@article{oai:klc.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000141,
 author = {岩木, 信喜 and 藤原, 直仁 and 長井, 沙耶花 and 渡邊, 美貴子 and 野口, 由佳里},
 journal = {紀要visio : research reports, Visio},
 month = {Jul},
 note = {We examined whether or not feedback-related negativity (FRN) is greater to the feedback stimulus (FB) indicating an inconsistency between two hypotheses than for FB supporting a hypothesis. Fifteen college students were required to guess a rule concerning triple numbers (e. g., ascending numbers) that the experimenter had in the mind (Wason's 2-4-6 task). The following information was given on a sheet : for example, (1) "2, 4, 6", (2) hypothesis A which was induced from the example (e. g., even numbers), and (3) hypothesis B which was the opposite of A (e. g., odd numbers). Subjects were instructed to present a triple number for each hypothesis. They were visually given "Yes/ No" FB that indicated whether each example was consistent with the rule. Subjects performed 10 blocks with 20 trials each. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded from Fz, Cz, and Pz. Vertical and horizontal electrooculograms (EOG) were also recorded. The EEG and EOG signals during 1000 ms were averaged starting at 200 ms (the baseline) before the FB. The result showed that the mean potentials at Fz from 250 ms to 350 ms after the FB were not significantly greater for trials where inconsistency was recognized than for confirmation trials. Therefore, this result did not support the hypothesis that FRN might reflect recognition of an error in a hypothesis during a rule discovery task. However, the result of P3 amplitude supported the hypothesis (Oarksford & Chater, 1994) that the subjects make contingency judgments between 2 inconsistent hypotheses and Yes/ No feedback., We examined whether or not feedback-related negativity (FRN) is greater to the feedback stimulus (FB) indicating an inconsistency between two hypotheses than for FB supporting a hypothesis. Fifteen college students were required to guess a rule concerning triple numbers (e. g., ascending numbers) that the experimenter had in the mind (Wason's 2-4-6 task). The following information was given on a sheet : for example, (1) "2, 4, 6", (2) hypothesis A which was induced from the example (e. g., even numbers), and (3) hypothesis B which was the opposite of A (e. g., odd numbers). Subjects were instructed to present a triple number for each hypothesis. They were visually given "Yes/ No" FB that indicated whether each example was consistent with the rule. Subjects performed 10 blocks with 20 trials each. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded from Fz, Cz, and Pz. Vertical and horizontal electrooculograms (EOG) were also recorded. The EEG and EOG signals during 1000 ms were averaged starting at 200 ms (the baseline) before the FB. The result showed that the mean potentials at Fz from 250 ms to 350 ms after the FB were not significantly greater for trials where inconsistency was recognized than for confirmation trials. Therefore, this result did not support the hypothesis that FRN might reflect recognition of an error in a hypothesis during a rule discovery task. However, the result of P3 amplitude supported the hypothesis (Oarksford & Chater, 1994) that the subjects make contingency judgments between 2 inconsistent hypotheses and Yes/ No feedback.},
 pages = {1--8},
 title = {法則発見課題における仮説の誤り認知 : 事象関連電位による分析},
 volume = {31},
 year = {2004}
}