5D Library › 注意力网络、工作记忆瓶颈与内在动机的自决定理论 · English

第八章 实践与预注册试验

注

本章的核查表是一份自我观察的提示,不是测评工具。 它不能用来判断任何人是否有注意缺陷、焦虑或其他问题,也不能代替专业评估。如果注意力或动机的困难长期影响生活,请寻求专业帮助。本章不涉及任何药物。

第一部分 四步注意力与动机核查表

这份核查表供个人或团队用一周时间记录、再回顾。目的不是评判谁不够自律,而是看清环境与安排如何影响注意与动机。

  1. 无打断时间块与通知的物理隔离。 每天计划了多长的专注时间块?实际最长连续多久没有被打断?手机放在哪里(桌上、包里、另一个房间)?一天看到多少条通知?(第一章、第三章)
  2. 工作记忆的外部卸载。 有多少件未完成的事写在了外部(纸、清单、看板)上,又有多少件只是记在心里?记在心里的超过约 4 件时,要特别留意。(第二章)
  3. 挑战与技能的比例。 用练习题或检查点的正确率作粗略的参照:长期高于 95% 可能太容易,低于 70% 可能太难;同时记录当时的感受是厌倦、焦虑还是投入。(第六章)
  4. 控制性奖惩审计。 当前有哪些外在激励?它们是预期的、取决于完成或表现的,还是信息性的反馈?有没有以威胁或惩罚为主的安排?(第四章、第五章)

推导

把核查表用在一位虚构的人一周五天的工作日志上。

# The four-step checklist on a FICTIONAL five-day work log: planned block, longest uninterrupted
# stretch (min), phone location, notifications, open loops written down / carried in the head,
# practice accuracy (%), feeling, incentives in play.
LOG = [
    ("Mon", 90, 18, "desk",  14, 1, 6, 97, "bored",    "daily target with penalty"),
    ("Tue", 90, 25, "desk",  11, 2, 5, 62, "anxious",  "daily target with penalty"),
    ("Wed", 90, 55, "bag",    4, 5, 2, 86, "absorbed", "none"),
    ("Thu", 90, 70, "other",  1, 6, 1, 83, "absorbed", "none"),
    ("Fri", 90, 30, "desk",   9, 3, 4, 95, "bored",    "bonus per item finished"),
]
print("Step 1  uninterrupted blocks and the phone's place")
for loc in ("desk", "bag", "other"):
    rows = [r for r in LOG if r[3] == loc]
    if rows:
        print(f"   phone {loc:5s}: longest stretch {sum(r[2] for r in rows) / len(rows):4.0f} min"
              f" of {rows[0][1]}, notifications {sum(r[4] for r in rows) / len(rows):4.1f} a day"
              f" ({len(rows)} day{'s' if len(rows) > 1 else ''})")
print("   one week, one person, many differences between days: a prompt, not evidence")
print("Step 2  offloading working memory")
print("   written down / carried in the head: " + ", ".join(f"{r[0]} {r[5]}/{r[6]}" for r in LOG))
print("   more than about 4 carried in the head on: "
      + ", ".join(r[0] for r in LOG if r[6] > 4))
print("Step 3  challenge / skill (practice accuracy as a rough gauge)")
for r in LOG:
    hint = ("too easy: raise difficulty" if r[7] > 92 else "too hard: break into steps"
            if r[7] < 70 else "in range")
    print(f"   {r[0]}: {r[7]} % correct, felt {r[8]:8s} -> {hint}")
print("Step 4  incentive audit")
for inc in sorted({r[9] for r in LOG}):
    days = [r[0] for r in LOG if r[9] == inc]
    kind = ("controlling (threat of penalty)" if "penalty" in inc else
            "expected, completion-contingent" if "bonus" in inc else "no external incentive")
    print(f"   {inc:26s}: {', '.join(days):13s} {kind}")
# Step 1  uninterrupted blocks and the phone's place
#    phone desk : longest stretch   24 min of 90, notifications 11.3 a day (3 days)
#    phone bag  : longest stretch   55 min of 90, notifications  4.0 a day (1 day)
#    phone other: longest stretch   70 min of 90, notifications  1.0 a day (1 day)
#    one week, one person, many differences between days: a prompt, not evidence
# Step 2  offloading working memory
#    written down / carried in the head: Mon 1/6, Tue 2/5, Wed 5/2, Thu 6/1, Fri 3/4
#    more than about 4 carried in the head on: Mon, Tue
# Step 3  challenge / skill (practice accuracy as a rough gauge)
#    Mon: 97 % correct, felt bored    -> too easy: raise difficulty
#    Tue: 62 % correct, felt anxious  -> too hard: break into steps
#    Wed: 86 % correct, felt absorbed -> in range
#    Thu: 83 % correct, felt absorbed -> in range
#    Fri: 95 % correct, felt bored    -> too easy: raise difficulty
# Step 4  incentive audit
#    bonus per item finished   : Fri           expected, completion-contingent
#    daily target with penalty : Mon, Tue      controlling (threat of penalty)
#    none                      : Wed, Thu      no external incentive

