第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結果
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結果
依據加權程度中心性分析結果(圖 4-1、圖 4-4)，系統一決策路徑中重要的 腦區為 precuneus、ACC、Amygdala、PCC 與 Medial frontal gyrus，系統二決策 路徑中重要的腦區為 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex、middle frontal gyrus、ACC、
middle temporal gyrus 與 inferior frontal gyrus。居間中心性分析結果發現，在系 統一決策路徑中掌控腦區間訊息溝通的腦區，為 precuneus，而在系統二決策路 徑中則是 ACC。
子群體分析結果(圖 4-3、圖 4-6)讓我們找出系統一與系統二中各腦區間的 合作關係，發現如下：
系統一決策路徑，總共找出三個子群體：
1. 最大的子群體為第1 類子群，重要腦區有 ACC、Amygdala、Posterior Cingulate Cortex(PCC)、insula、orbitofrontal cortex(OFC)、ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)以及 superior temporal sulcus (STS)，根
據這些腦區的功能，推斷系統一決策路徑的第1 類子群可能負責社會
情感相關功能
2. 第2 類子群，重要的腦區有 Medial Frontal gyrus、 parahippocampus gyrus、inferior temporal gyrus。Medial Frontal gyrus，但其共同負責的 功能則較不明確
3. 第3 類子群，重要的腦區有 Precuneus、Supramarginal gyrus、superior frontal gyrus、Superior temporal gyrus，根據腦區功能推斷根據可能在 系統一中共同負責感官訊息處理，且根據實驗情境，此子群體也可能 在系統一中負責著情感偏好相關的訊息處理。
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
40
系統二決策路徑，總共找出三個子群體：
1. 第1 類子群體為最大的子群，重要的腦區有 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex(dlPFC)、middle frontal gyrus(MFG)、ACC、inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)、inferior parietal lobule，根據這些腦區的功能，推斷系統二決策
路徑的第1 類子群可能負責目標規劃與邏輯推理相關功能，且
dlPFC、middle frontal gyrus 在決策難度較高的情境中，經常共同活 化。
2. 第2 類子群體，重要的腦區有 Insula、caudate、thalamus、dmPFC，重 要腦區間在功能上也都沒有太大的關聯，因此較難推斷此子群在整個 系統二決策路徑中所扮演的角色。
3. 第3 類子群(圖 4-6 中綠色部分)，大部分與系統一決策路徑網絡中第 1 類子群許多的腦區有所重疊，也再次驗證在第二章文獻探討所提到的 預設干預模型(default- interventionist model)描述相似，證明系統一的決 策模式在系統二決策過程中並不會完全停止。
最後本研究依據腦區的加權程度中心性，發展了一套計分辦別機制，用此來 判斷其他 fmri 決策實驗可能觸發的是系統一決策路徑還是系統二決策路徑。本 研究先透過樣本內驗證，確定計分判斷機制有達 95.12%的正確性後，本研究將 其應用到彭仁伯(2016)使用 fMRI 進行軟體專案承諾升級現象的實驗結果，測試 其可行性，驗證結果如表 4-11 與 4-12，判斷結果顯示在選擇繼續專案的決策者 腦區其決策路徑偏向系統一決策路徑，而選擇不繼續專案的決策者其腦區較偏 向系統案決策路徑，判斷結果與資管領域學者對承諾升級現象的解釋相同，證 明了計分機制的可行性。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第二節 研究貢獻
過去較少雙系統理論在大腦中作用機制相關的文獻整理，導致學者在解釋決 策行為 fMRI 實驗結果的困難，僅能參考少數幾篇文獻來進行系統決策路徑的 判別。本研究彙整了 32 篇過去學者進行決策相關的功能性磁振造影(Functional Magenetic Reasonace Imaging)實驗，依據其實驗操弄可能觸發的決策系統路徑 對實驗結果活化的腦區進行雙系統路徑分類，並將這些分類好的腦區進行社群 網絡分析，本研究研究結果對於學術上的貢獻能歸納成以下幾點：
1. 透過加權程度中心性分析區分出不同系統決策路徑中重要的腦區 2. 透過居間中心性找出不同系統決策路徑中訊息中樞腦區
3. 透過子群體分析找出不同系統決策路經中各腦區間的合作關係。
4. 根據提出一套計分辨別機制，讓後續學者能夠依照此機制去驗證實 驗研究的腦區結果是偏向啟動系統一決策路徑或是系統二決策路 徑。
綜和以上幾點，讓未來學者在以雙系統理論解釋決策行為時，有個數據化
的依據與參照，也能對雙系統決策路徑的大腦機制有個更全面的認識。
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
42
第三節 研究限制
本研究在研究過程中力求嚴謹，但仍有難以克服的難點，主要的研究限制 有以下兩點：
