Tag Archives: research

My 2018

I’ve been lived in 2019 for almost 24 hours, but so procrastinated to sum my past year up and prepare myself for a new year.  So here I just briefly list what’s significant for me in 2018.

(after spending 5 minutes to clear the screen of my laptop)

  1. Keep mental health in the increasingly stressful academia. Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about the lab I am working in, we enjoy the relaxed and freedom in our lab. But this intellectual environment cannot stop the chronic stress of academia penetrate into your life. The stress comes when it seems that all your peers published great papers but you don’t; when the future employers seem to only care about the impact factor of the journals you published and the number of your papers but you seem to unqualified, both in terms of quality and quantity. There are many statistics showing that there are more qualified people but few positions for them, young people on the social media also showed anxiety about their future. I can hardly be an exception. Nevertheless, I am still mentally healthy (also physically healthy, not gaining weight).
  2. Survived in a foreign culture. Culture matters. I can feel that some compatriots are really suffered emotionally because we are relatively isolated. As a Chinese adult, or East Asian more broadly, it is extremely difficult to have a comfortable friendship. By comfortable, I mean you don’t need to play really hard to maintain the relationship. The difficulty lies not in the characters of people, there are very nice people around. But it lies in the way to interact with people in a different culture. This problem becomes worse for a guy not so social and talkative as me. Even in China, I only have a few friends who were accumulated in years. So here it is even more difficult for me to get new friends, still, I am able to keep fit and optimism. That’s an achievement! I should thank my girlfriend, who makes me feel home, even when she is in Amsterdam.
  3. Feel much better for new projects. I come to the current lab from a different background (Thanks to my supervisor’s open mind). So in the beginning, I felt that everything is new to me. After about one year’s learning, I finally start to “do” something, instead of just learning. I felt that the new things I’ve learned in the past year are as many as half of what I’ve learned during my Ph.D.  I also found that learning new methods, paradigms are so interesting: it seems that you have new lens through which you see new things of the world.
  4. The unfinished projects during my Ph.D … are still not finished in the last year. My experiments during my Ph.D are still not published, though the data and results have been there for more than two years. That’s one aspect that I really don’t like academia: you have to wait years to make your research public. I always wonder: does the slow process of the “publication” mean that the experiments I’ve finished are actually not so important? Otherwise, why other groups haven’t done similar experiments and publish their results? Of course, it will be worse if the other groups indeed published similar results, but this makes me really doubt the value of what I have done. If it is only for making the publication list of my CV longer, then why should I do those meaningless kinds of stuff?
  5.  I am proud that I am still promoting open science. It becomes quite clear to me that many published papers are meanless and will never advance human knowledge (actually they can be worse because they are misleading and confusing, keep consuming more time, money and efforts of young graduates). So getting more people to know about the open science may actually be more valuable than publish some craps. In 2018, I published three papers related to this, the 1st introduced Bayes factor to Chinese colleagues, the 2nd reports the how psychological students and researchers misunderstand p-value and confidence intervals, the most widely used statistical index; the 3rd commented on the importance of open science to the legal system. Also, together with other colleagues and friends in China, we finished two more Chinese papers on open science, one introduced the reporting standard of meta-analysis, the other introduced how to calculate and report confidence intervals of effect size. These two papers mean something to me because they indicate more junior colleagues are jumping in the open science movement, I won’t feel alone.

Maybe, one most important changes for me in 2018 is about the future direction of my research and where we will live in the future (with my girlfriend).

In the past year, I always ask myself: what is my research question? what is my unique method. Now, it seems clearer to me that I like Bayesian statistics and cognitive models, that’s the methods that I should polish in the future. As for the research question, I have the feeling that I want to study the non-WEIRD population, especially those in a disadvantaged situation, study their mental health, brain, and how to improve their well-being. Maybe, I should work with sociologist some day.

One important decision my girlfriend and I have made is that she will go back to China after graduate from her master program in the mid of 2019, and I will stay abroad for two or three more years and then go back too. It’s an important decision, but also a natural decision. My girlfriend is the only child of her family, she feels the imperative to go back and look after her parents. For me, going back would provide me with a good chance to study the non-WEIRD population, because many Chinese people still in poverty and they need to be known. However, I should learn more before I become independent.

Farewell, 2018.

Hello, 2019, go!