这份虚构日志显示:手机在桌上的三天,最长连续专注平均只有 24 分钟;放进包里或另一个房间的两天分别为 55 和 70 分钟。正确率 95% 以上的两天感到厌倦,62% 的那天感到焦虑,83% 到 86% 的两天感到投入;投入的两天恰好没有外在激励。但一周、一个人的数据只能提供反思的线索,不能作为证据:手机不在身边的那天,可能本来就是会议少、任务合适的一天。要回答手机在不在场到底有没有影响,需要下面这样的试验。

第二部分 预注册随机交叉试验方案

问题

沃德、杜克、格尼茨与博斯 2017 年报告,自己的智能手机只要在场(即使静音、屏幕朝下),就会降低「可用的认知容量」:手机放在另一个房间的人,在工作记忆容量(操作广度)等测验上的表现明显好于手机放在桌上的人 (Ward et al. 2017)。这一结论被广泛引用,但之后的证据并不一致。

证据

直接重复。 鲁伊斯·帕尔多与明达对沃德等人的研究做了直接重复,手机的位置对操作广度任务和一项 go/no-go 抑制任务都没有影响 (Ruiz Pardo and Minda 2022)。另一项检验。 哈特曼、马塔雷利、雷伯与罗腾让 302 名被试把手机设为飞行模式,一半放在桌上,一半放在房间另一侧,在短时记忆与前瞻记忆任务上都没有发现手机在场的总体影响 (Hartmann et al. 2020)。元分析。 帕里汇总了 56 项研究、7,093 名被试,进行了六项元分析,只有一项合并效应显著:手机在场对工作记忆容量有负面影响,但小于理论设想;持续注意、反应抑制、认知灵活性与流体智力等其余领域的合并效应都为零;他也指出这一领域方法异质性大、统计功效普遍不足 (Parry 2024)。伯特格、波希克与齐勒尔汇总了 22 项研究的 43 个效应(同时包括手机的使用与在场),发现总体存在显著的负面影响,但不同认知领域受影响的程度不同 (Böttger et al. 2023)。

本试验的问题是:在一个预先登记、样本量足够的随机交叉试验中,把自己的手机锁在另一个房间,与把它静音、屏幕朝下放在桌上相比,是否提高操作广度测验的成绩?

设计

要素 规定
设计 两期、两序列的随机交叉试验(AB / BA);每位参与者在两天各完成一次测验,两次间隔至少 7 天,安排在一天中的同一时段
参与者 年满 18 岁、日常使用自己智能手机的成年人;通过大学与社区广告招募,不从作者的社群、学员或客户中招募
排除标准 研究期间必须随时能被联系到的人(例如值班的医护人员、独自照护他人者);无法完成电脑测验者;参加过同类研究者
A 条件 自己的手机静音、屏幕朝下,放在桌上视线内
B 条件 自己的手机由研究人员当面锁入另一个房间的储物柜;研究室提供紧急联系电话
随机化 计算机生成的区组随机序列,按 1:1 分配到 AB 或 BA 序列,分配结果在第一次测验当天才揭晓
盲法 参与者无法对条件设盲;测验由程序自动呈现与计分;数据分析者在揭盲前只看到编码后的条件
主要结局 自动化操作广度测验(OSPAN)的绝对分 (Unsworth et al. 2005);两次测验使用平行版本,版本顺序在序列内平衡
次要结局 持续注意反应任务(SART)的误按错误与反应时变异性 (Robertson et al. 1997);测验后自评的「想到手机」频率;手机依赖量表(探索性调节变量)
分析 线性混合模型:条件、时期与序列为固定效应,参与者为随机效应;双侧 α=0.05\alpha = 0.05;遗留效应只报告、不据以改变分析 (Senn 2002)

