請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71642完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳恩賜(Oon-Soo Goh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Che-Yu Chou | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 周哲宇 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:05:21Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-03-05 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-03-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-01-18 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Arsalidou, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2011). Is 2+2=4? Meta-analyses of brain areas needed for numbers and calculations. Neuroimage, 54(3), 2382–2393. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.009
Ashburner, J. (2007). A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage, 38(1), 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007 Bailey, P. E., Brady, B., Ebner, N. C., & Ruffman, T. (2018). Effects of age on emotion regulation, emotional empathy, and prosocial behavior. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. doi:10.1093/geronb/gby084 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00 Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1406.5823. Beadle, J. N., Sheehan, A. H., Dahlben, B., & Gutchess, A. H. (2015). Aging, empathy, and prosociality. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(2), 215–224. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt091 Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving Part One: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. doi:10.1332/204080511X6087712 Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29. doi:10.1002/nvsm.198 Berns, G. S., McClure, S. M., Pagnoni, G., & Montague, P. R. (2001). Predictability modulates human brain response to reward. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(8), 2793–2798. Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., Westbury, C. F., Liebenthal, E., & Buchanan, L. (2006). Tuning of the human left fusiform gyrus to sublexical orthographic structure. Neuroimage, 33(2), 739–748. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.053 Bjälkebring, P., Västfjäll, D., Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2016). Greater Emotional Gain from Giving in Older Adults: Age-Related Positivity Bias in Charitable Giving. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 846. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00846 Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously. A theory of socioemotional selectivity. The American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165 Carstensen, L. L., Mikels, J. A., & Mather, M. (2006). Aging and the intersection of cognition, motivation, and emotion. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 343–362). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-012101264-9/50018-5 Chen, Y.-C., Chen, C.-C., Decety, J., & Cheng, Y. (2014). Aging is associated with changes in the neural circuits underlying empathy. Neurobiology of Aging, 35(4), 827–836. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.10.080 Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. doi:10.1177/1534582304267187 Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13(2), 127–133. Eisenberg, N. (2007). Empathy-related responding and prosocial behaviour. Novartis Foundation Symposium, 278, 71–80; discussion 80. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91 Field, A. P., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Robust statistical methods: A primer for clinical psychology and experimental psychopathology researchers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 19–38. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.05.013 Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., Worsley, K. J., Poline, J. P., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1994). Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach. Human Brain Mapping, 2(4), 189–210. doi:10.1002/hbm.460020402 Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of “theory of mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 77–83. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00025-6 Goh, J. O. S., Su, Y.-S., Tang, Y.-J., McCarrey, A. C., Tereshchenko, A., Elkins, W., & Resnick, S. M. (2016). Frontal, Striatal, and Medial Temporal Sensitivity to Value Distinguishes Risk-Taking from Risk-Aversive Older Adults during Decision Making. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36(49), 12498–12509. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1386-16.2016 Gong, X., Zhang, F., & Fung, H. H. (2017). Are older adults more willing to donate? the roles of donation form and social relationship. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbx099 Hahn, S., Carlson, C., Singer, S., & Gronlund, S. D. (2006). Aging and visual search: automatic and controlled attentional bias to threat faces. Acta Psychologica, 123(3), 312–336. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.01.008 Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., Knoepfle, D. T., & Rangel, A. (2010). Value computations in ventral medial prefrontal cortex during charitable decision making incorporate input from regions involved in social cognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(2), 583–590. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4089-09.2010 Henry, J. D., Phillips, L. H., Ruffman, T., & Bailey, P. E. (2013). A meta-analytic review of age differences in theory of mind. Psychology and Aging, 28(3), 826–839. doi:10.1037/a0030677 Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307–316. doi:10.1037/h0027580 Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., Nasca, T. J., Fields, S. K., Cicchetti, A., Lo Scalzo, A., … Torres-Ruiz, A. (2003). Comparisons of American, Israeli, Italian and Mexican physicians and nurses on the total and factor scores of the Jefferson scale of attitudes toward physician-nurse collaborative relationships. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 40(4), 427–435. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., Nasca, T. J., Mangione, S., Vergare, M., & Magee, M. (2002). Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(9), 1563–1569. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 Joosten, A., van Dijke, M., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2013). Feel Good, Do-Good!? On Consistency and Compensation in Moral Self-Regulation. Journal of Business Ethics : JBE. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1794-z Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Choices, values, and frames. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: in 2 parts (Vol. 4, pp. 269–278). WORLD SCIENTIFIC. doi:10.1142/9789814417358_0016 Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001). Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(16), RC159. Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446(7138), 908–911. doi:10.1038/nature05631 Kuss, K., Falk, A., Trautner, P., Montag, C., Weber, B., & Fliessbach, K. (2015). Neuronal correlates of social decision making are influenced by social value orientation-an fMRI study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 40. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00040 Leclerc, C. M., & Kensinger, E. A. (2008). Age-related differences in medial prefrontal activation in response to emotional images. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(2), 153–164. doi:10.3758/CABN.8.2.153 Leclerc, C. M., & Kensinger, E. A. (2010). Age-related valence-based reversal in recruitment of medial prefrontal cortex on a visual search task. Social Neuroscience, 5(5–6), 560–576. doi:10.1080/17470910903512296 Leclerc, C. M., & Kensinger, E. A. (2011). Neural processing of emotional pictures and words: a comparison of young and older adults. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(4), 519–538. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.549864 Lee, Y.-K., & Chang, C.-T. (2007). WHO GIVES WHAT TO CHARITY? CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING DONATION BEHAVIOR. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1173–1180. doi:10.2224/sbp.2007.35.9.1173 Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654 Mair, P., & Wilcox, R. (2016). Robust statistical methods in r using the wrs2 package. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep. Mather, M. (2016). The affective neuroscience of aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 213–238. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033540 Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: the positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 496–502. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005 Maylor, E. A., Moulson, J. M., Muncer, A.-M., & Taylor, L. A. (2002). Does performance on theory of mind tasks decline in old age? British Journal of Psychology, 93(Pt 4), 465–485. Mazaika, P., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Reiss, A. (2007). Artifact repair for fMRI data from high motion clinical subjects. Human Brain Mapping. Mechelli, A., Humphreys, G. W., Mayall, K., Olson, A., & Price, C. J. (2000). Differential effects of word length and visual contrast in the fusiform and lingual gyri during reading. Proceedings. Biological Sciences / the Royal Society, 267(1455), 1909–1913. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1229 Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy1. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x Midlarsky, E., & Hannah, M. E. (1989). The generous elderly: Naturalistic studies of donations across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 4(3), 346–351. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.4.3.346 Moran, J. M. (2013). Lifespan development: the effects of typical aging on theory of mind. Behavioural Brain Research, 237, 32–40. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2012.09.020 Moran, J. M., Jolly, E., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Social-cognitive deficits in normal aging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(16), 5553–5561. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5511-11.2012 Morishima, Y., Schunk, D., Bruhin, A., Ruff, C. C., & Fehr, E. (2012). Linking brain structure and activation in temporoparietal junction to explain the neurobiology of human altruism. Neuron, 75(1), 73–79. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.021 Nashiro, K., Sakaki, M., & Mather, M. (2012). Age differences in brain activity during emotion processing: reflections of age-related decline or increased emotion regulation? Gerontology, 58(2), 156–163. doi:10.1159/000328465 Ollinger, J. M., Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2001). Separating processes within a trial in event-related functional MRI I. The Method. Neuroimage, 13(1), 210–217. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0710 Preuschoff, K., Bossaerts, P., & Quartz, S. R. (2006). Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures. Neuron, 51(3), 381–390. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024 Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations, 48(6), 685–709. doi:10.1177/001872679504800605 Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 339. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00339 Research. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2018, from https://www2.bc.edu/sd-slotnick/scripts.htm Rousselet, G. A., Pernet, C. R., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Beyond differences in means: robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 46(2), 1738–1748. doi:10.1111/ejn.13610 Rutledge, R. B., Smittenaar, P., Zeidman, P., Brown, H. R., Adams, R. A., Lindenberger, U., … Dolan, R. J. (2016). Risk Taking for Potential Reward Decreases across the Lifespan. Current Biology, 26(12), 1634–1639. