023). Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges. Current Psychology, 42(33), 29122-29137. [97] Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2022). The games we play: Prosocial choices under time pressure reflect context- sensitive information priorities. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1541-1556. [98] Teoh Y. Y., Yao Z., Cunningham W. A., & Hutcherson C. A. (2020). Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3534. [99] Thomas A. W., Molter F., Krajbich I., Heekeren H. R., & Mohr, P. N. C. (2019). Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 625-635. [100] Tsai S. Y., Nasemann J., Qiu N., Töllner T., Müller H. J., & Shi Z. H. (2023). Little engagement of attention by salient distractors defined in a different dimension or modality to the visual search target. Psychophysiology, 60(12), e14375. [101] van Moorselaar D., Huang C. R., & Theeuwes J. (2023). Electrophysiological indices of distractor processing in visual search are shaped by target expectations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 35(6), 1032-1044. [102] Vanunu Y., Hotaling J. M., Le Pelley M. E., & Newell B. R. (2021). How top-down and bottom-up attention modulate risky choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(39), e2025646118. [103] Wang, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2020). Salience determines attentional orienting in visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(10), 1051-1057. [104] Wedel M., Pieters R., & van der Lans, R. (2023). Modeling eye movements during decision making: A review. Psychometrika, 88(2), 697-729. [105] Wei Z.-H., Liang Y., Liang C.-J., & Liu H.-Z. (2023). Information search processing affects social decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(5), e2352. [106] Weichart E. R., Galdo M., Sloutsky V., & Turner B. (2022). As within, so without, as above, so below: Common mechanisms can support between- and within-trial category learning dynamics. Psychological Review, 129(5), 1104-1143. [107] Weilbächer R. A., Krajbich I., Rieskamp J., & Gluth S. (2021). The influence of visual attention on memory-based preferential choice. Cognition, 215, 104804. [108] Westbrook A., van den Bosch R., Määttä J. I., Hofmans L., Papadopetraki D., Cools R., & Frank M. J. (2020). Dopamine promotes cognitive effort by biasing the benefits versus costs of cognitive work. Science, 367(6484), 1362-1366. [109] Wolf A., Ounjai K., Takahashi M., Kobayashi S., Matsuda T., & Lauwereyns J. (2019). Evaluative processing of food images: Longer viewing for indecisive preference formation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 608. [110] Wong, R. S. (2023). An experimental investigation of attribute framing effects on risky sourcing behaviour: The mediating role of attention allocated to suppliers' quality information. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(13), 205-225. [111] Yang, X. Z., & Krajbich, I. (2023). A dynamic computational model of gaze and choice in multi-attribute decisions. Psychological Review, 130(1), 52-70. [112] Yu X., Johal S. K., & Geng J. J. (2022). Visual search guidance uses coarser template information than target- match decisions. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 84(5), 1432-1445. [113] Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27. [114] Zhou X., Hao Y., Xu S., & Zhang Q. (2023). Statistical learning of target location and distractor location rely on different mechanisms during visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(2), 342-365. [115] Zhou Y.-B., Li Q., & Liu H.-Z. (2021). Visual attention and time preference reversals. Judgement and Decision Making, 16(4), 1010-1038. [116] Zhu, T. Y. (2022). Accounting for the last-sampling bias in perceptual decision-making. Cognition, 223, 105049. [117] Zilker, V. (2022). Stronger attentional biases can be linked to higher reward rate in preferential choice. Cognition, 225, 105095. [118] Zilker, V., & Pachur, T. (2023). Attribute attention and option attention in risky choice. Cognition, 236, 105441. |
[1] | 李硕, 蒋毅, 王莹. 基于规律的注意偏向及其时间进程[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(suppl.): 89-89. |
[2] | 孙昀, 张琪. 视觉二阶特征的注意抑制机制及迁移[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(suppl.): 122-122. |
[3] | 杨开富, 李永杰. 视觉引导注意的计算模型及应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(suppl.): 175-175. |
[4] | 郭彦铄, 马小凤, 潘柯宇, 张欢. 快速自动命名对阅读的影响及其作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(6): 1020-1029. |
[5] | 陈诗婷, 杨文登. 嗅觉影响社会判断与决策的作用与机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(10): 1899-1911. |
[6] | 张帆, 陈艾睿, 董波, 王爱君, 张明. 视觉注意捕获的快速脱离假说与信号抑制假说[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 45-55. |
[7] | 赵婧. 发展性阅读障碍的视觉注意广度技能[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(1): 20-26. |
[8] | 陆静怡, 尚雪松. 为他人做决策:多维度心理机制与决策体验[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(9): 1545-1552. |
[9] | 陈艾睿, 唐晓雨, 王爱君, 张 明. 视觉注意离散性的实验范式[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(6): 923-932. |
[10] | 杨建锋;明晓东. 中国情境下团队伦理决策的过程机制及影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(4): 542-552. |
[11] | 邓涛; 颜红梅. 动态驾驶场景中驾驶员的眼动特性研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(Suppl.): 54-. |
[12] | 杨群; 李煜; 孙得琳; Tatia M. C. LEE. 应激对风险和社会决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(6): 974-984. |
[13] | 孙龙;常若松;高远;马伶. 驾驶员视觉注意对危险识别的影响及作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(11): 1733-1739. |
[14] | 张豹;黄赛. 工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(9): 1578-1584. |
[15] | 罗艺;封春亮;古若雷;吴婷婷;罗跃嘉. 社会决策中的公平准则及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(2): 300-308. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||