为什么主要结局是 OSPAN。 作者的框架列了 OSPAN 与 SART 两项结局;按本书规则只设一项主要结局。选 OSPAN,是因为沃德等人的结论主要建立在工作记忆容量上,帕里的元分析中唯一显著的合并效应也是工作记忆容量,而持续注意的合并效应为零。SART 作为次要结局报告,不参与判定。

交叉设计的练习效应与遗留效应

交叉设计让每个人自己做对照,所需样本远少于平行组设计,但必须处理练习效应(第二次测验因熟悉而变好)与遗留效应(第一期的条件影响第二期)。

推导

# Balancing a crossover: simulated OSPAN in SD units, period correlation 0.7, practice +0.35 SD
# at the second session, true effect +0.20 SD, optional carry-over +0.10 SD to a desk session
# after a phone-free one. Estimate = mean within-person (B - A). Values illustrative.
import random, math
random.seed(5)
RHO, PRACTICE, EFFECT, N, REPS = 0.7, 0.35, 0.20, 160, 400
NOISE = math.sqrt((1 - RHO) / RHO)                # person SD 1 -> period correlation rho

def estimate(order, carry=0.0):
    diffs = []
    for i in range(N):
        person = random.gauss(0, 1)
        seq = order(i)                             # "AB" or "BA"
        score = {}
        for period, cond in enumerate(seq):
            y = person + random.gauss(0, NOISE) + PRACTICE * period
            y += EFFECT if cond == "B" else 0.0
            if period == 1 and seq == "BA":
                y += carry                         # desk session after a phone-free session
            score[cond] = y
        diffs.append(score["B"] - score["A"])
    return sum(diffs) / N

def mean_est(order, carry=0.0):
    return sum(estimate(order, carry) for _ in range(REPS)) / REPS

print(f"true effect {EFFECT:+.2f} SD; practice effect {PRACTICE:+.2f} SD at the second session")
print(f"  everyone AB (desk first)        : estimate {mean_est(lambda i: 'AB'):+.2f}")
print(f"  everyone BA (other room first)  : estimate {mean_est(lambda i: 'BA'):+.2f}")
bal = lambda i: "AB" if i % 2 else "BA"
print(f"  balanced AB/BA                  : estimate {mean_est(bal):+.2f}")
print(f"  balanced, with carry-over +0.10 : estimate "
      f"{mean_est(bal, carry=0.10):+.2f}")
print("balancing cancels the practice effect; carry-over still biases the estimate, so it must be")
print("prevented by design (wash-out of at least 7 days, parallel task forms)")
# true effect +0.20 SD; practice effect +0.35 SD at the second session
#   everyone AB (desk first)        : estimate +0.56
#   everyone BA (other room first)  : estimate -0.15
#   balanced AB/BA                  : estimate +0.20
#   balanced, with carry-over +0.10 : estimate +0.14
# balancing cancels the practice effect; carry-over still biases the estimate, so it must be
# prevented by design (wash-out of at least 7 days, parallel task forms)

模拟显示:如果所有人都按同一个顺序测验,练习效应会与条件效应混在一起,估计值可以从 +0.56 偏到 −0.15;按 AB / BA 平衡分配后,练习效应在两个序列中相互抵消,估计值回到真实的 +0.20。但平衡不能消除遗留效应:如果「上次没带手机」让下次带着手机时也表现得稍好(+0.10),估计值就被压低到 +0.14。因此本方案用设计来防止遗留:两次测验间隔至少 7 天,并使用平行版本。

样本量

推导

# Sample size for the AB/BA crossover: A = own phone face down and silenced on the desk,
# B = phone locked in another room. Primary outcome OSPAN absolute score; effect in units of the
# between-person SD; SD of the within-person difference = SD * sqrt(2 (1 - rho)).
# Two-sided alpha 0.05, power 0.90, paired t approximation.
import math
from statistics import NormalDist
N = NormalDist()

def t_quantile(p, df):
    # Cornish-Fisher style approximation to the t quantile (good enough for df > 20)
    z = N.inv_cdf(p)
    return z + (z ** 3 + z) / (4 * df) + (5 * z ** 5 + 16 * z ** 3 + 3 * z) / (96 * df ** 2)

def n_pairs(d, rho, alpha=0.05, power=0.90):
    dz = d / math.sqrt(2 * (1 - rho))
    n = 10
    for _ in range(50):
        n_new = math.ceil(((t_quantile(1 - alpha / 2, n - 1) + t_quantile(power, n - 1)) / dz) ** 2)
        if n_new == n: break
        n = n_new
    return n

