用户名: 密码: 验证码:
安全管理中安全标志及其设计要素的感知机理研究
详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文
摘要
工业工程是管理科学与工程领域中的重要分支,而安全生产更是工业工程管理研究中的热点问题。进入21世纪以来,中国工业化加速,但安全生产问题亦日益严重,各类安全事故对生命财产与社会和谐造成了巨大的危害。安全标志是安全管理工作中的重要手段,被广泛地应用于社会生产与生活中。但通过实地调研和相关事故案例分析可以发现,目前安全标志在设计和使用上均存在较为严重的问题,致使其警示效果大打折扣,特别是部分安全标志的注意效果不佳与可读性较差,更让一线工人难以感知,从而成为事故致因,为很多生产安全事故与劳资纠纷埋下了隐患。因此,对现有安全标志的设计与应用等问题进行分析和研讨具有重要的研究价值。
     安全标志的设计与应用研究由来已久,但其成果大多基于问卷研究和行为实验,缺少来自脑认知与电生理层面的理论研究。安全标志的设计应符合人们的大脑认知与主观体验,才能更为有效地发挥其警示作用——这正是神经工业工程理论中安全生产领域的研究重点。回顾前人成果,有三方面的关键问题尚待解决:
     (1)人们对不同类型安全标志的危险感知评分是否存在差异?(2)人们是如何对安全标志进行神经感知与自动加工的?(3)安全标志的设计要素是否会对人们的神经感知与自动加工过程产生影响,其原因何在?本研究聚焦于以上三个关键问题,以安全标志及其设计要素的神经感知与自动加工过程为研究目标,以“总分式”逻辑框架,设计并完成了四项系列研究。
     研究一采用问卷访谈与ERP(事件相关电位)神经科学实验相结合的方式,研究了人们对不同类型安全标志的危险感知评分是否存在差异,以及自动加工过程中的神经感知差异。研究一作为本文系列研究的实验基础和初步工作,为后面三项子研究的研究方法和实验设计进行了探索性的尝试,也为后面章节的讨论与总结奠定了基础。
     研究二在研究一的基础上,对安全标志图画内容要素进行了研究。该研究参考了研究一的实验范式,对实验刺激材料进行严格控制,研究了人们对不同效价安全标志图画内容的自动加工过程和感知差异,从而考察该要素对安全标志设计的影响及其成因。
     研究三参考研究一的实验范式,研究了人们对安全标志背景颇色的神经感知与自动加工过程,分析讨论了颜色属性的差异对人们感知上的影响,并从神经科学层面解释了该影响的形成原因。
     研究四采取相同的实验范式研究了人们对安全标志边框外形的神经感知与自动加工过程,探讨了人们对不同形状安全标志的注意偏向和感知分类,并结合已有研究成果对“边框作用”的争议问题进行了探讨,给出了来自神经科学研究视角的新解释。
     通过对以上实验结果进行分析讨论与成果整合,本文得到以下五点重要结论:
     (1)人们对不同类型安全标志的危险感知评分存在显著差异。其中:警告类安全标志的危险评分最高,禁止类次之,指令类和提示类标志危险评分最低。
     (2)人们对不同类型安全标志的神经感知与自动加工过程存在显著差异。其中:警告类安全标志的危险感知最强,禁止类安全标志次之,指令类安全标志的危险感知最差。这种差异主要体现在P2、N2和N4三个显著的ERP成分指标的波幅与潜伏期的变化上,并大体形成自动加工过程中的两个主要阶段:自动注意加工阶段与自动感知评估阶段。
     (3)人们对不同效价水平的安全标志图画内容十分敏感,并显著影响到对真假安全标志的神经感知与自动加工过程。这种影响与两者在额区的P2、N2、P3和SNW成分的波幅差异有关,表明负性图画会比中性图画更易被快速感知和分离,并获取更多的认知资源去唤起人们长期记忆和相关负性经历,从而产生更高的危险感知。
     (4)人们对不同背景颜色安全标志的神经感知与自动加工存在显著差异。在自动加工过程中,安全标志的背景颜色会对人们的感知加工过程产生一定的辅助和促进作用,但对安全标志危险感知评估的影响并不显著。其中,人们敏感于有颜色和无颜色的差别,且在早期的视觉加工阶段中,黄色比蓝色在大脑的唤醒程度与注意分类方面的优势非常显著,这些差异主要在大脑颞枕区的PI与NI成分和额区的N2成分上有所体现(波幅与潜伏期)。
     (5)人们对不同边框形状的安全标志的神经感知与自动加工存在显著差异。与颜色要素的作用相类似,在任务无关的实验情境中,安全标志的边框形状只能对人们的感知加工过程产生一定的辅助和促进作用,但对安全标志危险感知的影响较为有限。其中,在早期的视觉加工阶段中人们敏感于有边框和无边框的差别,且三角形比圆形在大脑的注意分类效果更好,这些差别主要体现在大脑颞枕区的P1、N1和P2成分在波幅与潜伏期上的差异。
     本文将认知神经科学实验方法引入到安全标志类别及其设计属性的研究中,其理论贡献和创新点主要体现在以下四个方面:
     (1)首次研究了人们对不同类别安全标志的危险感知差异及其自动加工过程。前人研究主要集中在安全标志的设计属性及其组合研究,且以警告类安全标志为主,并未涉及不同类别安全标志的差异研究。本文研究一则针对国家标准规定的四类常用安全标志,通过问卷调研和神经科学实验相结合的方式,分别研究了人们对不同类别安全标志的危险感知评分(四类)和大脑对不同类别安全标志的感知差异及自动加工过程(三类),不仅补充了安全标志领域的理论研究,还为其提供了来自电生理层面的研究依据。
     (2)从神经科学视角来研究安全标志各设计属性的影响。已有研究中对于安全标志设计属性及其组合的文章众多,但除安全词汇外,鲜有来自脑认知方面的研究证据。本文研究二、研究三和研究四分别对安全标志三大设计属性开展了ERP实验研究,为前人的研究结论提供了新的实验发现和分析结果,从研究视角和实验方法上推进了安全标志设计属性的研究,深化了人们对安全标志设计属性的自动加工与感知差异,也为未来设计属性及其组合的深入研究提供了示范。
     (3)为已有安全标志信息处理的理论模型提供了新的补充。危险信息处理两阶段(HPTS)模型曾在脑认知层面揭示了人们对警示词语的危险评级过程。研究一则利用隐性实验范式研究了人们对安全标志图片的神经感知与自动加工过程,发现了新的自动注意阶段和自动评估阶段,为该模型提供了新的研究补充。
     (4)为本领域的相关研究争论提供了新发现。前人研究中,对于背景颜色和边框形状两个设计属性在安全标志警示效果中的作用存在一定的学术分歧。部分学者认为这两个属性提升了警示效果,另一部分学者则认为其作用十分有限。本文研究三和研究四从神经科学视角对该争论进行了新探索。实验发现存自动加工过程中,背景颜色和边框形状对人们早期的大脑唤醒和注意分类方面具有显著的促进作用,但后期对整体解读与危险感知的影响并不显著。本文从新视角为前人的研究争论提供了新发现,也为该争论的深入研究提供了研究方法的新思路。
     本文将认知神经科学方法引入到安全标志领域的研究中,为安全标志的设计与使用提供崭新的研究发现和理论补充,并基于研究结论提出了相应的管理启示和实际应用建议,使其更符合人们的认知特点与危险感知评估,从而更好地发挥安全标志在安全管理工作中的警示效果与指导作用,降低安全事故所带来的危害。
Since the reform and opening-up, China's industry is undergoing unprecedented great changes. But many production accidents occur along with the changes, and become a major restraining factor in the industrialization process. Safety sign is an important tool in safety management, and widely used in the social production and daily life. But the field investigation and case studies reveal that currently there are serious problems in the design and usage of safety signs, resulting in the impairment of warning effect. With poor attention effect and readability, the signs are hard to be comprehended by front-line workers, which bury hidden trouble of production accidents and labor disputes. Therefore, it is of great value to research on the existing problems such as the design and application of safety signs.