1. 本研究樣本蒐集的過程為人工蒐集，能蒐集與分類的文獻有限，且許多 決策實驗的實驗操弄因子較為複雜，較難以判別其操弄期望觸發的系統 決策路徑，使得社群網絡分析樣本數量偏少，可能造成研究結果在精準 度上有些許落差。
2. 本研究的文獻整理過程採用人工校閱的方式，雖然本研究已採用兩人獨 立編碼的方式進行彙整，編碼結果相同的文獻才納入文獻樣本，但仍可 能造成人為判斷上的偏誤。
第四節 未來規劃與研究方向
根據上一節研究限制所談到的編碼彙整問題，隨著近年來文本分析與人工 智慧技術的進展，本研究未來可以結合這兩項技術將蒐集、分類樣本的工作自 動化，讓我們能夠蒐集更多的樣本來進行分析，使分類結果更加準確可靠。
此外，除了探討雙系統理論決策過程中大腦作用機制，其他與決策相關的 理論(如：框架效應)近年來也受到越來越多領域學者的重視，未來也能將本文 的研究方法應用到不同理論的決策實驗，比較在不同理論決策中各腦區間活化 差異，從更多元角度了解大腦決策機制，最後綜合這些研究結果提出一些準 則，讓決策者能夠根據這些建議，規避一些常造成決策偏誤的狀況，進而改善 我們在不同情境決策品質。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
參考文獻
一、中文部分
彭仁柏 (民 105)。軟體專案承諾升級的研究─自我辯護理論與框架效應 (未出版 之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。
梁定澎 (民 101)。資訊管理理論。新北市：前程文化。
二、英文部分
Adolphs, R. (2010). What does the amygdala contribute to social cognition?. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 42-61.
Akil, H., Martone, M. E., & Van Essen, D. C. (2011),“Challenges and opportunities in mining neuroscience data,” Science (New York, NY), 331(6018), 708.
Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2012). The brain’s default network and its adaptive role in internal mentation. The Neuroscientist, 18(3), 251-270.
Bakalash, T., & Riemer, H. (2013). Exploring ad-elicited emotional arousal and memory for the ad using fMRI. Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 275-291.
Bassett DS, Bullmore ET. 2009. Human brain networks in health and disease. Curr Opin Neurol 22:340–347.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2003). Role of the amygdala in decision‐
making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985(1), 356-369.
Borgatti, S. P., & Li, X. (2009). On social network analysis in a supply chain context.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5–22.
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
44
Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402(6758), 179.
Brewer, J. B., Zhao, Z., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Making memories: Brain activity that predicts how well visual experience will be remembered. Science, 281(5380), 1185-1187.
Brown, L. L., Schneider, J. S., & Lidsky, T. I. (1997). Sensory and cognitive functions of the basal ganglia. Current opinion in neurobiology, 7(2), 157-163.
Bucci, D. J. (2009). Posterior parietal cortex: An interface between attention and learning? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 91(2), 114-120.
Buckner, R. L., Andrews‐Hanna, J. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2008). The brain's default network. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 1-38.