print("participants completing both periods, 90 % power")
print(" effect (SD) | rho = 0.6 | rho = 0.7 | rho = 0.8")
for d in (0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30):
    print(f"    {d:.2f}     | {n_pairs(d, 0.6):9d} | {n_pairs(d, 0.7):9d} | {n_pairs(d, 0.8):9d}")
n = n_pairs(0.20, 0.7)
n_even = n + n % 2
recruit = math.ceil(n_even / 0.85); recruit += recruit % 2
print(f"chosen: 0.20 SD, rho = 0.7 -> {n} completers (rounded to {n_even} for equal sequences);")
print(f"allowing 15 % who miss the second session: randomise {recruit}"
      f" ({recruit // 2} per sequence)")
# participants completing both periods, 90 % power
#  effect (SD) | rho = 0.6 | rho = 0.7 | rho = 0.8
#     0.15     |       376 |       283 |       189
#     0.20     |       213 |       160 |       108
#     0.25     |       137 |       103 |        70
#     0.30     |        96 |        73 |        49
# chosen: 0.20 SD, rho = 0.7 -> 160 completers (rounded to 160 for equal sequences);
# allowing 15 % who miss the second session: randomise 190 (95 per sequence)

最小关注效应定为 0.20 个标准差(以第一期 OSPAN 分数的人际标准差计),取值比较保守,以反映后来元分析中较小的估计;两期之间的个人内相关设为 0.7,把握度 90%。完成两期需要 160 人;考虑约 15% 的人缺席第二期,共随机化 190 人,每个序列 95 人。表中也列出了相关为 0.6 与 0.8 时的数字:相关越低,所需样本越多。

判定规则

推导

# Decision rule, fixed in advance. d = B (phone in another room) minus A (phone on desk) in OSPAN
# absolute score, in between-person SD units; positive = better without the phone. 95 % CI from
# the mixed model (condition, period, sequence; participant random). SESOI 0.20 SD. Carry-over
# is reported but never used to switch analyses.
SESOI = 0.20

def verdict(d, lo, hi, adherence_ok, harms):
    if harms:
        return f"d = {d:+.2f}: PAUSE and report - {harms} serious adverse event(s) judged related"
    if not adherence_ok:
        return (f"d = {d:+.2f}: NOT INTERPRETABLE - phone placement verified in fewer than"
                f" 90 % of sessions")
    if lo >= SESOI:    v = "phone absence improves OSPAN by at least the SESOI"
    elif lo > 0:       v = "phone absence improves OSPAN; size not shown to reach 0.20 SD"
    elif hi < 0:       v = "phone absence LOWERS OSPAN"
    elif lo >= -SESOI and hi <= SESOI: v = "no difference worth acting on (equivalence)"
    else:              v = "unclear: the interval is too wide to decide"
    return f"d = {d:+.2f} ({lo:+.2f} to {hi:+.2f}): {v}"

for case in ((0.34, 0.21, 0.47, True, 0), (0.15, 0.02, 0.28, True, 0),
             (0.03, -0.10, 0.16, True, 0), (-0.05, -0.27, 0.17, True, 0),
             (0.30, 0.17, 0.43, False, 0), (0.25, 0.12, 0.38, True, 1)):
    print(verdict(*case))
print("SART commission errors, RT variability and self-rated phone urges are secondary:")
print("reported with intervals, never decisive")
# d = +0.34 (+0.21 to +0.47): phone absence improves OSPAN by at least the SESOI
# d = +0.15 (+0.02 to +0.28): phone absence improves OSPAN; size not shown to reach 0.20 SD
# d = +0.03 (-0.10 to +0.16): no difference worth acting on (equivalence)
# d = -0.05 (-0.27 to +0.17): unclear: the interval is too wide to decide
# d = +0.30: NOT INTERPRETABLE - phone placement verified in fewer than 90 % of sessions
# d = +0.25: PAUSE and report - 1 serious adverse event(s) judged related
# SART commission errors, RT variability and self-rated phone urges are secondary:
# reported with intervals, never decisive

示例结果是编造的。如果核实手机位置按规定执行的测验少于 90%,无论结果如何,报告都写「不可解释」;如果出现判定与研究相关的严重不良事件,试验暂停并报告。只有当效应置信区间的下限不低于 0.20 个标准差时,报告才写「手机不在场使 OSPAN 提高了至少最小关注的幅度」;如果置信区间完全落在 −0.20 到 +0.20 之间,报告写「没有值得据以行动的差别」。无论结果正负,都将发表。

