主题与类属关系的距离对分类和属性推理过程的影响：来自ERP的证据

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 不同关系类型对归纳推理具有重要的影响，然而主题关系（如，熊猫vs.竹子）与类属关系（如，熊猫vs.羚羊）在归纳推理中的神经机制仍然不清楚。本研究采用事件相关电位（ERP）技术，通过分开呈现属性归纳推理任务中的结论类别和结论属性，探讨两种关系类型及其距离在分类过程和属性推理过程中的ERP特征。结果发现：（1）结论类别呈现阶段，N400（370～500 ms）与LNC（the late negative component）（570～700 ms）时间窗口上，无论是主题关系还是类属关系，远距离比近距离均诱发了更大的负波；前者表明N400与语义整合密切相关，后者说明LNC与语义类别信息违背和假设形成有关。（2）结论属性呈现阶段，主题关系比类属关系诱发了更大的N1；同时，近距离比远距离诱发了更大的N1，反映了类别属性特征的知觉和自动化加工。结果表明：语义类别属性归纳存在距离效应，并且语义关系在属性推理过程中具有不同的加工方式。

关键词: 类别属性归纳, 主题关系, 类属关系, 距离效应, ERP

Abstract: Although studies have shown that relationship types have important influences on inductive reasoning, the neural mechanism of the thematic (e.g., panda vs. bamboo) and taxonomic relationship (e.g., panda vs. antelope) on inductive reasoning remains unclear. In this study, the ERP characteristics of the two relationship types and their distance in the categorization process and property reasoning process were investigated by presenting separately the categories and property of conclusion in the property inductive reasoning tasks with the event-related potential (ERP) technology. The results suggested that far distance elicited greater N400 (370 ~ 500 ms) and LNC (570 ~ 700 ms) compared to the near distance for the categorization stage，regardless of the thematic and taxonomic relationship. The former indicated that N400 was closely related to semantic integration; the latter showed that LNC was related to semantic category information violation and hypothesis formation. In the properties stage, the thematic relationship elicited a larger N1 than the taxonomic relationship. Moreover, the near distance elicited a larger N1 than far distance, which reflected the perception and automatic processing of categorical attribute characteristics. The results support the view that there is a distance effect in semantic category-based properties induction and that the semantic relations are processed differently in the property inferences.

Key words: category-based properties induction, thematic relations, taxonomic relations, the effect of distance, ERP

中图分类号:

B842

刘芳芳, 姜英杰. 主题与类属关系的距离对分类和属性推理过程的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 24-30.

LIU Fangfang, JIANG Yingjie. The Effect of Distance Between Thematic and Taxonomic Relations on Categorization and Property Inferences: An ERP Study[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 24-30.

