?????? (PsycInfo, ?????????? ?????????)??????????????

1
?????????

• ???

2
????

• ?????????

3
????

• ??????????
• ?????? (PsycInfo, ?????????? ?????????)???????????
  ???
• ??????,???????????
• ??? (Scopus?????????) ??????????????
• ??????,??????????????
• ?????????????

4
????

• ?????????,????????

5
(No Transcript)
6
????

• ?????????

7
???
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
LIRARY RESEARCH??????????

• ???

13
LIRARY RESEARCH?????????

• Good for ????
• ???????????????

14
LIRARY RESEARCH??????????Metalib

• ???????????

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
LIRARY RESEARCHScopus???

• SCOPUS??????????????????,????????????????????????S
  COPUS?????????????????????SCOPUS?????????????,????
  ????????????

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
????

• ?????????

22
??

• ??????????????(???????)

23
LIRARY RESEARCH????????Webpac

• ??????????????(??)

24
(No Transcript)
25
LIRARY RESEARCH?????? (SFX)

• ??????????????(???)
• ????????????
• ??? pdf

26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
????

• ?????????

29
LIRARY RESEARCH??????????

• http//ndds.stpi.org.tw/
• ???????
• ??????
• ??

30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
??????

• ????????(OPAM, psychonomic society, ECVP, VSS,
  ???????)
• ???????????
• ??????
• http//www.sciencedirect.com/ ???????????????,????
  ?????
• http//visionscience.com/mailman/listinfo/visionli
  st ???????????

33
??papers??

• ???????(????????)
• smoke, smoking, cigarette, nicotine
• ????papers??references??
• ???????(????)
• ???????????
• ????????http//www.sciencedirect.com/
• ??????????,???

34
????,????

• ?????
• ??
• ??

35

• ??????,????????????
• ??????
• Roald Hoffmann
• 1981??????

36
?????

• Abstract
• A summary of the research report
• 120 words or less (?????????)
• Includes the hypothesis, procedure, and the broad
  pattern of results

37
??

• Effects of bottom-up input and top-down
  expectation on object-based attention
• Ming-Chou Ho1 and Su-Ling Yeh2
• 1Department of Psychology, Chung-Shan Medical
  University, Taichung, Taiwan
• 2Department of Psychology, National Taiwan
  University, Taipei, Taiwan
• Bottom-up input and top-down expectation
  of objects are usually intertwined to contribute
  to the occurrence of object-based attention. The
  current study demonstrates the dissociation of
  influences of bottom-up object input and top-down
  expectation on the same-object effect by using
  the double outlined rectangles of Egly, Driver,
  and Rafal (1994). One of the two rectangles was
  first cued, and the participants were asked to
  detect a target shown on the target frame. The
  same-object effect refers to the result of faster
  responses when the cue and target appears on the
  same object than on different objects. We
  manipulated the presence probability of (1)
  rectangles and an empty space, or (2) rectangles
  and a new object in the final target frame. The
  new object is an outlined boomerang whose
  orientation varies with the cue location in a way
  to either reduce or enhance same-object effects
  when the double rectangles are in the target
  frame. When the double rectangles are absent in
  the target frame, no same-object effects are
  observed, regardless of the probability of
  rectangles presence. The dependence of
  same-object effects on the presence of the
  attended object indicates the effect of bottom-up
  object input. However, the ever occurrence of the
  boomerang, even with a probability of appearance
  as low as 20, influences the same-object effects
  when in fact it is the rectangles that appear in
  the target frame. That is, the expectation of the
  presence of the boomerang has influence on the
  same-object effects while the rectangles are
  present. Although bottom-up input usually
  interacts with top-down expectation, their
  dissociation revealed in this study sheds light
  on their respective roles in object-based
  attention.
• Supported by the National Science Council of
  Taiwan, NSC95-2752-H-002-007-PAE and
  95-2413-H-002-020

??
??
????
??
??
????
????
38
??

• Can attention shift between objects in a discrete
  mode?
• Shuo-Heng Li, Ming-Chou Ho, Chen-Chia Hsu,
  Chung-Yang Kuo, Nien-Ying Yang, Hsiao-Heng Chen
• Department of Psychology, Chung-Shan Medical
  University, Taichung, Taiwan
• As early debate regarding the mode of
  attentional shift in space (i.e., analog vs.
  discrete), the mode of attentional shift between
  objects requires further investigation. We
  employed the same/different judgment task similar
  to Kwak, Dagenbach and Egeth (1991) to examine
  the mode debate. Participants judged two letters
  (TT, LL, or TL) that appear briefly on two of
  eight outlined squares with three different
  distances between these two squares. Result
  showed comparable judgment times across three
  distances (a discrete mode). Further, a horse
  racing model ensured a serial process in such
  task. This study has critical implications in
  object-based attention literature.

??
??
????
??
??
????
Supported by the National Science Council of
Taiwan, NSC 96-2815-C-040-006-H
????
39
??

• ?????????
• ???????,??????????????????????????
• ???????
• ?? (Ho_Yeh_VSS07_final.ppt)

40
??

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
• References

41
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• ??(manuscript)????(published paper)???????
• ?????APA (American Psychological Association)??
• ????instruction to authors
• ????

42
????
43
instruction to authors
44
Sample of title page (????????)
??????????
????,?????? ????????????
????????????? ????

• ????,???????
• ???
• ??????????

45
(No Transcript)
46
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• Introduction (literature hypothesis)
• Outlines the problems investigated
• ????
• Past research and theories relevant to the
  problems described
• Formal hypotheses or specific expectations are
  introduced and connected to past research

47
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• Method section
• ????????????!
• Subsections depend of complexity of the design
• Overview of design
• Characteristics of participants
• Procedure
• Equipment or testing materials

48
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• Results section
• Findings presented three ways
• Description in narrative form
• Description in statistical language
• Material in table or graphs(??!)

49
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• Discussion section
• ??introduction????,????
• Review research from various perspectives (??)
• Present methodological weaknesses and/or
  strengths
• Explain how the results compare with past results
  (??)
• Include suggestions for practical applications
• Include suggestions for future research on the
  topic (??)

50
ANATOMY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE

• References?????,????
• ???????????

51
????????
52
????????????
53
How Do You Know If An Article Is Peer-Reviewed?

• The journal has instructions to authors about
  the submission guidelines and peer-review
  process.
• The article is written by the researchers that
  conducted the study.
• In addition to the title and author information,
  the article includes abstract, introduction,
  method, results, discussion and reference
  sections.
• Experts in the authors field review the
  theoretical basis, methodology, statistical
  analyses and interpretation of findings.
• The editor and/or reviewers decide whether or not
  to accept the article for publication.
• The intended audience is scholars that have
  knowledge in or are interested in the field.
• The article is not written for profit.

54
???????

• ???
• 2006.05.04
• ??????????

55
??!???????

• ????????,??????????
• ??????,???????????(??????????????????????????)
• ??????

56
?????????

• ????(participants, apparatus, stimuli, procedure)
• ????????
• ?????

57
???????????!!!
58
????????? I

• ???????(????)??(????)??(??)
• ???????
• ???????????????
• ???????transition
• ????,????

59
????????? II

• ?????????????????
• ??????? MISSION IMPOSSIBLE!
• ??!???????!????!
• Writing is an interaction process (author vs.
  reader, reviewer)
• Practice leads to perfection!

60
????

• ????
• ????????????
• ???????????(???,???????)

61
THE END