整合的自我-隋洁老师在trends in cog sci上提出的新观点

在Trends in Cognitve Science最近一期中(Volume 19, Issue 11),有Sui & Humphreys的一篇文章,题为:The Integrative Self: How Self-Reference Integrates Perception and Memory。

在这个综述中,Sui & Humphreys整合最近几年的工作,提出一个关于自我参照(self-reference)的观点:自我参照就像胶水一样,让“粘”上这个胶水的信息变得更加容易加工。



当然,说到自我(self)这个问题时,就不可避免地要谈到弗洛伊德将自我进行三分的理论(本我、自我和超我);也可能会提到美国心理学之父William James关于身体自我、心理自我和精神自我的三分法;或者将自我分成作为 主体的我和作为客体的我。这些将自我进行分割的观点,往往基于对社会行为的观察(比如问卷数据)。而自我参照则从更加细微的角度(信息加工的取向),来研究是否有一种统一的“我”的存在,不管是身体的、心理的还是精神的自我,均是同样一个“我”,这个“我”,影响着我们如何认识世界。

虽然人们很早就在发现了自我参照在记忆中的效应,但是这种效应的机制还并不很清楚。Sui & Humphreys的主要贡献,在于进一步去寻找这种自我参照效应在记忆以及其他认知活动中的作用。在方法上,他们采用了一新的自我参照手段:让实验的受试者将一个新的简单信息(比如简单的几何图形)与自我和他人进行关联。例如,实验中告诉志愿志三角形代表你自己、正方形代表你最好的朋友,圆形代表陌生人。然后让志愿者完成一个知觉上的匹配任务,即判断屏幕上出现的图形与文字是否符合刚刚学习的这种关系(sui et al., 2012)。这样就可以比较代表自己的图形与代表他人的图形在反应时和正确率上的差异。

通过一系列的实验,他们使用这种新的自我参照方法研究了包括健康的儿童、年轻人和老年人以及脑损伤患者在内诸多人群。非常一致地发现,自我参考能够调节我们对外界信息的加工。基于这些结果,他们提出了整合的自我(integrative self)模型。





Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1105-1117. doi: 10.1037/a0029792

Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). The Integrative Self: How Self-Reference Integrates Perception and Memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 719-728 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.015


在心理学的论文中,p值似乎已经越来越不受待见,而比较推荐的方法是报告效应量以及其置信区间(Confidence Intervals, CI)。

说起来容易,但真要推广起来,效应却不太好,因为置信区间在心理学界长期受到忽视,并没有太多现成的方法可供选择。但毕竟还有一两位可以称为业界良心的研究者,已经做出一些相对来说可以使用的工具。其中简单粗暴的一款是由Smithson (2001)年提供的脚本程序。



NoncF.sav     —— 输入数据的文件
NoncF3.SPS  —— 计算CI的语法脚本
F2R2.SPS       —— 进行转换的语法脚本




fval    —— F检验中的F值;
df1    —— F检验中第一个自由度;
df2    —— F检验中的第二个自由度;
conf  —— 将置信区间设定为多少,通常是90%;




R2 —— 效应量,在ANOVA中相当于partial eta square;
LR2 —— 效应量90%CI的下限
UR2 —— 效应量90%CI的上限;

报告R2的90%CI为[LR2 UR2]即可,至少在Lakens (2013)中是这样说的。

当然,其实t检验的效应量(Cohen’s d)也是要报告置信区间的,据说Geoff Cumming的ESCI是一个不错的选择,待我学习一番之后,再来做个笔记。



Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol., 4, 863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Smithson, M. (2001). Correct Confidence Intervals for Various Regression Effect Sizes and Parameters: The Importance of Noncentral Distributions in Computing Intervals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(4), 605-632. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971392



SANS 2015补记




SANS 2015,全称是Social and Affective Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting 2015,所以研究基本上都是情绪相关的研究,情绪调节、加工的过程等等都非常多。会议的speech里有Joshua Greene,我在学术上的偶像吧。听了他的演讲之后,非常激动地跟他搭了话,合了影。感觉自己有点太紧张和激动了。不过他在回顾他们组最近的研究时,也给我了一些提示,比如他们发现合作可能是人类的直觉反应。Greene实验室也有一两张poster,但是不多。另外一个比较集中的话题可能就是面孔相关的,Todorov本人虽然没有讲,但是他也介绍了两个做面孔社会知觉的人进行演讲。其他的研究就记不太清楚了,因为speech实在是太多了,听不过来。

会议的概况而言,作为一个专业的会议,参会的人数还是挺多的,不过以青年博士生和博士后为主,学术上有所建树的人还不太多。而且白人女性是大多数。poster期间大家都讨论得非常火热,同时也感觉到时间明显不太够用:poster session只有1个小时,而poster大约有60张左右,所以很多只能略略地了解一下。另外一个问题是,poster把相似研究安排在同一个时间段,导致研究相似问题的人不能好好讨论,感觉这算个不足吧。

在研究方法上,SANS中以fMRI研究为主,已经开始采用一些比较复杂的方法了,所以我们想要发好文章,压力还是挺大的。ERP研究不太多,但也有一些吧。青少年的社会认知发展是非常重要的块,这次认识了 Casey组的一个学生,后来发现我看过她的文章呢,跟她交流了一下。感觉自己以后确实想往青少年大脑认知发展这一块去研究,主要是可以与法律相关的吧。




会议情况:Social and affective neuroscience society annual meeting 2015;

时间: 2015.04.23~2015.04.25 三天,但是从国内飞过去,应该是22号离境,27号入境,所以整个算是6个的行程;