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009). Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 186.
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 1-47.
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002). Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(3), 321-352.
Carlson, N. R. (2012). Physiology of Behavior 11th Edition. Pearson. pp. 83; 268; 273-275
Causse, M., Péran, P., Dehais, F., Caravasso, C. F., Zeffiro, T., Sabatini, U., & Pastor, J. (2013). Affective decision making under uncertainty during a plausible aviation task: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 71, 19-29.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chan, R. C., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 23(2), 201-216.
Chang, H. J. J., O'Boyle, M., Anderson, R. C., & Suttikun, C. (2016). An fMRI study of advertising appeals and their relationship to product attractiveness and buying intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(6), 538-548.
Coricelli, G., & Nagel, R. (2010). The neural basis of bounded rational behavior.
Costafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S., & Fu, C. H. (2008). Predictors of amygdala activation during the processing of emotional stimuli: a meta-analysis of 385 PET and fMRI studies. Brain research reviews, 58(1), 57-70.
Crinion, J. T., Lambon‐Ralph, M. A., Warburton, E. A., Howard, D., & Wise, R. J.
(2003). Temporal lobe regions engaged during normal speech comprehension.
Brain, 126(5), 1193-1201.
Curtis, C. E., & D'Espositio, M. (2004). The effects of prefrontal lesions on working memory perfromance and theory. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(4), 528-539.
Davis, M. (1992). The role of the amygdala in fear and anxiety. Annual review of neuroscience, 15(1), 353-375.
D'Argembeau, A., Ruby, P., Collette, F., Degueldre, C., Balteau, E., Luxen, A., et al.
(2007). Distinct regions of the medial prefrontal cortex are associated with self-referential processing and perspective taking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(6), 935-944.
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684-687.
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
46
Delgado, M. R., Frank, R. H., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature neuroscience, 8(11), 1611.
Delgado, M. R., Miller, M. M., Inati, S., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). An fMRI study of reward-related probability learning. Neuroimage, 24(3), 862-873.
Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., & Kenning, P. (2005). Nonlinear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when specific implicit information influences economic decision making. Journal of Neuroimaging, 15(2), 171-182.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 380.
Eldaief, M. C., Deckersbach, T., Carlson, L. E., Beucke, J. C., & Dougherty, D. D.
(2011). Emotional and cognitive stimuli differentially engage the default network during inductive reasoning. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 7(4), 380-392.
Elliott, R. (2003). Executive functions and their disorders: Imaging in clinical neuroscience. British medical bulletin, 65(1), 49-59.
Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist 49 (8): 709–724.
Evans, J. 2005. Insight and self-insight in reasoning and decision making. In The Shape of Reason: Essays in Honour of Paolo Legrenzi, edited by Girotto, V., and P.
Johnson-Laird, 27–48. London, U.K.:Psychology Press.
Evans, J. 2006. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13 (3): 378–395.
Evans, J. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.
Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–278.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition:
Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), 223-241.
Evans, Jonathan (1984). "Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning". British Journal of Psychology. 75: 451–468.
Ferreira, N. F., Oliveira, V. D., Amaral, L., Mendonça, R., & Lima, S. S. (2003).
Analysis of parahippocampal gyrus in 115 patients with hippocampal sclerosis. Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria, 61(3B), 707-711.
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(27), 9673-9678.
Freeman, L.C., 1979. Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239..
Gazzaniga, M.S., Ivry, R.B. and Mangun, G.R., Cognitive Neuroscience, the Biology of the Mind, third edition, 2009, W.W. Norton, publishers. pgs. 395–401
Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68.
Goel V, Dolan R J. Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 2003, 87:
11~22
Grahn, J. A., Parkinson, J. A., & Owen, A. M. (2009). The role of the basal ganglia in learning and memory: neuropsychological studies. Behavioural brain research, 199(1), 53-60.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
48
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental-analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 3 (4), 367–388.
Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, M. I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(6), 223-233.