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.017 Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Worthy, D. A., Mata, R., McClure, S. M., & Knutson, B. (2014). Adult age differences in frontostriatal representation of prediction error but not reward outcome. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(2), 672–682. doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0297-4 Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238. Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2006). Integrating automatic and controlled processes into neurocognitive models of social cognition. Brain Research, 1079(1), 86–97. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.005 Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about thinking peopleThe role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.” Neuroimage, 19(4), 1835–1842. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00230-1 Saxe, R., & Powell, L. J. (2006). It’s the thought that counts: specific brain regions for one component of theory of mind. Psychological Science, 17(8), 692–699. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01768.x Schultz, W. (2000). Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 1(3), 199–207. doi:10.1038/35044563 Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: an experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(4), 283–293. Siu, A. M. H., & Shek, D. T. L. (2005). Validation of the interpersonal reactivity index in a chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2), 118–126. doi:10.1177/1049731504270384 St Jacques, P. L., Dolcos, F., & Cabeza, R. (2009). Effects of aging on functional connectivity of the amygdala for subsequent memory of negative pictures: a network analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Psychological Science, 20(1), 74–84. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02258.x Starrfelt, R., & Gerlach, C. (2007). The visual what for area: words and pictures in the left fusiform gyrus. Neuroimage, 35(1), 334–342. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.003 Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In Advances in experimental social psychology volume 4 (Vol. 4, pp. 271–314). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60080-5 Sul, S., Tobler, P. N., Hein, G., Leiberg, S., Jung, D., Fehr, E., & Kim, H. (2015). Spatial gradient in value representation along the medial prefrontal cortex reflects individual differences in prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(25), 7851–7856. doi:10.1073/pnas.1423895112 Sullivan, S., & Ruffman, T. (2004). Social understanding: How does it fare with advancing years? British Journal of Psychology, 95(Pt 1), 1–18. doi:10.1348/000712604322779424 Swift, M. E., Burns, A. L., Gray, K. L., & DiPietro, L. A. (2001). Age-related alterations in the inflammatory response to dermal injury. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 117(5), 1027–1035. doi:10.1046/j.0022-202x.2001.01539.x Sze, J. A., Gyurak, A., Goodkind, M. S., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Greater emotional empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12(5), 1129–1140. doi:10.1037/a0025011 Tashjian, S. M., Weissman, D. G., Guyer, A. E., & Galván, A. (2018). Neural response to prosocial scenes relates to subsequent giving behavior in adolescents: A pilot study. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(2), 342–352. doi:10.3758/s13415-018-0573-9 Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315(5811), 515–518. doi:10.1126/science.1134239 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business (Chicago, Ill.), 59(S4), S251. doi:10.1086/296365 Van Leijenhorst, L., Gunther Moor, B., Op de Macks, Z. A., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Westenberg, P. M., & Crone, E. A. (2010). Adolescent risky decision-making: neurocognitive development of reward and control regions. Neuroimage, 51(1), 345–355. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.038 Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Tree-Based Methods. In Modern Applied Statistics with S (pp. 251–269). New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2_9 Wang, M., Gamo, N. J., Yang, Y., Jin, L. E., Wang, X.-J., Laubach, M., … Arnsten, A. F. T. (2011). Neuronal basis of age-related working memory decline. Nature, 476(7359), 210–213. doi:10.1038/nature10243 Wang, Z., & Su, Y. (2013). Age-related differences in the performance of theory of mind in older adults: a dissociation of cognitive and affective components. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 284–291. doi:10.1037/a0030876 Webb, B., Hine, A. C., & Bailey, P. E. (2016). Difficulty in differentiating trustworthiness from untrustworthiness in older age. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 985–995. doi:10.1037/dev0000126 Wieck, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2015). Age differences in empathy: Multidirectional and context-dependent. Psychology and Aging, 30(2), 407–419. doi:10.1037/a0039001 Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. doi:10.1332/204080512X649379 Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P. M., & Steinberg, R. (2008). The intergenerational transmission of generosity. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10–11), 2146–2156. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.004 Young, L., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Saxe, R. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(20), 8235–8240. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701408104 Yuen, K. K. (1974). The two-sample trimmedt for unequal population variances. Biometrika, 61(1), 165–170. doi:10.1093/biomet/61.1.165 Zaitchik, D. (1990). When representations conflict with reality: the preschooler’s problem with false beliefs and “false” photographs. Cognition, 35(1), 41–68. