請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101875完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 連韻文 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Yunn-Wen Lien | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 劉迪笙 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Dee-Hseng Liu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-03-05T16:22:57Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-03-06 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-03-05 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-06 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.443
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1-3), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A. R., & Lee, G. P. (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19(13), 5473-5481. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-13-05473.1999 Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Anderson, S. W. (1998). Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18(1), 428-437. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-01-00428.1998 Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/6.2.215 Becker, S. W., & Brownson, F. O. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 72(1), 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1086/258854 Ben-Shakhar, G. (1985). Standardization within individuals: A simple method to neutralize the physiological differences among individuals. Psychophysiology, 22(3), 292-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01603.x Bowman, C. H., Evans, C. E., & Turnbull, O. H. (2005). Artificial time constraints on the Iowa Gambling Task: The effects on behavioural performance and subjective strategy. Brain and Cognition, 57(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.015 Brand, M., Recknor, E. C., Grabenhorst, F., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: Correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 86-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390500507196 Brand, M., Wegmann, E., Müller, A., Wölfling, K., Robbins, T. W., & Potenza, M. N. (2019). The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: Update, generalization to specific types of internet-use disorders, and implications for practice. Addictive Behaviors, 92, 268-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.12.002 Brand, M., Young, K. S., Laier, C., Wölfling, K., & Potenza, M. N. (2016). Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033 Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., ... & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981-2990. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht154 Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122575 Carter, S., & Smith-Pasqualini, M. C. (2004). Stronger autonomic response accompanies better learning. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(4), 496-502. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.4.496 Chiu, Y. C., & Lin, C. H. (2007). Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-3-16 Chiu, Y. C., Lin, C. H., Huang, J. T., Lin, S., Lee, P. L., & Hsieh, J. C. (2018). Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02199 Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn894 Crone, E. A., Somsen, R. J., Van Beek, B., & Van Der Molen, M. W. (2004). Heart rate and skin conductance analysis of antecedents and consequences of decision making. Psychophysiology, 41(4), 531-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00197.x Curley, S. P., Eraker, S. A., & Yates, J. F. (1984). An investigation of patients’ reactions to therapeutic uncertainty. Medical Decision Making, 4(4), 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X8400400408 Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413-1420. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125 Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1704-1711. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1560 Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2007). The electrodermal system. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (3rd ed., pp. 159-181). Cambridge University Press. Desmedt, O., Heeren, A., Corneille, O., & Maurage, P. (2022). What do we count when we count heartbeats? Psychophysiology, 59(5), Article e14011. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14011 Desmedt, O., Luminet, O., & Corneille, O. (2018). The heartbeat counting task largely involves non-interoceptive processes: Evidence from both the original and an adapted counting task. Biological Psychology, 138, 185-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.09.004 Di Carlo, F., Sociali, A., Picutti, E., Pettorruso, M., Martinotti, G., & di Giannantonio, M. (2023). The relationships between compulsive internet use, alexithymia, and dissociation: Gender differences among Italian adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(15), Article 6463. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20156463 Di Nicola, M., Ferri, V. R., Moccia, L., Panaccione, I., Strangio, A. M., Tedeschi, G., ... & Janiri, L. (2021). Interoception abnormalities in patients with gambling disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(2), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00025 Dong, G., & Potenza, M. N. (2014). A cognitive-behavioral model of Internet gaming disorder: Theoretical underpinnings and clinical implications. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 58, 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.07.005 Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(2), 239-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001 Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Fernie, G., & Tunney, R. J. (2015). Some decks are better than others: The effect of decomposability on the Iowa Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 99, 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.05.004 Fox, C. R., & Hadar, L. (2006). Decisions from experience = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision Making, 1(2), 159-161. Füstös, J., Gramann, K., Herbert, B. M., & Pollatos, O. (2013). On the embodiment of emotion regulation: Interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(8), 911-917. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss089 Garfinkel, S. N., & Critchley, H. D. (2016). Interoception, emotion and brain: New insights link internal physiology to social behaviour. Commentary on: ‘Interoception and Emotion’. Garfinkel, S. N., Seth, A. K., Barrett, A. B., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H. D. (2015). Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004 Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63(6), 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.031 Goudriaan, A. E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., & van den Brink, W. (2006). Psychophysiological determinants and concomitants of deficient decision making in pathological gamblers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 84(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.02.007 Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659890500114359 Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Behavioral addictions. In P. M. Miller (Ed.), Principles of addiction medicine (5th ed., pp. 107-118). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970-986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.970 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95 Guillaume, S., Jollant, F., Jaussent, I., Lawrence, N., Malafosse, A., & Courtet, P. (2009). Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 2120-2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.04.003 Gutbrod, K., Krouzel, C., Hofer, H., Müri, R., Perrig, W., & Ptak, R. (2006). Decision-making in amnesia: Do structural impairments prevent the marker of somatic states? Neuropsychologia, 44(8), 1315-1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.001 Haruki, Y., Miyahara, K., Ogawa, K., & Suzuki, K. (2025). Attentional bias towards smartphone stimuli is associated with decreased interoceptive awareness and increased physiological reactivity. Communications Psychology, 3(1), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00042-w Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00057884 Heilman, R. M., Crisan, L. G., Houser, D., Miclea, M., & Miu, A. C. (2010). Emotion regulation and decision making under risk and uncertainty. Emotion, 10(2), 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018489 Herbert, B. M., & Pollatos, O. (2022). Attenuated interoceptive accuracy in children with higher body mass index: A follow-up study. Biological Psychology, 170, Article 108304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108304 Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(12), 517-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004 Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x Hickman, L., Seyedsalehi, A., Cook, J. L., & Murphy, J. (2020). The relationship between heartbeat counting and heartbeat discrimination: A meta-analysis. Biological Psychology, 156, Article 107949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107949 Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Risk, ambiguity, and insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055709 Horstmann, A., Villringer, A., & Neumann, J. (2012). Iowa Gambling Task: There is more to consider than long-term outcome. Using a linear equation model to disentangle the impact of outcome and frequency of gains and losses. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, Article 61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00061 Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310(5754), 1680-1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115327 Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), Article 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin. Kovács, I., Richman, M. J., Janka, Z., Maraz, A., & Andó, B. (2017). Decision making under ambiguity in gambling disorder and alcohol use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of IGT performance. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(4), 454-477. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.065 Kovalchik, S., & Allman, J. (2006). Measuring irreversible decision making process: A step towards an evolutionary psychology of discounting. Psychological Topics, 15(2), 249-266. Lin, C. H., Chiu, Y. C., Lee, P. L., & Hsieh, J. C. (2007). Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-3-16 Lin, C. H., Song, T. J., Lin, Y. K., & Chiu, Y. C. (2009). Immediate gain is long-term loss: Are there foresighted decision makers in the Iowa Gambling Task? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 845-850. Lin, X., Dong, G., Wang, Q., & Du, X. (2019). Abnormal gray matter volume and functional connectivity in the bilateral amygdala in Internet gaming disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, Article 816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00816 MacCrimmon, K. R., & Larsson, S. (1979). Utility theory: Axioms versus ‘paradoxes’. In M. Allais & O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox (pp. 333-409). Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1_15 Mæhlum, N. Q., Vaskinn, A., & Melle, I. (2022). Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task in schizophrenia: The role of education and executive function. Schizophrenia Research: Cognition, 29, Article 100257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scog.2022.100257 Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa Gambling Task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(45), 16075-16080. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406666101 Meessen, J., Vögele, C., Schulz, A., & Schächinger, H. (2016). Age-related effects on interoceptive accuracy, general interoceptive sensibility, and specific interoceptive sensibility. European Journal of Health Psychology, 24(4), 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000060 Mehling, W. E., Acree, M., Stewart, A., Silas, J., & Jones, A. (2018). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2). PLoS One, 13(12), Article e0208034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208034 Mehling, W. E., Price, C., Daubenmier, J. J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., & Stewart, A. (2012). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). PLoS One, 7(11), Article e48230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048230 Morawetz, C., Bode, S., Derntl, B., & Heekeren, H. R. (2017). The effect of strategies, goals and stimulus material on the neural mechanisms of emotional regulation: A meta-analysis of fMRI studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 72, 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.11.014 Morawetz, C., Riedel, M. C., Salo, T., Berboth, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Laird, A. R., & Kohn, N. (2020). Multiple large-scale neural networks underlying emotion regulation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 116, 382-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.001 Murphy, J. (2024). Interoception: A comprehensive guide. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68798-2 O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 Panno, A., Lauriola, M., & Figner, B. (2013). Emotion regulation and risk taking: Predicting risky choice in deliberative decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 27(2), 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.707642 Paulus, M. P., & Stein, M. B. (2010). Interoception in anxiety and depression. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5-6), 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0258-9 Pawlikowski, M., Altstötter-Gleich, C., & Brand, M. (2013). Validation and psychometric properties of a short version of the Internet Addiction Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1212-1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.014 Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., & Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825-2830. Peng, M., Yang, X., Cai, H., Cai, M., Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2025). Learn from your competitor or cooperator? A hyperscanning functional near-infrared spectroscopy study of gender-specific neural dynamics during interactive learning. Cerebral Cortex, 35(7), Article bhaf196. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaf196 Roberts, N. A., Levenson, R. W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cardiovascular costs of emotion suppression cross ethnic lines. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 70(1), 82-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.06.003 Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Wiley. Schandry, R. (1981). Heart beat perception and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb02486.x Simonovic, B., Stupple, E. J., Gale, M., & Sheffield, D. (2019). Somatic markers and decision making: A meta-analysis of the Iowa Gambling Task. Biological Psychology, 148, Article 107765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107765 Sokol-Hessner, P., Hsu, M., Curley, N. G., Delgado, M. R., Camerer, C. F., & Phelps, E. A. (2009). Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(13), 5035-5040. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806761106 Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). Performance of healthy participants on the Iowa Gambling Task. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029996 Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643 Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press. Suzuki, A., Hirota, A., Takasawa, N., & Shigemasu, K. (2003). Application of the Somatic Marker Hypothesis to individual differences in decision making. Biological Psychology, 63(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00057-0 Teng, X., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., & Cheng, J. (2022). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2: Translation and psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 970982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.970982 Tomb, I., Hauser, M., Deldin, P., & Caramazza, A. (2002). Do somatic markers mediate decisions on the Iowa Gambling Task? Nature Neuroscience, 5(11), 1103-1104. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn963 Vallat, R. (2018). Pingouin: statistics in Python. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(31), 1026. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01026 Verdejo-Garcia, A., Clark, L., & Dunn, B. D. (2012). The role of interoception in addiction: A critical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(8), 1857-1869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.05.006 von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press. Wagar, B. M., & Dixon, M. J. (2006). Affective guidance in the Iowa Gambling Task. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(4), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.6.4.277 Wang, L., Liu, H., Li, Z., & Du, W. (2007). Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 21(8), 558-562. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111(2), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430 Werner, N. S., Jung, K., Duschek, S., & Schandry, R. (2009). Enhanced interoception facilitates implicit learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(9), 1815-1822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06973.x Werner, N. S., Schweitzer, N., Meindl, T., Duschek, S., Kambeitz, J., & Schandry, R. (2013). Interoceptive awareness moderates neural activity during decision-making. Biological Psychology, 94(3), 498-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.09.002 Wölfling, K., Mörsen, C. P., Duven, E., Albrecht, U., Grüsser, S. M., & Flor, H. (2020). To gamble or not to gamble: At risk for craving and relapse—A study on the validity of the IGT in gambling disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(2), 268-278. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00028 Worthy, D. A., Pang, B., & Byrne, K. A. (2013). Decomposing the roles of perseveration and expected value representation in models of the Iowa Gambling Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 640. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00640 Wulff, D. U., Mergenthaler-Canseco, M., & Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 111-139. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000115 Yao, Y. W., Liu, L., Ma, S. S., Shi, X. H., Zhou, N., Zhang, J. T., & Potenza, M. N. (2022). Functional and structural neural alterations in Internet gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 132, 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.025 Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100-1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393 Yechiam, E., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2005). Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 387-402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193783 Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(3), 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237 Zamarian, L., Sinz, H., Bonatti, E., Gamboz, N., & Delazer, M. (2008). Normal aging affects decisions under ambiguity, but not decisions under risk. Neuropsychology, 22(5), 645-657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.5.645 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101875 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本論文旨在分析內感覺能力、情緒調節方式以及網路使用行為等個體差異，如何共同影響決策過程中所出現的預期性生理反應。過去文獻指出，個體的身體覺察能力、網路使用行為與情緒調節策略，皆可能經由調節預期性生理訊號，進而影響決策表現。其中，膚電反應（skin conductance responses, SCRs）被廣泛作為預期性生理訊號的操作性指標，理論上被視為軀體標記（somatic markers）之運作機制。上述三項個體差異變項雖在實證研究中已展現一定程度的交互關聯，但目前尚缺乏針對這些因素如何透過預期性膚電反應的產生與行為應用，對決策歷程產生整合性作用的系統性探討。本論文以124名受試者為研究對象，整合性評估內感覺（採用多向度內感覺覺察量表）、內感覺準確性、覺察與信心水準（以心跳計數作業為測量工具）、網路使用行為（包含網路成癮量表及自陳每週上網時數）以及情緒調節傾向（情緒調節問卷），探討這些變項如何共同影響愛荷華賭局作業（Iowa Gambling Task, IGT）中的預期性膚電反應（aSCRs），並進一步檢驗aSCRs與IGT表現間之關聯。本文針對兩類決策情境進行分析與比較：其一為期望值／風險情境，選項之期望值呈系統性差異（不利牌組A+B相對有利牌組C+D）；其二為損失頻率情境，在平均期望值相等的條件下比較損失頻率結構（低頻率損失牌組B+D相對高頻率損失牌組A+C），並涵蓋IGT三個階段的歷程。結果顯示，個體差異預測變項與aSCRs之間的關聯會因決策情境的不同而有所變化，並且這種關係會隨著IGT階段的進展而有所差異。透過將個體差異預測變項進行 K-平均數集群分析，可區辨出參與者具有三種異質的個體差異輪廓，並發現其aSCRs展現出顯著且有系統的差異。在三者之中，集群A有最高的內感覺覺察與準確性，情緒調節方面更傾向運用認知再評估策略，且網路成癮傾向較低；集群Ｂ內感覺覺察與準確性中等、認知再評估傾向介於集群A與C之間、網路使用行為與成癮傾向較集群A高；集群C內感覺覺察與信心較低、較不使用認知再評估策略，且網路使用行為與成癮傾向較高。具體而言，參與者針對低頻率損失牌組（B+D）的aSCRs於三個IGT階段皆展現出穩定的集群排序；集群Ａ對於B+D牌組的aSCR反應最為顯著，而集群C則反應最弱。反之，頻率差值指標（B+D − A+C）與高頻率損失牌組（A+C）之aSCRs皆呈現出明顯的集群與階段交互作用，集群之間的差距會隨著IGT階段擴大、縮小，或在部分階段出現重新排列。這個發現顯示與頻率相關aSCR的形成與隨IGT階段的調整，會因個體差異輪廓而呈現不同軌跡。同樣地，在期望值／風險決策情境中，不利牌組（A+B）與有利牌組（C+D）及其差值指標（A+B − C+D）之aSCRs同樣隨著IGT階段展現集群間的顯著變化；特別值得注意的是，集群C於IGT中期在期望值／風險差值指標上出現方向性反轉，表示其aSCR不再呈現典型的「對不利牌組（A+B）較強、對有利牌組（C+D）較弱」的風險預期模式；相反地，其反應在中期更偏向對有利牌組或非典型線索產生較高的預期性喚起，與其他集群存在顯著差異。在行為層面，期望值／風險決策情境下的aSCR差值與較高比例的有利選擇行為呈現顯著相關；然而，在損失頻率情境中，aSCR與選擇行為之間的關聯性則根據不同集群而有所差異，顯示不同個體差異的參與者在生理訊號與決策行為之間展現不同的耦合模式。