Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (12): 2263-2274.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02263
• Meta-Analysis • Previous Articles Next Articles
YANG Jiumin1, ZHANG Yi2, YANG Ronghua1, PI Zhongling3()
Received:
2022-09-28
Online:
2023-12-15
Published:
2023-09-11
CLC Number:
YANG Jiumin, ZHANG Yi, YANG Ronghua, PI Zhongling. A meta-analysis of the effects of imagination strategy on multimedia learning[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(12): 2263-2274.
研究者 | 被试群体 | 样本量 | 材料是否可见 | 使用时机 | 因变量 | g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glenberg, et al., | 儿童 | 25 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 1.16 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 儿童 | 24 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.87 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 儿童 | 32 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 1.07 |
Leutner et al., | 儿童 | 111 | 是 | 中 | 理解 | 0.19 |
认知负荷 | 0.45 | |||||
Scheiter et al., | 成人 | 123 | 是 | 中 | 理解 | 0.34 |
迁移 | 0.11 | |||||
时间 | -0.42 | |||||
Leopold et al., | 成人 | 81 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.96 |
保持 | 0.67 | |||||
Leopold et al., | 成人 | 75 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.29 |
保持 | 0.68 | |||||
Schmidgall et al., | 成人 | 104 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.18 |
迁移 | -0.02 | |||||
时间 | -1.56 | |||||
成人 | 100 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.16 | |
迁移 | 0.17 | |||||
时间 | 1.77 | |||||
de Koning et al., | 成人 | 92 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.47 |
理解 | 0.26 | |||||
迁移 | 0.08 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.03 | |||||
de Koning et al., | 成人 | 87 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.35 |
理解 | 0.69 | |||||
迁移 | -0.18 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.25 | |||||
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 28 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.63 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 20 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.41 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 22 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | -1.08 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 36 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.90 |
迁移 | -0.94 | |||||
时间 | 0.40 | |||||
Tindal-Ford & Sweller, | 儿童 | 22 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.49 |
迁移 | 0.12 | |||||
Huang & Mayer, | 成人 | 142 | 是 | 后 | 保持 | 0.38 |
迁移 | 0.42 | |||||
Ignatova et al., | 成人 | 44 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.80 |
Ignatova et al., | 成人 | 60 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.03 |
认知负荷 | -0.52 | |||||
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.80 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.48 |
迁移 | 0.82 | |||||
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.51 |
Wang et al., | 成人 | 93 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.35 |
认知负荷 | -1.55 | |||||
Wang et al., | 儿童 | 90 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 1.25 |
认知负荷 | -0.92 | |||||
徐珂, | 儿童 | 120 | 否 | 后 | 保持 | -0.26 |
迁移 | -0.36 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.01 | |||||
Leopold & Mayer, | 成人 | 85 | 未明确 | 中 | 认知负荷 | 0.00 |
迁移 | 0.75 | |||||
保持 | 0.77 | |||||
时间 | 0.79 | |||||
Leopold & Mayer, | 成人 | 48 | 未明确 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.83 |
保持 | 0.97 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.46 | |||||
时间 | 0.85 | |||||
Ploetzner & Fillisch, | 成人 | 52 | 未明确 | 中 | 理解 | 0.16 |
Cheng & Beal, | 成人 | 82 | 未明确 | 中 | 保持 | -0.10 |
迁移 | 0.01 | |||||
时间 | -1.02 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.24 | |||||
Lin et al., | 成人 | 63 | 未明确 | 后 | 理解 | 0.00 |
认知负荷 | 0.60 | |||||
时间 | 0.65 |