     The research and application of safety signs have a long history. Most researches are based on surveys and the behavioral experiments, but seldom on brain cognition and electrophysiological perspective. Safety sign design should conform to the cognitive processing and subjective experiences so as to play a better role as warning, which is precisely the research focus of Safety Production in Neuro-Industrial Engineering (Neuro-IE). Regarding previous studies, three key issues remain to be solved in order to deepen our understanding of the attention and awareness of safety signs:(1)"Is there any difference on the risk perception of various safety signs?"(2)"How do people perceive and process safety sign automatically?"(3)" Can the three components of a safety sign (i.e. picture content, background color and frame shape) affect neural perception and automatic processing? Why?" The current study focuses on these three key problems with the primary target on the neural perception and automatic processing of safety signs and completes four studies that are in relation with each other.
     In research I, a combination of questionnaires, interviews and the KRP (Iwcnt Related Potential) experiment are combined to study whether the hazard perception ratings has significant differences among the four types of safety signs, and whether the cognitive distinction exist in the automatic processing. Research I is a preliminary work for the latter researches, as it is not only an exploratory attempt of the research methods and experimental design, but also a base of the discussion and conclusion in following chapters.
     Research2studies the pictorial contents of safety signs. This research consults the first experiment's paradigm, takes strict control over the stimuli materials, and investigates people's automatic processing and brain cognition of different types of pictorial contents (e.g. warning signs and fake signs) by liRPs to explore the effects of pictorial contents on the design of safety signs.
     Based on the existing behavioral studies. Research3studies the neural perception and automatic processing of the safety sign's background color (yellow, blue and white), which adopts a similar paradigm of Research I, and examines the way the color attributes affected people's perception.
     Research4studies the perception and automatic processing of safety signs' frame shape by the same experimental paradigm as Research3. It investigates people's attention bias and categorization towards different frame shapes, and provides a new explanation with neuroscience perspective for the long-standing disputes over the effect of frame shapes.
     The current paper draws the following conclusions after the aforementioned scries of studies:
     (1) The hazard perception ratings have significant differences among the types of safely signs. The score of the warning sign is the highest, and then the prohibition sign, the direction sign and the instruction sign are the lowest.
     (2)Thc neural perception and automatic processing of different types of safety signs are significantly different. The warning signs own the best effect of risk perception, which is followed by the prohibition signs, and then the direction signs. It could be illustrated by the varied amplitudes and latencies of three ERP components (P2, N2and N4). Two stages of automatic processing are detected:the automatic attention stage and the automatic evaluation stage.
     (3)The subjects are very sensitive to the content of safety signs with different valences, which significantly affects the neural perceptions and automatic processing of the true and fake safety signs. It could be explained by the distinction of P2, N2, P3and SNW amplitude in the frontal area, suggesting that negative pictures are perceived and discriminated more easily and faster than neutral ones, and retrieved more cognitive resources to evoke long-term memory and associated negative experience, and finally resulted in higher level of hazard perception.
     (4)Significant differences exist regarding people's neural perception and automatic processing of different background colors of safety signs. In the non-attention condition, background color of safety signs affects people's perception processing, but is not significant to hazard evaluation of safety signs. People are sensitive to whether there is color or no color, and when there is color, yellow is advantageous over blue in the aspect of arousal and attention classification at the early perception stage. These differences are primarily reflected by the amplitudes and latencies of PI and1M1in the temporal occipital region and N2in the frontal region.
     (5) The attributes of frame shapes have significant influence on the neural perception and automatic processing of safety signs. Similar to the effect of color, the shape of safety sign can only facilitate the perception process, but it's not a key factor to influence the evaluation of the hazard. Therefore, people are sensitive to whether a border exists or not during the initial stage of visual processing, and when a border exist, the shape of triangle obtains better attention than that of circle, which is mainly reflected by the differences of amplitudes and latencies of PI, N1and P2in temporal occipital region.
     As an exploratory study that introduces cognitive neuroscience research methodology into the study of safety signs and its designing factors, the main innovations and theoretic contributions are presented as follows:
     (1) The effect of different types of safety signs is studied for the first time. Previous researches are mainly focused on the design attributes and the combinations of them, and most of the studies aimed at warning signs. However, they do not look into the other types of safety signs. The current study takes four types of popular safety signs stipulated by the national standard into consideration, and investigates people's hazard ratings of different types of safety signs by questionnaires and the neural differences by RRP experiments. The results not only extend the scope of safety sign researches, but also provide electrophysiological evidences for previous studies.
     (2) The influences of the design attributes of safety signs are studied from the perspective of neuroscience. Although there have been lots of work studying the design attributes and the combinations of them, few of studies retrieve evidences from the human brain. The latter three researches in this paper study the three main attributes, i.e. the pictorial contents, the color, and the frame shapes of safety signs by HRP experiments respectively, and identify the differences both in neurocognition and automatic processing. They provide new evidences for existing theories and promote the design of safety signs. By deepening the understanding of attribute design of safety signs, the present study also provides important reference for future studies on the integration of the attributes.
     (3) New complements for existing theoretical model are provided. The Hazard Potential Two Stage (I I PI'S) model reveals the evaluation process of the warning words by explicit rating task. Research I adopts an implicit paradigm to indicate the automatic processing and neural cognition towards safety sign pictures. Complementing the IIPTS model, new automatic stages are detected (i.e. the auto-attention stage and auto-evaluation stage).
     (4) New findings for the disputes of color and shape attributes'effects. Previous studies do not reach a common conclusion on the effects of the two attributes. Some researchers maintain that these two attributes enhance the warning effect, but others hold that the effects are very limited. Research3and Research4in the current study obtain new findings from neuroscience perspective. It shows that, under the passive attention condition, the background color and the frame shape have significantly positive effects on the arousal and attention classification in human brain, but not on the overall interpretation and the hazard perception at the late stage. This study provides new evidences for previous studies from a new perspective, and also provides an interdisciplinary paradigm for further studies on the disputes.
     This paper introduces cognitive neuroscience approach to safety signs study, the discovery of which provides theoretical guidance to the design and application of safety signs, with the aim of rendering them in line with people's intrinsic cognition and risk assessment. We expect to enhance the role of warning and guidance in the safety management practice, and thus reduce the potential harm caused by accidents.