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90036-J | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71642 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Greater prosocial behavior in older than younger adults, such as in financial donations, has been suggested to stem from increased empathy with age. We considered, however, that young and older prosocial decisions might also reflect motivations apart from empathy such as other more self-oriented reasons. In this present study, young and older adults underwent an fMRI experiment in which they apportioned real money to others during decision phases of hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios included opportunities to be prosocial, make typical purchases, or were neutral scenarios not typically requiring exchange of money. Participants’ decided amounts were then selectively adjusted in feedback on scenario outcomes and self-report on emotional reactions assessed. As expected, older adults apportioned more money than younger adults in prosocial scenarios. However, young adults reported greater magnitudes of emotional reactions than older adults. Age modulated scenario decision neural processing with a ventral to dorsal in the medial prefrontal cortex. These regions evinced lower neural activity to prosocial than purchase or neutral scenarios in older than younger adults, whereas younger adults were reversed. Critically, lower VMPFC activity was associated with more prosocial money apportioned and greater personal distress scores more in older adults, but with greater empathy concern more in younger adults. These findings suggest that young adults may not be less empathetic than older adults during financial prosocial decision. Moreover, other motivational psychological mechanisms might underlie older adult prosocial behaviors apart from general empathy. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:05:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R05454008-1.pdf: 2491363 bytes, checksum: 85c47dfa7642d6740421a8f3df19b2bf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgement I
中文摘要 II Abstract III Introduction 1 ● Difficulties in associating age-related greater prosocial behavior with greater empathy 1 ● Prosocial processing engages differential brain areas in young and older adults 5 ● Differential self- and other-oriented motivations account for prosocial behavior and medial prefrontal processing in young and older adult 6 Methods 8 ● Participant 8 ● Stimuli and materials 8 ● Procedure 11 ● Behavioral Analysis 12 ● Image acquisition 13 ● fMRI Data processing and Analysis 14 Result 18 ● Older adults appropriate more money than younger adults in prosocial scenarios 18 ● Higher amounts of money appropriated associated with personal distress in old but with greater empathy and higher financial income in young 18 ● Higher frontal neural responses to prosocial choices in younger than older adults 19 ● Lower neural responses in regions of interest associated with greater personal distress and greater prosocial money appropriated in older adults 19 ● Younger adults showed greater reward response during -NT50 PUR than -NT$50 PRO in ER phase 20 ● Visual regions modulated emotion reaction in both young and old 21 Discussion 22 References 30 Figures Figure 1. Example trial of monetary appropriation task (MAT) 42 Figure 2. Bar plots of mean amounts of money appropriated during MD phase for young and older adults 43 Figure 3. Scatterplots of correlation between corrected prosocial MMA and questionnaires 44 Figure 4. Whole brain activation during age interacted with scenario 45 Figure 5. Scatterplots of correlation between neural responses in region-a, region-b, and corrected prosocial MMA, and IRI-PD scores 46 Figure 6. Mean emotion reactions and brain activity during the ER phase 47 Supplementary Figures and Table Figure 1. Scatter plots of relations between emotion reaction and monetary adjustment distance 48 Figure 2. Brain regions sensitive to the change of money regulation manipulated by parametric contrasts 49 Table 1. Detail situations of the four scenarios in the monetary appropriation task (MAT) 50 Table 2. ANOVA table of MD scenarios and age group 53 Table 3. Post-hoc group t-test by scenarios for MD phase 54 Table 4. Summary of questionnaires score of young and old participants 55 Table 5. Regression models of within group behavioral money appropriated interaction parameter estimates with age and questionnaires 56 Table 6. ANOVA table of ROIs interacted with age groups and scenarios 57 Table 7. Brain activation table of age and scenario interaction during MD phas 58 Table 8. ANOVA table of age and MD phase ROI estimate interaction 59 Table 9. Post-hoc group t-test by scenarios for MD ROI estimate values 60 Table 10. ANOVA table of age and ER phase monetary adjustment levels interaction during PRO and PUR scenarios 61 Table 11. Categorical post-hoc t-test of age difference in ER phase during PRO and PUR scenario 62 Table 12. Brain activation table during ER phase 63 Table 13. Mediation analysis table between signal parameter estimate and the amount of money appropriated using IRI-PD score as mediator in ROI region-a (ROI-a) and region-b (ROI-b) 65 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 前額葉皮質參與親社會行為中「自我」與「他人」相關之處理的年齡差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Differential medial prefrontal engagement associated with
self- and other-processing during older and younger adult prosocial behaviors | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳建德(Chien-Te Wu),張玉玲(Yu-Ling Chang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 老化,認知功能,親社會行為,同理心,功能性磁振造影, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Aging,cognitive function,prosocial behavior,empathy,fMRI, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 65 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201804353 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-01-21 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 腦與心智科學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 腦與心智科學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.43 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。