本研究結果以情境化且以個體差異為核心的分析策略支持損失頻率相關與期望值／風險相關的預期性生理訊號並非可互換的單一指標，提供對建立決策歷程模型及探討決策之預期性機制的參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis examines how individual differences in interoceptive processing, emotion regulation, and internet-use tendencies jointly shape anticipatory physiological signaling during decision-making under uncertainty. Prior research has demonstrated that individuals’ bodily awareness, internet usage patterns, and emotional regulation strategies are connected to decision-making by affecting anticipatory physiological signals, operationalized via anticipatory skin conductance responses (aSCRs), theorized to function as somatic markers. These three individual differences are also known to be interrelated. However, no study has investigated the combined effects of these factors on decision-making through the creation and use of aSCRs. This thesis addresses this gap using data from N = 124 participants. Measures of interoceptive sensibility, accuracy, awareness, and confidence, internet usage patterns, and emotion regulation tendencies were used to derive participant profiles via k-means clustering. We then examined aSCRs in the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) across three stages in two decision contexts: expected value/risk (advantageous C+D vs disadvantageous A+B) and loss-frequency (low-frequency loss decks B+D vs high-frequency loss decks A+C). Results revealed dissociation between loss-frequency and expected-value aSCRs. K-means clustering identified three heterogeneous profiles: Cluster A showed the highest interoceptive sensibility and accuracy, greater reliance on cognitive reappraisal, and lower problematic internet use; Cluster B showed intermediate interoceptive and regulatory resources alongside higher internet engagement than Cluster A; Cluster C showed lower interoceptive sensibility and confidence, less reappraisal use, and comparatively elevated problematic internet use. In the loss-frequency context, profiles differed reliably in aSCR magnitude to low-frequency loss decks (B+D), yielding a stable ordering across stages (Cluster A > Cluster B > Cluster C). In contrast, aSCRs to high-frequency loss decks (A+C) and the frequency difference (B+D −A+C) showed a clear Cluster × Stage interaction where the size and pattern of between-profile differences changed across stages. Similarly, in the expected value/risk context, aSCRs to disadvantageous decks (A+B), advantageous decks (C+D), and the EV contrast (C+D − A+B) varied across stages in a profile-dependent manner. Behaviorally, risk-related aSCR differentiation was associated with more advantageous choices, whereas in the loss-frequency context relationships differed by profile, suggesting heterogeneous coupling between physiology and behavior. Dimensions of interoception served distinct functions: perceptual-attentional facets predicted overall anticipatory amplitude, embodied trust facets predicted context-appropriate allocation. Overall, findings support a context-specific, individual-difference-centered account in which loss-frequency and risk-related signals are not interchangeable and are shaped by partially distinct learning-dependent dynamics. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-03-05T16:22:57Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-03-05T16:22:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 i
Abstract iii Table of Contents v List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Decision-Making Under Uncertainty 3 1.2 The Iowa Gambling Task: Structure and Interpretation 9 1.3 Anticipatory Physiological Signals and Decision Guidance 17 1.4 Individual Differences in Anticipatory Signaling 23 1.5 Unresolved Issues and Gaps in Current Literature 32 1.6 Research Design and Hypotheses 33 Chapter 2: Methods 37 2.1 Participants 37 2.2 Design Overview 39 2.3 Experimental Procedures 40 2.4 Materials and Measures 42 2.5 Dependent Variables and Outcome Indices 56 2.6 Data Analysis 60 Chapter 3: Results 65 3.1 Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses 67 3.2 Which Individual-Difference Factors Predict Anticipatory Physiological Signaling During Decision-Making? 73 3.3 Do Participants Cluster into Distinct Psychophysiological Profiles? 80 3.4 How Do Discrimination Patterns Evolve Across Learning Stages? 89 3.5 Do Behavioral Choice Strategies Diverge Across Profiles? 95 3.6 Does Anticipatory Discrimination Predict Choice Behavior? 101 3.7 Out-of-Sample Validation 112 3.8 Consolidation of Results 116 Chapter 4: Discussion 119 4.1 Individual-Difference Profiles and Their Correlates 121 4.2 Frequency-Related Anticipatory Responses: Trait-Like Differentiation 127 4.3 Risk-Related Anticipatory Responses: Stage-Dependent Learning 130 4.4 Profile Stratification Increases Explanatory Power 134 4.5 Contributions, Limitations, and Future Directions 135 References 143 Appendix A 160 Appendix B 163 Appendix C 165 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 內感覺 | - |
| dc.subject | 情緒調節 | - |
| dc.subject | 網路成癮 | - |
| dc.subject | 愛荷華賭局作業 | - |
| dc.subject | 膚電反應 | - |
| dc.subject | Interoception | - |
| dc.subject | Emotion Regulation | - |
| dc.subject | Internet Addiction | - |
| dc.subject | Iowa Gambling Task | - |
| dc.subject | Skin Conductance Response | - |
| dc.title | 內感覺、網路使用與情緒調節在決策作業預期性膚電反 應之整合性影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Integrative Effects of Interoception, Internet Use, and Emotion Regulation on Anticipatory Skin Conductance in Decision-Making | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 徐永豐;吳仕煒 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yung-Fong Hsu;Shi-Wei Wu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 內感覺,情緒調節網路成癮愛荷華賭局作業膚電反應 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Interoception,Emotion RegulationInternet AddictionIowa Gambling TaskSkin Conductance Response | en |
| dc.relation.page | 170 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600032 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-09 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-03-06 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf | 1.63 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。