引文
1 参见2007年6月28日时任国家安全生产监督管理总局局长李毅中《我国安全生产的形势和任务》报告,http://www.chinasafety.gov.cn/2007-06/28/content_249059.htm
    1 参见据新华社北京6月7日电,“习近平就做好安全生产作重要请示,发展决不能以牺牲生命为代价”http://jingji.entv.cn/2013/06/08/ARTH370647815003832.shtml
    2 参见中国广播网2013.1.18日新闻,http://china.cnr.cn/NewsFeeds/201301/120130118_511812905.shtml
    3 参见2013.2.20国家安全生产监督管理总局发布的《2012年全国安全生产控制指标实施工作取得明显成效》报告,http://www.chinasafety.goy.cn/newpage/Contents/Channel_20715/2013/0314/19907/contet_199070.htm
    4 参见2012.1.14国家安全生产监督管理总局发布的《2011年全国安全生产情况》报告,http://www.chinasafety.goy.cn/newpage/Contents/Channel_4181/2012/0114/167212/contet_167212.htm
    5 参见2012.1.14国家安全生产监督管理总局发布的《2011年全国煤矿安全生产情况》报告,
    1 参见2011.1.13国家安全生产监督管理总局发布的《2010年全国安全生产情况》报告,http://www.chinasafety.gov.cn/newpage/Contents/Channel_4181/2011/0113/121258/content_121258.htm
    [1]Adams, A., Bochner, S.& Bilik, L. The effectiveness of warning signs in hazardous work places:cognitive and social determinants. Applied Ergonomics,1998, 29(4),247-254.
    [2]ANSI, American National Standards Institute. Warning Signs, Labels, Tags, Colors and Symbol Standards.2007,1-5.
    [3]Argo, J. J.& Main, K. J. Meta-analyses of the effectiveness of warning labels. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,2004,23(2),193-208.
    [4]Ariely, D.& Berns, G. S. Neuromarketing:the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2010,11(4),284-292.
    [5]Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D.& Glickman, S. Attentional bias in anxiety:A behavioral and ERP study. Brain and cognition,2005,59(1),11-22.
    [6]Barlow, T.& Wogalter, M. S. Alcoholic beverage warnings in magazine and television advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research,1993,20(1),147-156.
    [7]Bartholow, B. D., Riordan, M. A., Saults, J. S.& Lust, S. A. Psychophysiological evidence of response conflict and strategic control of responses in affective priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2009,45(4),655-666.
    [8]Batty, M.& Taylor, M. J. Early processing of the six basic facial emotional expressions. Cognitive Brain Research,2003,17(3),613-620.
    [9]Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D.& Damasio, A. R. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science,1997,275(5304), 1293-1295.
    [10]Bekker, E. M., Kenemans, J. L.& Verbaten, M. N. Source analysis of the N2 in a cued Go/NoGo task. Cognitive Brain Research,2005,22(2),221-231.
    [11]Beltramini, R. F. Perceived believability of warning label information presented in cigarette advertising. Journal of Advertising,1988,17(2),26-32.
    [12]Belz, S. M., Robinson, G. S.& Casali, J. G. A new class of auditory warning signals for complex systems:Auditory icons. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,1999,41(4),608-618.
    [13]Boelhouwer, E., Davis, J., Franco-Watkins, A., Dorris, N.& Lungu, C. Comprehension of hazard communication:Effects of pictograms on safety data sheets and labels. Journal of Safety Research,2013,46,145-155.
    [14]Braun, C. C. & Silver, N. C. Interaction of signal word and colour on warning labels: differences in perceived hazard and behavioural compliance. I ergonomics. 1995, 38(11). 2207-2220.
    [15]Braun, C. C, Mine, P. B. & Clayton Silver, N. The influence of color on warning label perceptions. International Journal of Industrial lirgonomics, 1995. 15(3), 179-187.
    [16]Brewster, B. M. White Paper on Safety Sign Components. Wolcott, NY: lilectromark Co., 1995.
    [17]Brodeur, M., Lepore, F., Lepage, M., Bacon, B. A., Jemel, B. & Dcbruillc, J. B. Alternative mode of presentation of Kanizsa figures sheds new light on the chronomelry of the mechanisms underlying the perception of illusory figures. Neuropsychologia, 2008, 46(2), 554-566.
    [18]Caldwell, J. Fatigue factors for aviators and everybody elsel. Flying Safely, 2002, 20-25.
    [19]Campanella, S., Gaspard, C, Debatisse, D.. Bruyer, R., Crommelinek, M. & Guerit, J. Discrimination of emotional facial expressions in a visual oddball task: an ERP study. Biological psychology. 2002, 59(3). 171-186.
    [20]Cano, M. IL, Class, Q. A. & Polich, J. Affective valence, stimulus attributes, and P300: Color vs. black/white and normal vs. scrambled images. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2009, 71(1), 17-24.
    [21]ICarrctic. L., Iglesias, J., Garcia, T. & Ballesteros. M. N300. P300 and the emotional processing of visual stimuli. Flectroencephalography and clinical Neuropliysiology, 1997. 103(2). 298-303.
    [22]Carretie, L, Martin-Loeches, M.. llinojosa, J. A. & Mcrcado. F. Kmotion and attention interaction studied through event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2001, 13(8), 1109-1128.
    [23]Carretie. L., Mercado,F., Tapia. M. & llinojosa, J. A. Emotion, attention, and the "negativity bias', studied through event-related potentials. International journal of psychophysiology, 2001.41(1). 75-85.
    [24]Carter. C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch. D. M., Botvinick, M. M.. Noll. D. & Cohen. J. D.Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science, 1998, 280(5364). 747-749.
    [25]Chan,A. H. Warning Design: A Research Prospective. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,1999,9(1),129-130.
    [26]Chan, A. H.& Courtney, A. J. Color associations for Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,2001,28(3),165-170.
    [27]Chan, A. H.& Ng, A.W.Y. Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs: Effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,2010,40(6),689-697.
    [28]Chao, L. L.& Martin, A. Cortical regions associated with perceiving, naming, and knowing about colors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,1999,11(1),25-35.
    [29]Chapanis, A. Hazards associated with three signal words and four colours on warning signs. Ergonomics,1994,37(2),265-275.
    [30]Chen, M. L., Ma, Q. G., Li, M. L., Dai, S. Y., Wang, X. Y.& Shu, L. C. The Neural and Psychological Basis of Herding in Purchasing Books Online:An Event-Related Potential Study. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking,2010,13(3),321-328.
    [31]Chen, M. L, Ma, Q. G., Li, M. L., Lai, H. X., Wang, X. Y.& Shu, L. C. Cognitive and emotional conflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online: An event-related potentials study. Biological Psychology,2010,85(3),437-445.
    [32]Chen, M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X.& Shu, L. Cognitive and emotional conflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online:An event-related potentials study. Biological psychology,2010,85(3),437-445.
    [33]Collins, B. L. The development and evaluation of effective symbol signs. Washington, D.C.:US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC,1982.
    [34]Collins, B. L. Evaluation of mine-safety symbols. Washington, D.C.:Sage Publications,1983,947-949.
