• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Modeling causal conditional reasoning data using SDT: caveats and new insights.

作者信息

Trippas Dries, Verde Michael F, Handley Simon J, Roser Matthew E, McNair Nicolas A, Evans Jonathan St B T

机构信息

Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, School of Psychology, Cognition Institute, Plymouth University Plymouth, UK.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2014 Mar 12;5:217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00217. eCollection 2014.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00217
PMID:24659979
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3950845/
Abstract
摘要
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cb1d/3950845/bda007bfe356/fpsyg-05-00217-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cb1d/3950845/bda007bfe356/fpsyg-05-00217-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cb1d/3950845/bda007bfe356/fpsyg-05-00217-g0001.jpg

相似文献

1
Modeling causal conditional reasoning data using SDT: caveats and new insights.使用信号检测理论对因果条件推理数据进行建模：注意事项与新见解
Front Psychol. 2014 Mar 12;5:217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00217. eCollection 2014.
2
Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects.演绎推理中的流畅性和信念偏差：旧效应的新指标。
Front Psychol. 2014 Jun 24;5:631. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00631. eCollection 2014.
3
Concerns with the SDT approach to causal conditional reasoning: a comment on Trippas, Handley, Verde, Roser, McNair, and Evans (2014).对因果条件推理的标准双重加工理论方法的关注：对特里帕斯、汉德利、韦尔德、罗泽、麦克奈尔和埃文斯（2014年）的评论
Front Psychol. 2014 May 14;5:402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00402. eCollection 2014.
4
Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed.传统的推理差异评分分析存在缺陷。
Cognition. 2014 Apr;131(1):75-91. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.003. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
5
Conditionals and testimony.条件句与证言。
Cogn Psychol. 2020 Nov;122:101329. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101329. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
6
On the basis of belief in causal and diagnostic conditionals.基于对因果条件句和诊断条件句的信念。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 May;60(5):635-43. doi: 10.1080/17470210601100274.
7
Reasoning with conditionals: a test of formal models of four theories.基于条件句的推理：对四种理论的形式模型的检验
Cogn Psychol. 2006 Nov;53(3):238-83. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.001. Epub 2006 May 26.
8
Causal and noncausal conditionals: an integrated model of interpretation and reasoning.因果与非因果条件句：一种解释与推理的整合模型
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Nov;58(8):1479-513. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000719.
9
The causal structure of utility conditionals.效用条件的因果结构。
Cogn Sci. 2013 Jan-Feb;37(1):193-209. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12014. Epub 2012 Nov 16.
10
A ranking-theoretic approach to conditionals.条件句的排序理论方法。
Cogn Sci. 2013 Aug;37(6):1074-106. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12057.

引用本文的文献

1
When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias.当快速逻辑遇上缓慢信念：信念偏差并行加工模型的证据
Mem Cognit. 2017 May;45(4):539-552. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1.
2
Alleviating the concerns with the SDT approach to reasoning: reply to Singmann and Kellen (2014).减轻对信号检测理论推理方法的担忧：对辛曼和凯伦（2014年）的回应
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 19;6:184. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00184. eCollection 2015.
3
Fluency and belief bias in deductive reasoning: new indices for old effects.

本文引用的文献

1
Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed.传统的推理差异评分分析存在缺陷。
Cognition. 2014 Apr;131(1):75-91. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.003. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
2
A critical comparison of discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: implications for recognition and beyond.离散状态和连续记忆模型的比较研究：对识别和超越识别的影响。
Psychol Bull. 2013 Nov;139(6):1173-203. doi: 10.1037/a0033044. Epub 2013 Jun 3.
3
The SDT model of belief bias: complexity, time, and cognitive ability mediate the effects of believability.
演绎推理中的流畅性和信念偏差：旧效应的新指标。
Front Psychol. 2014 Jun 24;5:631. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00631. eCollection 2014.
4
Concerns with the SDT approach to causal conditional reasoning: a comment on Trippas, Handley, Verde, Roser, McNair, and Evans (2014).对因果条件推理的标准双重加工理论方法的关注：对特里帕斯、汉德利、韦尔德、罗泽、麦克奈尔和埃文斯（2014年）的评论
Front Psychol. 2014 May 14;5:402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00402. eCollection 2014.
信念偏差的 SDT 模型：可信赖性的影响受到复杂性、时间和认知能力的中介作用。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Sep;39(5):1393-402. doi: 10.1037/a0032398. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
4
Subtracting "ought" from "is": descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking.从“是”中减去“应该”：人类思维研究中的描述主义与规范主义。
Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Oct;34(5):233-48; discussion 249-90. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1100001X.
5
Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: reply to Dube, Rotello, and Heit (2010).用 ROC 评估信念偏差效应：对 Dube、Rotello 和 Heit（2010）的回复。
Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):164-73. doi: 10.1037/a0020698.
6
The belief bias effect is aptly named: a reply to Klauer and Kellen (2011).信念偏差效应名副其实：对克劳尔和凯伦（2011）的回应。
Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):155-63. doi: 10.1037/a0021774.
7
Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: it's a response bias effect.用 ROC 评估信念偏差效应：它是一种反应偏差效应。
Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):831-63. doi: 10.1037/a0019634.
8
Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.归纳推理和演绎推理之间的关系。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 May;36(3):805-12. doi: 10.1037/a0018784.
9
Distinguishing between attributional and mnemonic sources of familiarity: the case of positive emotion bias.区分熟悉感的归因和记忆来源：积极情绪偏差的情况。
Mem Cognit. 2010 Mar;38(2):142-53. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.2.142.
10
Précis of bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.《贝叶斯理性：人类推理的概率方法》概要
Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Feb;32(1):69-84; discussion 85-120. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000284.