研究者 | 被试群体 | 样本量 | 材料是否可见 | 使用时机 | 因变量 | g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Glenberg, et al., | 儿童 | 25 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 1.16 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 儿童 | 24 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.87 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 儿童 | 32 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 1.07 |
Leutner et al., | 儿童 | 111 | 是 | 中 | 理解 | 0.19 |
认知负荷 | 0.45 | |||||
Scheiter et al., | 成人 | 123 | 是 | 中 | 理解 | 0.34 |
迁移 | 0.11 | |||||
时间 | -0.42 | |||||
Leopold et al., | 成人 | 81 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.96 |
保持 | 0.67 | |||||
Leopold et al., | 成人 | 75 | 是 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.29 |
保持 | 0.68 | |||||
Schmidgall et al., | 成人 | 104 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.18 |
迁移 | -0.02 | |||||
时间 | -1.56 | |||||
成人 | 100 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.16 | |
迁移 | 0.17 | |||||
时间 | 1.77 | |||||
de Koning et al., | 成人 | 92 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.47 |
理解 | 0.26 | |||||
迁移 | 0.08 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.03 | |||||
de Koning et al., | 成人 | 87 | 是 | 中 | 保持 | 0.35 |
理解 | 0.69 | |||||
迁移 | -0.18 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.25 | |||||
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 28 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.63 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 20 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.41 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 22 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | -1.08 |
Cooper et al., | 儿童 | 36 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.90 |
迁移 | -0.94 | |||||
时间 | 0.40 | |||||
Tindal-Ford & Sweller, | 儿童 | 22 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.49 |
迁移 | 0.12 | |||||
Huang & Mayer, | 成人 | 142 | 是 | 后 | 保持 | 0.38 |
迁移 | 0.42 | |||||
Ignatova et al., | 成人 | 44 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 0.80 |
Ignatova et al., | 成人 | 60 | 是 | 后 | 迁移 | 1.03 |
认知负荷 | -0.52 | |||||
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.80 |
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.48 |
迁移 | 0.82 | |||||
Leahy & Sweller, | 成人 | 30 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.51 |
Wang et al., | 成人 | 93 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.35 |
认知负荷 | -1.55 | |||||
Wang et al., | 儿童 | 90 | 否 | 中 | 迁移 | 1.25 |
认知负荷 | -0.92 | |||||
徐珂, | 儿童 | 120 | 否 | 后 | 保持 | -0.26 |
迁移 | -0.36 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.01 | |||||
Leopold & Mayer, | 成人 | 85 | 未明确 | 中 | 认知负荷 | 0.00 |
迁移 | 0.75 | |||||
保持 | 0.77 | |||||
时间 | 0.79 | |||||
Leopold & Mayer, | 成人 | 48 | 未明确 | 中 | 迁移 | 0.83 |
保持 | 0.97 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.46 | |||||
时间 | 0.85 | |||||
Ploetzner & Fillisch, | 成人 | 52 | 未明确 | 中 | 理解 | 0.16 |
Cheng & Beal, | 成人 | 82 | 未明确 | 中 | 保持 | -0.10 |
迁移 | 0.01 | |||||
时间 | -1.02 | |||||
认知负荷 | 0.24 | |||||
Lin et al., | 成人 | 63 | 未明确 | 后 | 理解 | 0.00 |
认知负荷 | 0.60 | |||||
时间 | 0.65 |
结果变量 | k | n | Hedges’s g | 95% CI | 异质性 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | p | I2 | |||||
保持 | 12 | 1041 | 0.40**** | 0.19, 0.61 | 27.41 | 0.004 | 59.87 |
理解 | 6 | 525 | 0.27** | 0.09, 0.45 | 4.30 | 0.51 | 0.000 |
迁移 | 28 | 1758 | 0.43*** | 0.23, 0.63 | 104.92 | <0.001 | 74.27 |
学习时间 | 8 | 642 | -0.27 | -1.01, 0.47 | 123.06 | <0.001 | 94.31 |
认知负荷 | 11 | 928 | -0.09 | -0.44, 0.33 | 73.45 | <0.001 | 86.38 |
结果变量 | k | n | Hedges’s g | 95% CI | 异质性 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q | p | I2 | |||||
保持 | 12 | 1041 | 0.40**** | 0.19, 0.61 | 27.41 | 0.004 | 59.87 |
理解 | 6 | 525 | 0.27** | 0.09, 0.45 | 4.30 | 0.51 | 0.000 |
迁移 | 28 | 1758 | 0.43*** | 0.23, 0.63 | 104.92 | <0.001 | 74.27 |
学习时间 | 8 | 642 | -0.27 | -1.01, 0.47 | 123.06 | <0.001 | 94.31 |
认知负荷 | 11 | 928 | -0.09 | -0.44, 0.33 | 73.45 | <0.001 | 86.38 |
结果变量 | 调节变量 | k | g | 95% CI | 异质性 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | p | ||||||
保持 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 8 | 0.42 | [0.25, 0.58] | 9.25 | 0.010 |
不可见 | 1 | -0.26 | [-0.67, 0.16] | ||||