    [35]Coluccia, E.& Louse, G. Gender differences in spatial orientation:A review. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2004,24(3),329-340.
    [36]Correll, J., Urland, G. R.& Ito, T. A. Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot:The role of threat perception and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2006,42(1),120-128.
    [37]Cowan, N. Evolving Conceptions of Memory Storage, Selective Attetion, and Their Mutual Constraints Within The Human Information-Processing System. Psychological ulletin,1988,104(2),163-191.
    [38]Cui, L., Wang, Y., Wang. H., Tian, S. & Kong, J. Human brain sub-systems for discrimination of visual shapes. N euro re port, 2000, 11(11), 2415-2418.
    [39]Cuthbcrl, B. N.. Schupp, H. T., Bradley, M. M., Birbaumer, N. & Lang, P. J. Brain potentials in affective picture processing: covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological psychology, 2000, 52(2), 95-111.
    [40]David Leonard, S. Does color of warnings affect risk perception?. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1999, 23(5), 499-504.
    [41]Davies, S., Haines, IL, Norris, B. & Wilson. J. R. Safety pictograms: are they getting the message across?. Applied ergonomics, 1998, 29(1), 15-23.
    [42]Dc Pascalis. V., Strelau, J. & Zawadzki, B. The effect of temperamental traits on event-related potentials, heart rate and reaction lime. Personality and individual differences, 1999, 26(3), 441-465.
    [43]Delplanque, S., Lavoie. M. H., Hot. P., Silvert. I,. & Sequeira. H. Modulation of cognitive processing by emotional valence studied through event-related potentials in humans. Neuroseience letters. 2004, 356(1), 1-4.
    [44]Donchin, E. Surprise!... surprise?. Psychophysiology, 1981, 18(5), 493-513.
    [45]Donchin, E. & Coles. M. G. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1988. 11(03), 357-374.
    [46]Dun!ap. G. L., Granda, R. L. & Kustas, M. S. Observer perceptions of implied hazard: safety signal words and color words. Report No. TROO, 1986, 3428.
    [47]Rastcrby, R. S. & llakiel, S. R. Safety Label ling and Consumer Products: Field Studies of Sign Recognition. AP Report. 1977. 76.
    [48]Ldworthy. J. & Adams, A. S. Warning design: A research prospective. CRC Pressl Lie, 1996.
    [49]dworthy,J., Loxley, S. & Dennis, I. Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Lrgonomics Society, 1991. 33(2). 205-231.
    [50]F]gilman, D. & Bohme, S. A brief history of warnings. In: Wogalter. M. (Ed), The Handbook of Warnings. Lawrence Lrlbaum Associates, Mali wall, N.I, 2006. 35-48.
    [51]Kimcr, M. The face-specific NI70 component reflects late stages in the structural encoding of faces. Neuroreporl. 2000. 11(10). 2319-2324.
    [52]Erdinc, O. Hazard communication of warning signal words and safety pictorials. CONTEMPORARY ERGONOMICS 2004,2004,359-363.
    [53]Federmeier, K. D.& Kutas, M. Picture the difference:Electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia,2002,40(7),730-747.
    [54]Fischer, P. M., Richards Jr, J. W., Berman, E. J.& Krugman, D. M. Recall and eye tracking study of adolescents viewing tobacco advertisements. JAMA:The Journal of the American Medical Association,1989,261(1),84-89.
    [55]Frantz, J. P.& Rhoades, T. P. A task-analytic approach to the temporal and spatial placement of product warnings. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,1993,35(4),719-730.
    [56]Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M.& Gaeta, H. The novelty P3:an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,2001,25(4),355-373.
    [57]Frienmann, K. The Effect of Adding Symbols to Written Warning Labels on User Behavior and Receall. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,1988,30(4),507-515.
    [58]Fruhholz, S., Jellinghaus, A.& Herrmann, M. Time course of implicit processing and explicit processing of emotional faces and emotional words. Biological psychology,2011,87(2),265-274.
    [59]Garcia-Larrea, L., Lukaszewicz, A.& Mauguiere, F. Revisiting the oddball paradigm. Non-target vs neutral stimuli and the evaluation of ERP attentional effects. Neuropsychologia,1992,30(8),723-741.
    [60]Gazzaniga, M. S. Split Brain. US:Insta-Tape,1973.
    [61]GB2894. Chinese national standard:safety signs and guideline for the use (in Chinese). Beijing:Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China,2008.
    [62]Gehring, W. J.& Willoughby, A. R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science,2002,295(5563),2279-2282.
    [63]Glimcher, P. W.& Rustichini, A. Neuroeconomics:the consilience of brain and decision. Science Signaling,2004,306(5695),447.
    [64]Godfrey, S. S.& Laughery, K. R. The biasing effects of product familiarity on consumers'awareness of hazard. Houston:Sage Publications,1984,483-486.
    [65]Goode, P. E., Goddard, P. H. & Pascual-Leonc. J. Hvent-relalcd potentials index cognitive style differences during a serial-order recall task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2002,43(2), 123-140.
    [66]Greenhouse, S. W. & Geisscr, S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychomelrika, 1959, 24(2), 95-112.
    [67]Gunter, T. C,, Jackson, J.M., Kutas, M., Mulder, G. & Buijink, B. M. Focusing on the N400: an exploration of selective attention during reading. Psychophysiology, 1994, 31(4), 347-358.
    [68]Halgren, R. & Marinkovic, K. Ncurophysiological networks integrating human emotions. The cognitive ncurosciences, 1995, 1137-1151.
    [69]Hamm, J. P., Johnson, B. W. & Kirk, I. J. Comparison of the N300 and N400 RRPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongrucnt contexts. Clinical Ncurophysiology. 2002, 113(8). 1339-1350.
    [70]Hammond. D.. Fong, G. T., Borland, R., Cummings, K. M., McNeill. A. & Drielen, P. Text and Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packages. American journal of preventive medicine, 2007. 32(3), 202-209.
    [71]Hammond. D., Pong. G. T., McDonald. P. W., Cameron, R. & Brown. K. S. Impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking behaviour. Tobacco Control, 2003. 12(4), 391-395.
    [72]Handy. T. C. lwent-relatcd potentials: A methods handbook. US: The MIT Press. 2005.
    [73]Hcinrich. H. W.. Peterscn, D. & Roos, N. Industrial accident prevention. New York and London: McGraw-l lill Book Company INC. 1950.
    [74]Hcinrich, H. W., Pctcrsen, D. & Ross, N. R. Principles of accident prevention. Industrial accident prevention, 1980. 20-29.
    [75|Herrmann, C. S. & Bosch, V. Gestalt perception modulates early visual processing. N euro re port, 2001. 12(5), 901-904.
    |76]Hernnann, N. The Creative Brain. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1991. 25(4), 275-295.
    [77]Hillyard. S. A. & Anllo-Vento, L, lwent-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1998, 95(3). 781-787.
    [78]Holmes. A.. Franklin, A., Clifford, A. & Davies. I. Neurophysiological evidence for categorical perception of color. Brain and cognition,2009,69(2),426-434.
    [79]Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D.& Camerer, C. F. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science,2005, 310(5754),1680-1683.
