{"title":"认知动力学:加法还是乘法?","authors":"M. J. Amon, Colin Annand, J. Holden","doi":"10.53520/rdpb2022.10726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Cognition is assumed to rely on distinct and additive substages such as perceptual encoding, memory, and motor control. Nevertheless, questions surrounding the assumptions of modularity and additivity persist. If a stable cognitive architecture exists, then repeatedly executing the same cognitive act should repeatedly engage the self-same structure. If discreet sub-acts behave in a manner consistent with a sum of independent random variables, then the assumption of additive and modular cognitive processes is reasonable. However, if they develop dependencies, then the assumption of additivity and modularity in cognition should be questioned.\nMethods: The study required participants (N = 180) to successively execute identical elementary cognitive acts in a stacked 1-word, 2-word, and 4-word lexical decision task. Correct response time was the primary dependent measure.\nResults: Statistical analyses revealed evidence for additivity in mean response time after a logarithmic transformation (r2 = .81, p < .05 & r2 = .74, p < .05). This pattern is consistent with multiplicative dynamics.\nConclusions: The results indicate that variance grows multiplicatively as a function of the number of sub-acts. A straightforward way to generate this pattern of variability growth is to assume the sub-acts develop successive dependencies and combine multiplicatively.","PeriodicalId":263608,"journal":{"name":"Research Directs in Psychology and Behavior","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Dynamics: Additive or Multiplicative?\",\"authors\":\"M. J. Amon, Colin Annand, J. Holden\",\"doi\":\"10.53520/rdpb2022.10726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Cognition is assumed to rely on distinct and additive substages such as perceptual encoding, memory, and motor control. Nevertheless, questions surrounding the assumptions of modularity and additivity persist. If a stable cognitive architecture exists, then repeatedly executing the same cognitive act should repeatedly engage the self-same structure. If discreet sub-acts behave in a manner consistent with a sum of independent random variables, then the assumption of additive and modular cognitive processes is reasonable. However, if they develop dependencies, then the assumption of additivity and modularity in cognition should be questioned.\\nMethods: The study required participants (N = 180) to successively execute identical elementary cognitive acts in a stacked 1-word, 2-word, and 4-word lexical decision task. Correct response time was the primary dependent measure.\\nResults: Statistical analyses revealed evidence for additivity in mean response time after a logarithmic transformation (r2 = .81, p < .05 & r2 = .74, p < .05). This pattern is consistent with multiplicative dynamics.\\nConclusions: The results indicate that variance grows multiplicatively as a function of the number of sub-acts. A straightforward way to generate this pattern of variability growth is to assume the sub-acts develop successive dependencies and combine multiplicatively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":263608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Directs in Psychology and Behavior\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Directs in Psychology and Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53520/rdpb2022.10726\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Directs in Psychology and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53520/rdpb2022.10726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
认知被认为依赖于不同的和附加的子阶段,如知觉编码、记忆和运动控制。然而,围绕模块化和可加性假设的问题仍然存在。如果存在一个稳定的认知结构,那么重复执行相同的认知行为应该重复地使用自相同的结构。如果离散子行为的行为方式与独立随机变量的总和一致,那么加性和模块化认知过程的假设是合理的。然而,如果它们发展出依赖性,那么认知中的可加性和模块化的假设就应该受到质疑。方法:研究要求参与者(N = 180)在一个堆叠的1词、2词和4词词汇决策任务中连续执行相同的基本认知行为。正确反应时间是主要的依赖度量。结果:统计分析显示,对数变换后的平均反应时间存在可加性(r2 = 0.81, p < 0.05; r2 = 0.74, p < 0.05)。这种模式与乘法动力学是一致的。结论:结果表明,方差随子行为数量的增加呈倍数增长。产生这种可变性增长模式的一种直接方法是假设子行为发展了连续的依赖关系并以乘法方式组合。
Introduction: Cognition is assumed to rely on distinct and additive substages such as perceptual encoding, memory, and motor control. Nevertheless, questions surrounding the assumptions of modularity and additivity persist. If a stable cognitive architecture exists, then repeatedly executing the same cognitive act should repeatedly engage the self-same structure. If discreet sub-acts behave in a manner consistent with a sum of independent random variables, then the assumption of additive and modular cognitive processes is reasonable. However, if they develop dependencies, then the assumption of additivity and modularity in cognition should be questioned.
Methods: The study required participants (N = 180) to successively execute identical elementary cognitive acts in a stacked 1-word, 2-word, and 4-word lexical decision task. Correct response time was the primary dependent measure.
Results: Statistical analyses revealed evidence for additivity in mean response time after a logarithmic transformation (r2 = .81, p < .05 & r2 = .74, p < .05). This pattern is consistent with multiplicative dynamics.
Conclusions: The results indicate that variance grows multiplicatively as a function of the number of sub-acts. A straightforward way to generate this pattern of variability growth is to assume the sub-acts develop successive dependencies and combine multiplicatively.