参考文献

李婧, 陈安涛, 陈杰, 龙长权. (2016). 词语型类别属性归纳中分类与属性推理过程的时间特征. 心理学报, 48(11), 1410-1422, doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01410
龙长权, 李晓芳, 雷怡. (2017). 类别归纳中典型性效应的ERP反应. 中国科学: 生命科学, 47(3), 325-340
Babcock, L., & Vallesi, A. (2015). The interaction of process and domain in prefrontal cortex during inductive reasoning. Neuropsychologia, 67, 91-99, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.010.
Bonnefond, M., & van der Henst, J. B. (2013). Deduction electrified: ERPs elicited by the processing of words in conditional arguments. Brain and Language, 124(3), 244-256, doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.12.011.
Chen, Q. F., Liang, X. L., Lei, Y., & Li, H. (2015). Electrophysiological difference between the representations of causal judgment and associative judgment in semantic memory. Acta Psychologica, 157, 176-184, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.017.
Chen, Q. F., Roberson, D., Liang, X. L., Lei, Y., & Li, H. (2014a). Accessing the asymmetrical representations of causal relations and hierarchical relations in semantic memory. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 559-570, doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.927877.
Chen, Q. F., Ye, C., Liang, X. L., Cao, B. H., Lei, Y., & Li, H. (2014b). Automatic processing of taxonomic and thematic relations in semantic priming-Differentiation by early N400 and late frontal negativity. Neuropsychologia, 64, 54-62, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.013.
Cui, R. F., Liu, Y., & Long, C. Q. (2018). FN400 and sustained negativity reveal a premise monotonicity effect during semantic category-based induction. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 134, 108-119, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.10.011.
Estes, Z., Gibbert, M., Guest, D., & Mazursky, D. (2012). A dual-process model of brand extension: Taxonomic feature-based and thematic relation-based similarity independently drive brand extension evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 86-101, doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.002.
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., Matlen, B. J., & Unger, L. (2015). Development of category-based induction and semantic knowledge. Child Development, 86(1), 48-62, doi: 10.1111/cdev.12277.
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2000). Anatomical segregation of component processes in an inductive inference task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 110-119, doi: 10.1162/08989290051137639.
Green, A. E., Kraemer, D. J. M., Fugelsang, J. A., Gray, J. R., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Connecting long distance: Semantic distance in analogical reasoning modulates frontopolar cortex activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20(1), 70-76, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp081.
Hoenig, K., Sim, E. J., Bochev, V., Herrnberger, B., & Kiefer, M. (2008). Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(10), 1799-1814, doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20123.
Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2016). Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge. Cortex, 82, 164-178, doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.06.008.
Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1152-1162, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043.
Kmiecik, M. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2013). Semantic distance modulates the N400 event-related potential in verbal analogical reasoning. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 799-804). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Lei, Y., Li, F. H., Long, C. Q., Li, P., Chen, Q. F., Ni, Y. Y., & Li, H. (2010). How does typicality of category members affect the deductive reasoning? An ERP study. Experimental Brain Research, 204(1), 47-56, doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2292-5.
Lewis, G. A., Poeppel, D., & Murphy, G. L. (2015). The neural bases of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: An MEG study. Neuropsychologia, 68, 176-189, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.011.
Li, F. H., Luo, Y. J., Cao, B. H., & Li, H. (2009). Electrophysiological correlates of inductive generalization. Journal of Psychophysiology, 23(1), 27-34, doi: 10.1027/0269-8803.23.1.27.
Liang, P. P., Zhong, N., Lu, S. F., & Liu, J. M. (2010). ERP characteristics of sentential inductive reasoning in time and frequency domains. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(1), 67-73, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.10.001.
Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 3-28, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.3.
Liu, F. H., Han, J. H., Zhang, L. C., & Li, F. H. (2019). Inductive reasoning differs between taxonomic and thematic contexts: Electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1702, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01702.
Long, C. Q., Lei, X., Chen, J., Chang, Y., Chen, A. T., & Li, H. (2015). Event-related potential parameters of category and property violations during semantic category-based induction. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 96(3), 141-148, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.04.005.
Pijnacker, J., Geurts, B., van Lambalgen, M., Buitelaar, J., & Hagoort, P. (2011). Reasoning with exceptions: An event-related brain potentials study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 471-480, doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21360.
Qiu, J., Li, H., Chen, A. T., & Zhang, Q. L. (2008). The neural basis of analogical reasoning: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 46(12), 3006-3013, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.06.008.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(1), 1-20, doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8.
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 409-418, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015.
Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O. K., Dell, G. S., … Coslett, H. B. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(20), 8520-8524, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014935108.
Sloutsky, V. M., Deng, W., Fisher, A. V., & Kloos, H. (2015). Conceptual influences on induction: A case for a late onset. Cognitive Psychology, 82, 1-31, doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.08.005.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 166-188, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.166.
van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235-248, doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.00025.
Wamain, Y., Pluciennicka, E., & Kalénine, S. (2015). A saw is first identified as an object used on wood: ERP evidence for temporal differences between thematic and functional similarity relations. Neuropsychologia, 71, 28-37, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.034.

[1]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 悲伤表情识别能力影响疼痛共情—一项ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 585-592.
[2]	张政华, 张航, 王兵, 郑子龙, 赵黎明, 李卫君. 不同任务下声调和韵母在诗句中的加工过程——来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 728-735.
[3]	李昀松, 陈启杨, 吴岩, 李天虹, 段如君. 形旁在形声字识别中的优势作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 439-446.
[4]	贾磊, 陆家豪, 王逸, 张常洁. 权力概念隐喻映射中的冲突控制：特征与过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 417-423.
[5]	孙霁, 孙沛. 大小数量加工机制分离现象的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 1-7.
[6]	马利军, 梁俊煜, 马云霄. 谐音线索和“歇后”时间对谐音型歇后语理解的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(3): 325-331.
[7]	李骋诗, 白学军, 王永胜. 映射具体性和语境线索对新颖隐喻加工的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 153-160.
[8]	岳鹏飞, 史梦梦, 刘旭, 白学军. 词汇的唤醒度对情绪标注效应的影响—ERPs研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 31-38.
[9]	李恒平, 何胜昔, 刘正奎. 快速阅读训练对基于视觉定向搜索的注意力影响：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 78-84.
[10]	倪亚琨, 赵君哲, 李巧灵, 郭腾飞, 王明辉. 高低拖延者的跨期选择差异：基于ERP的研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 831-839.
[11]	王春梅, 吕勇. 高、低回避性消极情绪影响抑制功能的神经机制：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 577-582.
[12]	侯友, 七十三. 蒙语词汇识别中正字法加工的进程和作用：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 583-588.
[13]	王梦, 范为桥, 沈英. 整体型和局部型思维风格的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 472-479.
[14]	李昱霖, 杨帆, 王琳, 隋雪. 汉字位置信息加工的脑电变化进程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 296-303.
[15]	梁宗保, 杨韵, 张光珍, 杨元魁, 郑文明, 曹睿昕. 身体表情识别的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 318-325.