    [80]Huang, Y.& Luo, Y. Temporal course of emotional negativity bias:an ERP study. Neuroscience letters,2006,398(1),91-96.
    [81]Hunter, M., Turner, A.& Fulham, W. R. Visual signal detection measured by event-related potentials. Brain and cognition,2001,46(3),342-356.
    [82]Husing, B., Jancke, L.& Tag, B. Impact Assessment of Neuroimaging:Final Report. Stuttgart:vdf Hochschulverlag AG,2006.
    [83]lto, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K.& Cacioppo, J. T. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain:the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of personality and social psychology,1998,75(4),887.
    [84]Jeffreys, D. A. A face-responsive potential recorded from the human scalp. Experimental Brain Research,1989,78(1),193-202.
    [85]Johnston, V. S., Miller, D. R.& Burleson, M. H. Multiple P3s to emotional stimuli and their theoretical significance. Psychophysiology,1986,23(6), 684-694.
    [86]Kadir, R. S. S. A., Ismail, N., Rahman, H. A., Taib, M. N., Murat, Z. H.& Lias, S. Analysis of brainwave dominant after horizontal rotation (HR) intervention using EEG for Theta and Delta frequency bands. US:IEEE,2009,284-287.
    [87]Katz, L. Y., Kozyrskyj, A. L., Prior, H. J., Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J.& Sareen, J. Effect of regulatory warnings on antidepressant prescription rates, use of health services and outcomes among children, adolescents and young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal,2008,178(8),1005-1011.
    [88]Kindt, M.& Brosschot, J. F. Cognitive bias in spider-phobic children: Comparison of a pictorial and a linguistic spider Stroop. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,1999,21(3),207-220.
    [89]Kline, P. B., Braun, C. C, Peterson, N.& Silver, N. C. The impact of color on warnings research. US:SAGE Publications,1993,940-944.
    [90]Kong, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, H., Wei, H., Shang, H., Yang, X.& Zhuang, D. Event-related brain potentials elicited by a number discrimination task. Neuroreport,2000,11(6),1195-1197.
    [91]Krugman. D. M., Fox, R. J. & Fischer, P. M. Do cigarette warnings warn? Understanding what it will take to develop more effective warnings. Journal oC Health Communication, 1999, 4(2), 95-104.
    [92]Kuhnen, C. M. & Knutson, B. The neural basis of financial risk taking. Neuron, 2005, 47(5), 763-770.
    [93]Kuperberg, G. R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 2007, 1146, 23-49.
    [94]Kurian, B. T., Ray, W. A., Arbogast, P. G., Fuchs. D. C, Dudley, J. A. & Cooper, W. O. KfTect of regulatory warnings on antidepressant prescribing for children and adolescents. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 2007, 161(7), 690.
    [95]Kutas. M. & Ilillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 1980, 207(4427). 203-205.
    [96]Kutas. M., McCarthy, G. & Donchin, E. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 1977, 197(4305). 792-795.
    [97]Lang. S. F., Nelson, C. A. & Collins. P. F. livent-relaled potentials to emotional and neutral stimuli. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 1990, 12(6), 946-958.
    [98]Langeslag, S. J.. Jansma, B. M.. Frankcn, I. H. & Van Strien. J. W. Event-related potential responses to love-related facial stimuli. Biological Psychology, 2007, 76(1). 109-115.
    [99]Lasser, K. F., Allen. P. D., Woolhandler. S. J.. Himmelstein. D. U., Wolfe, S. M. & Bor.D. H.Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 2002. 287(17), 2215-2220.
    [100]Laughery Sr, K. R.& Paige Smith, D. Explicit information in warnings. Handbook of warnings, 2006, 419-428;
    [101]Laughery, K. R. Safety communications: warnings. Applied ergonomics, 2006. 37(4), 467-478.
    [102]Lazarou. J.. Pomeranz. B. H. & Corey. P. N. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 1998.279(15). 1200-1205.
    [103]Lee, D. N. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception,1976,5(4),437-459.
    [104]Lesch, M.F., Rau, P.L.P., Zhao, Z.& Liu, C. A cross-cultural comparison of perceived hazard in response to warning components and configurations:US vs. China. Applied Ergonomics,2009,40(5),953-961.
    [105]Li, X., Li, X.& Luo, Y. Anxiety and attentional bias for threat:an event-related potential study. Neuroreport,2005,16(13),1501-1505.
    [106]Lindstrom, M. Buyology:Truth and lies about why we buy. US:Crown Business,2010.
    [107]Liotti, M., Woldorff, M. G., Perez Ⅲ, R.& Mayberg, H. S. An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. N3uropsychologia, 2000,38(5),701-711.
    [108]Liu, B., Xin, S., Jin, Z., Hu, Y.& Li, Y. Emotional facilitation effect in the picture-word interference task:an ERP study. Brain and cognition,2010,72(2), 289-299.
    [109]Lu, A., Xu, G., Jin, H., Mo, L., Zhang, J.& Zhang, J. X. Electrophysiological evidence for effects of color knowledge in object recognition. Neuroscience letters,2010,469(3),405-410.
    [110]Luck Steven J.事件相关电位基础.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2009.
    [111]Luck, S. J. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press,2005.
    [112]Luck, S. J.& Hillyard, S. A. Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology,1994a,31(3),291-308.
    [113]Luck, S. J.& Hillyard, S. A. Spatial filtering during visual search:evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,1994b,20(5),1000.
    [114]Luck, S. J., Woodman, G. F.& Vogel, E. K. Event-related potential studies of attention. Trends in cognitive sciences,2000,4(11),432-440.
    [115]Luczak, H. A guide to scientific sources of ergonomics knowledge. Occupational Ergonomics:Principles of Work Design,2003,16.
    [116]Luximon, A., Chung, L. W.& Goonetilleke, R. S. Safety signal words and color codes:The perception of implied hazard by Chinese people. Proceedings of the 5th Pan-Pacific Conference on Occupational Ergonomics,1998,30-33.
    [117]Ma, Q. G. & Yuan, J. P. Exploratory study on safely climate in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Safety Science, 2009, 47(7). 1043-1046.
    [118]Ma, Q. C., Feng. Y. D., Xu, Q., Bian, J.& Tang, H. X. Brain potentials associated with the outcome processing in framing effects. Neuroseience Letters, 2012,528(2), 110-113.
    [119]Ma, Q. G., Jin, J. & Wang, L. The neural process of hazard perception and evaluation for warning signal words: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroseience Letters, 2010, 483(3). 206-2 10.
    [120]Ma, Q. C, Shen, Q. A., Xu. Q., Li, D. D., Shu, L. C. & Weber, B. l£mpalhic responses to others gains and losses: An electrophy.siological investigation. Neuroimage, 2011, 54(3), 2472-2480.
    [121]Ma, Q. G.. Wang, K.. Wang, X. Y., Wang, C. C. & Wang, L. The influence of negative emotion on brand extension as re Heeled by Ihe change of N2: A preliminary study. Neuroseience Letters, 2010, 485(3), 237-240.