Heekeren, H. R., Marrett, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2008). The neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(6), 467-479.
Helion, C., & David, A. P. (2015). Beyond Dual-Processes: The Interplay of Reason and Emotion in Moral Judgment. In J. Clausen & N. Levy (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics(pp. 109–125).
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.
Hutchinson, J. B., Uncapher, M. R., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Posterior parietal cortex and episodic retrieval: Convergent and divergent effects of attention and memory.
Learning and Memory, 16, 343-356.
Kahneman, D., and S. Frederick. 2004. Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Models of a Man:Essays in Memory of Herbert A. Simon, edited by Augier, M., and J. March, 411–432.
Kahneman, D., and S. Frederick. 2005. A model of heuristic judgment. In The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, edited by Holyoak, K., and R.
Morrison, 267–294.
Keil, M., & Mann, J. (1997). The nature and extent of it project escalation: Results from a survey of IS audit and control professionals. IS Audit and Control Journal, 40-49.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Keil, M., Mann, J., & Rai, A. (2000). Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. Mis Quarterly, 631-664.
Khader, P. H., Pachur, T., Meier, S., Bien, S., Jost, K., & Rösler, F. (2011). Memory-based decision-making with heuristics: evidence for a controlled activation of memory representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3540-3554.
Kirk, U., Downar, J., & Montague, P. R. (2011). Interoception drives increased rational decision-making in meditators playing the ultimatum game. Frontiers in neuroscience, 5, 49.
Krawczyk, D. C., McClelland, M. M., Donovan, C. M., Tillman, G. D., & Maguire, M.
J. (2010). An fMRI investigation of cognitive stages in reasoning by analogy. Brain research, 1342, 63-73.
Lieberman, M. 2007. Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes.
Annual Review of Psychology 58: 259–289.
Mars, R. B., Neubert, F. X., Noonan, M. P., Sallet, J., Toni, I., & Rushworth, M. F.
(2012). On the relationship between the “default mode network” and the “social brain”. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6, 189.
Marsden, C. D., & Obeso, J. A. (1994). The functions of the basal ganglia and the paradox of stereotaxic surgery in Parkinson's disease. Brain, 117(4), 877-897.
Mohr, P. N., Biele, G., & Heekeren, H. R. (2010). Neural processing of risk. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(19), 6613-6619.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(3), 134-140.
Murch, K. B. (2010). Dual process models of decision making: an fMRI investigation of framing effects and individual differences (Doctoral dissertation).
Nerur, S., Sikora, R., Mangalaraj, G. & Balijepally V., 2005. Assessing the Relative Influence of Journals in a Citation Network, Communications of The Acm, 48(11), 71-74.
DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.MIS.015.2018.A05
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
50
Newman, M. E. J., “Modularity and community structure in networks, ＂ PNAS (103:23), 2006, pp.8577-8582.
Newman, M., “The Structure and Function of complex Networkss,＂ SIAM Review (45:2), 2003.
Newman, S. D., Carpenter, P. A., Varma, S., & Just, M. A. (2003). Frontal and parietal participation in problem solving in the Tower of London: fMRI and computational modeling of planning and high-level perception. Neuropsychologia, 41(12), 1668-1682.
Nooy, W.D., Exploratory Network Analysis with Pajek, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Pape, H. C., & Pare, D. (2010). Plastic synaptic networks of the amygdala for the acquisition, expression, and extinction of conditioned fear. Physiological reviews, 90(2), 419-463.
Pérez Á lvarez, F., & Timoneda Gallart, C. (2007). An fMRI Study of Emotional engagement in decicion-making. © Transaction advanced research, 2007, vol. 2, p. 45-51.
Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48(2), 175-187.
Rampl, L. V., Opitz, C., Welpe, I. M., & Kenning, P. (2016). The role of emotions in
Rampl, L. V., Opitz, C., Welpe, I. M., & Kenning, P. (2016). The role of emotions in