未明确 | 3 | 0.53 | [-0.13, 1.19] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 10 | 0.47 | [0.25, 0.69] | 1.34 | 0.246 | |
后 | 2 | 0.08 | [-0.56, 0.70] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 1 | 1.16 | [0.26, 2.06] | 2.82 | 0.093 | |
成人 | 11 | 0.36 | [0.16, 0.57] | ||||
迁移 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 19 | 0.40 | [0.15, 0.65] | 0.21 | 0.899 |
不可见 | 6 | 0.49 | [-0.03, 1.08] | ||||
未明确 | 3 | 0.52 | [-0.02, 1.05] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 19 | 0.50 | [0.28, 0.66] | 0.74 | 0.391 | |
后 | 9 | 0.26 | [-0.26, 0.77] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 13 | 0.49 | [0.11, 0.88] | 0.20 | 0.654 | |
成人 | 15 | 0.39 | [0.15, 0.63] | ||||
认知负荷 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 4 | 0.07 | [-0.32, 0.47] | 5.77 | 0.056 |
不可见 | 3 | -0.82 | [-1.73, 0.09] | ||||
未说明 | 4 | 0.30 | [0.04, 0.56] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 9 | -0.17 | [-0.62, 0.27] | 1.46 | 0.227 | |
后 | 2 | 0.28 | [-0.30, 0.86] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 2 | -0.55 | [-2.53, 1.43] | 0.30 | 0.586 | |
成人 | 9 | 0.01 | [-0.30, 0.31] |
结果变量 | 调节变量 | k | g | 95% CI | 异质性 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QB | p | ||||||
保持 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 8 | 0.42 | [0.25, 0.58] | 9.25 | 0.010 |
不可见 | 1 | -0.26 | [-0.67, 0.16] | ||||
未明确 | 3 | 0.53 | [-0.13, 1.19] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 10 | 0.47 | [0.25, 0.69] | 1.34 | 0.246 | |
后 | 2 | 0.08 | [-0.56, 0.70] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 1 | 1.16 | [0.26, 2.06] | 2.82 | 0.093 | |
成人 | 11 | 0.36 | [0.16, 0.57] | ||||
迁移 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 19 | 0.40 | [0.15, 0.65] | 0.21 | 0.899 |
不可见 | 6 | 0.49 | [-0.03, 1.08] | ||||
未明确 | 3 | 0.52 | [-0.02, 1.05] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 19 | 0.50 | [0.28, 0.66] | 0.74 | 0.391 | |
后 | 9 | 0.26 | [-0.26, 0.77] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 13 | 0.49 | [0.11, 0.88] | 0.20 | 0.654 | |
成人 | 15 | 0.39 | [0.15, 0.63] | ||||
认知负荷 | 材料可见性 | 可见 | 4 | 0.07 | [-0.32, 0.47] | 5.77 | 0.056 |
不可见 | 3 | -0.82 | [-1.73, 0.09] | ||||
未说明 | 4 | 0.30 | [0.04, 0.56] | ||||
时机 | 中 | 9 | -0.17 | [-0.62, 0.27] | 1.46 | 0.227 | |
后 | 2 | 0.28 | [-0.30, 0.86] | ||||
年龄段 | 儿童 | 2 | -0.55 | [-2.53, 1.43] | 0.30 | 0.586 | |
成人 | 9 | 0.01 | [-0.30, 0.31] |
(带*的为纳入元分析的文献) | |
[1] | *徐珂. (2020). 学习策略对教学视频学习的影响 (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉. |
[2] |
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191 pmid: 847061 |
[3] | Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley. |
[4] | Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. |
[5] |
*Cheng, L., & Beal, C. R. (2020). Effects of student- generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research Development, 68, 225-247.
doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09684-1 |
[6] | Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. |
[7] | Clark, L. V. (1960). Effect of mental practice on the development of a certain motor skill. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, & Recreation, 31, 560-569. |
[8] |
*Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68-82.
doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.1.68 URL |
[9] |
Cromley, J. G., Du, Y., & Dane, A. P. (2020). Drawing-to- Learn: Does meta-analysis show differences between technology-based drawing and paper-and-pencil drawing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 216-229.
doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6 |
[10] |
*de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Pass, F. (2020a). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106379.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106379 URL |
[11] |
*de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Pass, F. (2020b). Learning from split-attention materials: Effects of teaching physical and mental learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101873.