    [122]Ma. Q. J., Wang, X. Y.. Shu, L. C. & Dai, S. Y. P300 and categorization in brand extension. Neuroseience Letters, 2008, 431(1), 57-61.
    [123]Ma, Q. & Wang, K. The effect of positive emotion and perceived risk on usage intention to online decision aids. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009, 12(5), 529-532.
    [124]Ma, Q., Bian. J.. Ji. W.. Tang. Q. & Xu, Q. Research on warnings with new thought of neuro-IE. Proeedia Engineering. 2011, 26, 1633-1638.
    [125]Ma, Q., Jin, J. & Wang, L. The neural process of hazard perception and evaluation for warning signal words: evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroseience letters. 2010. 483(3). 206-210.
    [126]Ma, Q., Wang. X., Dai, S. & Shu, L. Event-related potential N270 correlates of brand extension. Neuroreport, 2007.18(10). 1031-1034.
    [127]Markela-Lerenc, J., Ille, N., Kaiser, S., Fiedler, P., Mundt. C.& Weisbrod. M. Prefrontal-cingulale activation during executive control: which conies first?. Cognitive Brain Research. 2004. 18(3). 278-287.
    [128]Martin, L. E. & Potts. G. F. Impulsivity in decision-making: An event-related potential investigation.Personality and individual differences,2009.46(3). 303-308.
    [129]MePHERSON. W. B. & Holcomb. P. J. An electrophysiological investigation of semantic priming with pictures of real objects. Psychophysiology,1999,36(01), 53-65.
    [130]Meredith, C.& Edworthy, J. Are there too many alarms in the intensive care unit? An overview of the problems. Journal of advanced nursing,1995,21(1),15-20.
    [131]Merton, R. K.& Kendall, P. L. The focused interview. American journal of Sociology,1946,51(6),541-557.
    [132]Mobbs, D., Marchant, J. L., Hassabis, D., Seymour, B., Tan, G., Gray, M., Petrovic, P., Dolan, R. J.& Frith, C. D. From threat to fear:the neural organization of defensive fear systems in humans. The Journal of neuroscience, 2009,29(39),12236-12243.
    [133]Murray, M. M., Foxe, D. M., Javitt, D. C.& Foxe, J. J. Setting boundaries:brain dynamics of modal and amodal illusory shape completion in humans. The Journal of neuroscience,2004,24(31),6898-6903.
    [134]Nagy, E., Potts, G. F.& Loveland, K. A. Sex-related ERP differences in deviance detection. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2003,48(3), 285-292.
    [135]Neri, P.& Levi, D. M. Temporal dynamics of figure-ground segregation in human vision. Journal of neurophysiology,2007,97(1),951-957.
    [136]Neurology, L. Neuromarketing:beyond branding. Lancet Neurology,2004,3(2), 71.
    [137]Ng, A.W.Y.& Chan, A.H.S. The guessability of traffic signs:Effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features. Accident Analysis & Prevention,2007,39(6),1245-1257.
    [138]Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G.& Cohen, J. D. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychological bulletin,2005,131(4), 510.
    [139]Niu, Y., Wei, J.& Luo, Y. Early ERP effects on the scaling of spatial attention in visual search. Progress in Natural Science,2008,18(4),381-386.
    [140]Olsson, A.& Phelps, E. A. Social learning of fear. Nature neuroscience,2007, 10(9),1095-1102.
    [141]Otsubo, S. M. A behavioral study of warning labels for consumer products: Perceived danger and use of pictographs. US:SAGE Publications,1988, 536-540.
    [142]Parasuraman, R. Ncuroergonomics: research and practice. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2003, 4(1-2), 5-20.
    [143]Perrow, C. Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books, C. Perrow, 1984.
    [144]Petrek, J. Pictorial cognitive task resolution and dynamics of cventrclalccl potentials. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub, 2008, 152(2), 223-230.
    [145]Pitt, M. & Britain, G. Learning lessons from the 2007 Hoods. London: Cabinet Office London, 2008.
    [146]Plassmann, H., Ambler, I., Braeutigam, S. & Kenning, P. What can advertisers learn from neuroscience?. International Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 2007, 26(2). 151-175.
    [147]Polich, J. Updating P300: an inlcgrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical neurophysiology. 2007, 118(10), 2128-2148.
    [148]Pourtois. G., Grandjean. D., Sander, D. & Vuilleumier, P. Ivlectrophysiological correlates of rapid spatial orienting towards fearful faces. Cerebral cortex, 2004, 14(6), 619-633.
    [149]Qin, J. & Han, S. Neurocognilive mechanisms underlying identification of environmental risks. Ncuropsychologia, 2009, 47(2), 397-405.
    [150]Qin, J., Lee, T. M., Wang, L., Mao, L. & Han. S. Neural activities underlying environmental and personal risk identification tasks. Neuroscience letters, 2009, 455(2). 110-115.
    [151]Qiu, J., Zhang, Q.. Li. H., Luo. Y., Yin. Q.. Chen. A. & Yuan.H. The event-related potential effects of cognitive conflict in a Chinese character-generation task. Neuroreporl, 2007, 1 8(9). 881-886.
    [152]Riedl, R., Banker, R. D.. Benbasat. L., Davis, F. D., Dennis, A. R., Dimoka. A., Gefen, D., Gupta, A., Ischebeck, A. & Kenning, P. On the foundations of NeurolS: reflections on the Gmiinden Retreat 2009. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 2009. 27(15), 243-264.
    [153]Riley. M. W., Cochran, D. J. & Ballard, J. L. An investigation of preferred shapes for warning labels. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1982. 24(6), 737-742.
    [154]Rogers, W. A.. Lamson, N. & Rousseau, G. K. Warning research: An integralive perspective. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,2000,42(1),102-139.
    [155]Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S.& Allan, K. Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 1998,392(6676),595-598.
    [156]Sanders, M. S.& McCormick, E. J. Human factors and the automobile. Human factors in engineering and design. Seventh ed. New York:McGraw-Hill,1993, 790.
    [157]Sanfey, A. G. Decision neuroscience new directions in studies of judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science,2007,16(3), 151-155.
    [158]Schutter, D. J., de Haan, E. H.& van Honk, J. Functionally dissociated aspects in anterior and posterior electrocortical processing of facial threat. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2004,53(1),29-36.
    [159]Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P.& Presslich, O.. A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology,1986,23(6),695-703.
    [160]Shin, L. M.& Liberzon, I. The neurocircuitry of fear, stress, and anxiety disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology,2009,35(1),169-191.
    [161]Shiv, B., Bechara, A., Levin, I., Alba, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Dube, L., Isen, A., Mellers, B., Smidts, A.& Grant, S. J. Decision neuroscience. Marketing Letters, 2005,16(3-4),375-386.
    [162]Simson, R., Vaughan Jr, H. G.& Ritter, W. The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual discrimination tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,1977,42(4),528-535.
    [163]Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science,1987,236(4799),280-285.
    [164]Smalley, W., Shatin, D., Wysowski, D. K., Gurwitz, J., Andrade, S. E., Goodman, M., Chan, K. A., Platt, R., Schech, S. D.& Ray, W. A. Contraindicated use of cisapride. JAMA:the journal of the American Medical Association,2000,284(23),3036-3039.