这项试验不能说明什么

第一,参与者知道手机在不在身边,也可能猜到研究的假设,期望效应可能影响表现;自动计分只能部分缓解这个问题。第二,试验比较的是两种具体的放置方式,不能说明通知、查看或使用手机的影响,也不能推广到「手机放在包里」等其他情形。第三,结局是实验室中的短时测验,不能说明日常工作效率或学习成绩。第四,阴性结果只能说明在这种设置下效应小于 0.20 个标准差的可能性大,不能说明手机对注意力「没有任何影响」。第五,招募的多为愿意暂时离开手机的人,最依赖手机的人可能更少参加。

伦理与利益冲突

试验须经独立伦理委员会批准,参与者签署知情同意,并在第一位参与者入组之前登记方案和分析计划 (Nosek et al. 2018)。知情同意书说明手机可能被放在另一个房间;参与者在任何时候都可以要求取回手机或退出,不需要说明理由(取回手机的测验按方案记为偏离)。研究结束后向参与者完整说明研究目的。数据匿名保存,不收集手机中的任何内容。

利益披露

作者以 5D Library 的著作(包括本书)作为其社群课程、升维牌卡(5D Ascension Cards,Dimensional Shift Card Decks)与 Yafu AI 知识库的方法论基础,因此与本书主题有商业利益关系。本书不推销任何课程、牌卡或服务;第八章的试验设计为由独立于作者企业的研究人员实施和分析,不从作者的社群、学员或客户中招募;书中所有代码与研究方案均公开,供任何人检验。为限制利益的影响:测验程序与分析代码在入组前公开;无论结果如何,结果、数据和代码都将公开。

本章小结

四步核查表把前几章的发现变成一周的自我观察:时间块与手机的位置、外部卸载、挑战与技能的比例、控制性奖惩。虚构的例子显示,一周的数据只能提供线索,不能作为证据。为检验「手机在场即耗脑力」这一被广泛引用但重复结果不一致的说法,本章给出一项预注册随机交叉试验:手机静音朝下放在桌上与锁在另一个房间对比,唯一主要结局为 OSPAN 绝对分,两期间隔至少 7 天并使用平行版本,完成两期 160 人、随机化 190 人,判定规则预先写成代码,无论结果如何都发表。

参考文献

Böttger, Tobias, Michael Poschik, and Klaus Zierer. 2023. “Does the Brain Drain Effect Really Exist? A Meta-Analysis.” Behavioral Sciences 13 (9): 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090751.
Hartmann, Matthias, Corinna S. Martarelli, Thomas P. Reber, and Nicolas Rothen. 2020. “Does a Smartphone on the Desk Drain Our Brain? No Evidence of Cognitive Costs Due to Smartphone Presence in a Short-Term and Prospective Memory Task.” Consciousness and Cognition 86: 103033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103033.
Nosek, Brian A., Charles R. Ebersole, Alexander C. DeHaven, and David T. Mellor. 2018. “The Preregistration Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (11): 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
Parry, Douglas A. 2024. “Does the Mere Presence of a Smartphone Impact Cognitive Performance? A Meta-Analysis of the ‘Brain Drain Effect’.” Media Psychology 27 (5): 737–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2286647.
Robertson, Ian H., Tom Manly, Jackie Andrade, Bart T. Baddeley, and Jenny Yiend. 1997. “‘Oops!’: Performance Correlates of Everyday Attentional Failures in Traumatic Brain Injured and Normal Subjects.” Neuropsychologia 35 (6): 747–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8.
Ruiz Pardo, Ana C., and John Paul Minda. 2022. “Reexamining the ‘Brain Drain’ Effect: A Replication of Ward Et Al. (2017).” Acta Psychologica 230: 103717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103717.
Senn, Stephen. 2002. Cross-over Trials in Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Wiley.
Unsworth, Nash, Richard P. Heitz, Josef C. Schrock, and Randall W. Engle. 2005. “An Automated Version of the Operation Span Task.” Behavior Research Methods 37 (3): 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720.
Ward, Adrian F., Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneezy, and Maarten W. Bos. 2017. “Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2 (2): 140–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462.

Fan, Y. (2026). Attention Networks, the Working-Memory Bottleneck and Self-Determination Theory: From Posner's Tripartite Network and Motivation Crowding-Out to the Information Theory of Flow, Read Beside Neo-Confucian Reverence (Jìng) [注意力网络、工作记忆瓶颈与内在动机的自决定理论] (Version 1.0.0). 5D Library. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23761341 · Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).