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101873 URL |
[12] |
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 14(1), 4-58.
doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266 pmid: 26173288 |
[13] |
Eielts, C., Pouw, W., Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., & Paas, F. (2020). Co-thought gesturing supports more complex problem solving in subjects with lower visual working-memory capacity. Psychological Research, 84, 502-513.
doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1065-9 pmid: 30066133 |
[14] |
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 URL |
[15] |
Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115-1137.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8 |
[16] |
*Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424-436.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424 URL |
[17] |
*Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding self-efficacy features to an online statistics lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(4), 1003-1037.
doi: 10.1177/0735633118771085 |
[18] |
*Ignatova, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). The imagination effect when using textual or diagrammatic material to learn a second language. Language Teaching Research, 27(4), 995-1015.
doi: 10.1177/1362168820971785 URL |
[19] |
Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2020). Timing matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students’ learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 841-853.
doi: 10.1037/edu0000396 URL |
[20] | *Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Apply Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 857-875. |
[21] |
*Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 266-276.
doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.266 URL |
[22] |
*Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 273-283.
doi: 10.1002/acp.v22:2 URL |
[23] | Leopold, C. (2022). The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning.In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 370-380). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
[24] |
*Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47-63.
doi: 10.1037/a0037142 URL |
[25] |
*Leopold, C., Mayer, R. E., & Dutke, S. (2019). The power of imagination and perspective in learning from science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 793-808.
doi: 10.1037/edu0000310 |
[26] |
*Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284-289.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010 URL |
[27] |
*Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142-154.
doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1143796 URL |
[28] | Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. |
[29] |
*Ploetzner, R., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 47, 13-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.002 URL |
[30] |
Pouw, W., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2018). Co-thought gestures in children’s mental problem solving: Prevalence and effects on subsequent performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 66-80.
doi: 10.1002/acp.v32.1 URL |
[31] |
Sackett, R. S. (1934). The influence of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habit. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 376-398.
doi: 10.1080/00221309.1934.9917742 URL |
[32] |
*Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 9-25.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009 URL |
[33] |
Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275-286.
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003 URL |
[34] |
*Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner- generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138-153.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.006 |
[35] |
Sibley, L., Fiorella, L., & Lachner, A. (2022). It's better when I see it: Students benefit more from open‐book than closed-book teaching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1347-1355.
doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.6 URL |
[36] | Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture:Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 295-325). American Psychological Association. |
[37] |
*Tindall-Ford, S., & Sweller, J. (2006). Altering the modality of instructions to facilitate imagination: Interactions between the modality and imagination effects. Instructional Science, 34(4), 343-365.
doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-6075-5 URL |
[38] |
Toth, A. J., McNeil, E., Hayes, K, Moran, A. P., & Campbell, M. (2020). Does mental practice still enhance performance? A 24 Year follow-up and meta-analytic replication and extension. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101672.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101672 URL |
[39] |
van Meer, J. P., & Theunissen, N. C. M. (2009). Prospective educational applications of mental simulation: A meta- review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 93-112.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9097-8 URL |
[40] |
*Wang, B., Ginns, P., & Mockler, N. (2022). Sequencing Tracing with Imagination. Education Psychology Review, 34, 421-449.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09625-6 |
[41] |
Watanabe, H., Tanaka, H., Sakti, S., & Nakamura, S. (2020). Synchronization between overt speech envelope and EEG oscillations during imagined speech. Neuroscience Research, 153, 48-55.
doi: S0168-0102(18)30677-1 pmid: 31005564 |
[1] | WANG Yanqing, WANG Fuxing, XIE Heping, CHEN Jiaxue, LI Wenjing, HU Xiangen. A picture is worth a thousand words: Self-generation drawing for multimedia learning [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(4): 623-635. |
[2] | CHE Jingshang, SUN Hailong, XIAO Chenjie, LI Aimei. Why information overload damages decisions? An explanation based on limited cognitive resources [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(10): 1758-1768. |
[3] | CHEN Jiaxue, XIE Heping, WANG Fuxing, ZHOU Li, LI Wenjing. Do induced positive emotions facilitate multimedia learning? [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(10): 1818-1830. |
[4] | XIE Heping; WANG Fuxing; WANG Yuxin; An Jing. Does Harder-to-Read mean Better-to-Learn? Effects of Disfluency on Learning Outcomes [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(7): 1077-1090. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||