    [165]Smith, N. K., Cacioppo, J. T., Larsen, J. T.& Chartrand, T. L. May 1 have your attention, please:Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli. Neuropsychologia,2003,41(2),171-183.
    [166]Sorensen, J.H. Hazard warning systems: review of 20 years of progress. Natural Hazards Review, 2000. 1(2), 1 19-125.
    [167]Stewart, D. W. & Martin, I. M. Intended and unintended consequences of warning messages: A review and synthesis of empirical research. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1994, 13(1), 1-19.
    [168]Straubc, S. & Fahle, M. The electrophysiological correlate of saliency: evidence from a figure-detection task. Brain research, 2010, 1307, 89-102.
    [169]Straube, S., Crimson, C. & Fahle, M. Electrophysiologieal correlates of figure-ground segregation directly reflect perceptual saliency. Vision research, 2010, 50(5), 509-521.
    [170]Taake. L, Jaspers-Faycr, F. & Liotti, M. Karly frontal responses elicited by physical threat words in an emotional Stroop task: Modulation by anxiety sensitivity. Biological psychology, 2009, 81(1), 48-57.
    [171]Thomas, S. H., Johnstonc, S. J.& Gonsalvez. C. J. Hvent-related potentials during an emotional Stroop task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2007, 63(3). 221-231.
    [172]Thorpe. S., Fize. D. & Marlol, C. Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nalure, 1996, 381(6582), 520-522.
    [173]Van Veen, V. & Carter. C. S. The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and I-;RP studies. Physiology & Behavior, 2002. 77(4), 477-482.
    [174]Vogel,E. K. & Luck, S. J. The visual NI component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology, 2000. 37(02), 190-203.
    [175]Vogel, M. K. & Machizawa, M. G. Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature, 2004, 428(6984); 748-751;
    [176]Wagner, A. K.. Chan. K. A., Dashevsky. I.. Rachel. M. A., Andrade. S. E. Lafala. J. E., Davis. R. L, Cuirwilz, J. H.. Soumerai, S. B. & Plait, R. FDA drug prescribing warnings: is the black box half empty or half full?. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safely, 2006, 15(6), 369-386.
    [177]Wang, H., Wang, Y., Kong, J.. Cui, L.& Tian, S. Enhancement of conflict processing activity in human brain under task relevant condition. Ncuroscience letters, 2001. 298(3), 155-158.
    [178]Wang, L., Ma. Q.. Song. L.. Shi, Y.. Wang. Y. & Pfotenhaucr. L. N400 and the activation oi' prejudice against rural migrant workers in China. Brain research. 2011,1375,103-110.
    [179]Wang, X. Y., Huang, Y. J., Ma, Q. G.& Li, N.. Event-related potential P2 correlates of implicit aesthetic experience. Neuroreport,2012,23(14),862-866.
    [180]Wang, X., Huang, Y., Ma, Q.& Li, N. Event-related potential P2 correlates of implicit aesthetic experience. Neuroreport,2012,23(14),862-866.
    [181]Wang, Y., Tian, S., Wang, H., Cui, L., Zhang, Y.& Zhang, X. Event-related potentials evoked by multi-feature conflict under different attentive conditions. Experimental Brain Research,2003,148(4),451-457.
    [182]Wang, Y., Wang, K.& Ma, Q. Research on Chinese perceptions of implied hazard for warning signal words and surrounding shapes based on computer experiments. Capa Town, South Africa,2008,1628-1633.
    [183]Wentura, D., Rothermund, K.& Bak, P. Automatic vigilance:the attention-grabbing power of approach-and avoidance-related social information. Journal of personality and social psychology,2000,78(6),1024.
    [184]West, R. Neural correlates of cognitive control and conflict detection in the Stroop and digit-location tasks. Neuropsychologia,2003,41(8),1122-1135.
    [185]West, W. C.& Holcomb, P. J. Event-related potentials during discourse-level semantic integration of complex pictures. Cognitive Brain Research,2002,13(3), 363-375.
    [186]Williams, D. J.& Noyes, J. M. How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical issues in ergonomics science,2007,8(1),1-35.
    [187]Williams, L. M., Liddell, B. J., Rathjen, J., Brown, K. J., Gray, J., Phillips, M., Young, A.& Gordon, E. Mapping the time course of nonconscious and conscious perception of fear:An integration of central and peripheral measures. Human brain mapping,2004,21(2),64-74.
    [188]Wogalter, M. S. Communication-human information processing (C-HIP) model. Handbook of warnings,2006,51-61.
    [189]Wogalter, M. S.& Dingus, T. A. Methodological techniques for evaluating behavioral intentions and compliance. Warnings and risk communication, Taylor and Francis, London,1999,53-81.
    [190]Wogalter, M. S.& Laughery, K. R. Warning! Sign and label effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science,1996,5(2),33-37.
    [191]Wogalter, M. S. & Silver, N. C. Arousal strength of signal words. Forensic Reports, 1990,3,407-420.
    [192]Wogalter, M. S., Brelsford.J. W., Dcsaulnicrs. D. R. & Laughery, K. R. Consumer product warnings: The role of hazard perception. Journal of Safety Research, 1991, 22(2), 71-82.
    [193]Wogalter, M. S., DeJoy, D. & Laughcry. K. R. Warnings and risk communication. US: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press. 1999.
    [194]Wogalter. M. S., Godfrey, S. S., Fontenclle, G. A., Desaulniers, D. R., Rothstein, P. R.& Laughery, K. R. Effectiveness of Warnings. Human l;acors. 1987, 29(5), 599-612.
    [195]Wogalter. M. S., Sojourner. R. J. & BRELSFORD. J. W. Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials. Ergonomics, 1997, 40(5). 531-542.
    [196]Wolff,J.S. & Wogalter, M. S.Test and development of pharmaceutical pictorials. Interface, 1993,93. 187-192.
    [197]Xiao, X., Zhang, Q., Jia, L, Zhang. Y. & Luo, J. Temporal course of cognitive control in a picture-word interference task. Neuroreport, 2010, 21(2), 104-107.
    [198]Xu. Q., Shen. Q., Chen, P. S.. Ma, Q. G., Sun, D. & Pan, Y. N. How an uncertain cue modulates subsequent monetary outcome evaluation: An HRP study. Ncuroscicncc Lcllcrs. 2011. 505(2), 200-204.
    [199]Yang, J., Li. H., Zhang. Y., Qiu, J. & Zhang, Q. The neural basis of risky decision-making in a blackjack task. NeuroReport, 2007, 18(14), 1507-1510.
    [200]Yeung, N. & Sanfey, A. G. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2004, 24(28). 6258-6264.
    [201]Yeiing, N., Botvinick, M. M. & Cohen, J. D. The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological review, 2004, 111(2), 931.
    [202]Young. S. L. Connotation of hazard for signal words and their associated panels. Applied ergonomics. 1998,29(2). 101-110.
    [203]Young, S. L. & Wogalter, M. S. Comprehension and memory of instruction manual warnings: Conspicuous print and pictorial icons. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1990. 32(6). 637-649.
    [204]Young. S. & Lovvoll. D. R. Intermediate processing stages: Methodological considerations for research on warnings. Warnings and risk communication, 1999,27-52.
    [205]Yu, R. F., Chan, A. H.& Salvendy, G. Chinese perceptions of implied hazard for signal words and surround shapes. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,2004,14(1),69-80.
    [206]Yu, R.& Zhou, X. Neuroeconomics:Opening the "black box" behind the economic behavior. Chinese Science Bulletin,2007,52(9),1153-1161.
    [207]Yu, R.& Zhou, X. To bet or not to bet? The error negativity or error-related negativity associated with risk-taking choices. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2009,21(4),684-696.
    [208]Yuan, J., Zhang, Q., Chen, A., Li, H., Wang, Q., Zhuang, Z.& Jia, S. Are we sensitive to valence differences in emotionally negative stimuli? Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study. Neuropsychologia,2007, 45(12),2764-2771.
    [209]Zeki, S.& Marini, L. Three cortical stages of colour processing in the human brain. Brain,1998,121(9),1669-1685.
    [210]蔡建东.我国教育技术学主干理论演进的关键路径——基于科学知识图谱的分析.现代远程教育研究,2011(1),38-44.
    [211]曹强强,李倩倩,陈溪萍.正常人蓝/黄颜色刺激事件相关电位的探讨.中国司法鉴定,2010(3),20-23.
    [212]陈兰杰.基于Web of Science的国际ERP研究热点与研究前沿的信息可视化分析.科学与管理,2009(4),53-55.
    [213]陈超美,陈悦,侯剑华,梁永霞.CiteSpace Ⅱ:科学文献中新趋势与新动态的识别与可视化.情报学报,2009(3),401-421.
    [214]陈悦,刘则渊.悄然兴起的科学知识图谱.科学学研究,2005(2),149-154.
    [215]董升平.企业人—任务互动的集成模拟研究.博士学位论文,华中科技大学,2008;
    [216]国汉芬.煤矿安全事故致因因素经济学分析与风险管理方法.博士学位论文,对外经济贸易大学,2007.
    [217]韩斌君.我国煤矿安全事故致因研究.硕士学位论文,同济大学,2007.
    [218]侯剑华.国际能源技术前沿热点领域演进的可视化.中国科技论坛,2008(11),140-144.
    [219]侯剑华,张春博,王续琨.国际科学技术政策关键节点文献演进的可视化分 析.科学学与科学技术管理,2008(11),10-14.
    [220]金晶.安全标志信号词风险信息处理实验研究.硕士学位论文.浙江大学,2010.
    [221]金会庆,李湖生,戴平.职业适性与职业适性测评研究进展.人类工效学,1998,4,42-46.
    [222]李生才,笑蕾.2012年1—2月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2012a(2),265-268.
    [223]李生才,笑蕾.2012年3—4月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2012b(3).269-272.
    [224]李生寸,笑蕾.2012年5—6月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2012c(4),269-272.
    [225]李生才,笑蕾.2012年7—8月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2012d(5),269-272.
    [226]李生才,笑蕾.2012年9—10月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2012c(6),269-272.
    [227]李生才,笑蕾.2012年11—12月国内生产安全事故统计分析.安全与环境学报,2013(1),285-288.
    [228]李万帮,肖东生.事故致因理论述评.南华大学学报(社会科学版),2007(1),57-61.
    [229]刘力卓,侯玉梅.工业工程导论.北京:中国物资出版社,2008.
    [230]刘则渊,许振亮,庞杰,梁永霞,侯剑华,侯海燕.现代工程前沿图谱与中国自主创新策略.科学学研究,2007(2),193-203.
    [231]罗春红,谢贤平.事故致因理论的比较分析.中国安全生产科学技术,2007(5),111-115.
    [232]罗振壁,朱立强.工业工程导论.北京:机械工业出版社,2004.
    [233]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取.统计原理,SPSS工具与应用研究.北京:科学出版社.2002.
    [234]马庆国,付辉建,卞军.神经工业工程:工业工程发展的新阶段.管理世界,2012(6),1 5.
    [235]马庆国,沈强,李典典,卞军.经济决策的神经化学与遗传基础.科学通报,2010(32),3089-3096.
    [236]马庆国,王小毅.认知神经科学、神经经济学与神经管理学.管理世界,2006(10),139-149.
    [237]马庆国,王小毅.从神经经济学和神经营销学到神经管理学.管理工程学报,2006(03),129-132.
    [238]裴宏斌.基于安全阈限分析的炼化企业安全管理策略.博士学位论文,天津大学,2006.
    [239]彭聃龄,魏景汉,阎克乐.认知神经科学基础.北京:人民教育出版社,2008.
    [240]秦长江,侯汉清.知识图谱——信息管理与知识管理的新领域.大学图书馆学报,2009(1),30-37,96.
    [241]沈强.基于决策神经科学的风险决策机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
    [242]施利承,戴家隽.驾驶员职业适性检测现状与进展.交通医学,2010(2),142-146.
    [243]宋赵丰.劳动力市场农民工歧视的ERP研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
    [244]覃容,彭冬芝.事故致因理论探讨.华北科技学院学报,2005(3),1-10.
    [245]唐贤伟.基于神经工业工程的安全标志认知心理过程研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
    [246]唐孝威.认知科学导论.杭州:浙江大学出版社,2012.
    [247]田水承,景国勋.安全管理学.北京:机械工业出版社,2009.
    [248]汪晓东,张立春,肖鑫雨.大脑学习探秘——认知神经科学研究进展.开放教育研究,2011(5),40-51.
    [249]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
    [250]王文先.对不安全行为的分析与控制.中国矿业,2003(7),35-37.
    [251]魏景汉,罗跃嘉.事件相关电位原理与技术.北京:科学出版社,2010.
    [252]徐青,胡林枫,朱亚丽,金佳,朱倩倩,张武科.基于科学知识图谱的电子商务文献研究.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2012(3),1-9.
    [253]薛伟,蒋祖华.工业工程概论.北京:机械工业出版社,2009.
    [254]杨茂松.冶金矿山矿井安全现状模糊综合评价研究.硕士学位论文,中南大学,2008.
    [255]杨良选,李自力,王浩.基于CiteSpace Ⅱ的研究前沿可视化分析.情报学报,2011(8),883-889.
    [256]余国华.矿山安全生产监管对策研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
    [257]袁京鹏.安全标志有效性影响因素实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
    [258]袁岳,汤雪梅.定性研究方法使用指南:焦点团体座谈会.南京:南京大学出版社,2001.
    [259]张明华,雷二庆.基于知识图谱的认知神经科学前沿与演化研究.军事医学科学院院刊,2010(1),71-75.
    [260]赵仑.ERPs实验教程(修订版).南京:东南大学出版社,2010.
    [261]赵正宣,饶培伦,刘成益.中美两国受试者对警示标志反应差异性的实例分析.工业工程与管理,2006(2),101-103.
    [262]中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局和中国国家标准化管理委员会.安全标志及其使用导则.北京:中国标准出版社,2008.
    [263]钟茂华,魏玉东和范维澄等.事故致因理论综述.火灾科学,1999(3),38-44.

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700