解析動態表徵形成的歷程有助於了解人類高層次的認知行為。本文旨在建立機械動態表徵的認知模式，並設計兩個閱讀的眼動實驗驗證之。針對機械系統特有的主張，本模式著眼於圖、文在形成空間結構與動力訊息的功能探討，以及這兩種訊息之間的相互影響關係。實驗一設計先讀圖再讀圖文的二階段程序，操弄圖示箭頭與標號的有無，探討讀者能否從讀「圖」形成「動力訊息」的心智表徵。研究結果顯示：一、在測驗題方面：箭頭組在讀圖後所做的步驟題，表現顯著優於無箭頭組，但兩組人在讀圖文文章後，二修步驟題的表現就沒有顯著差異；然而，箭頭組閱讀圖文文章後，疑難排解題的測驗表現仍優於無箭頭組。二、在眼動資料方面：箭頭組在讀圖階段有較多依循箭頭閱讀的行為，以致於在圖上的平均跳視距離較短、在第一張圖的連續凝視時間較長、連續凝視次數也較多；無箭頭組則多採用比對兩張圖差異的策略，以致於在兩張圖之間的跳視次數顯著高於箭頭組。實驗一驗證了設計得宜的圖能提供動力訊息的歷程關係，但與文所能提供的不完全相同。實驗二同樣採二階段閱讀程序，操弄空間結構訊息的有無，以及圖或文的閱讀媒介，以探討讀者能否從「文」形成「空間結構」表徵、和圖的差別為何，且空間結構和動力訊息是否有相互影響的關係。研究結果顯示：一、在測驗題方面：空間組在閱讀以文字表述空間結構的文本後，在所有空間結構的測驗都顯著優於非空間組，且兩組讀者閱讀動力訊息文本後，二修空間結構測驗題都有顯著進步。另外，空間組在此測驗的局部向度表現顯著優於讀圖組，但在整體向度的表現則是讀圖組優於空間組。二、在眼動資料方面：空間組在動力訊息文本的總凝視時間顯著短於非空間組，且空間組在句子和重要部件的兩種分析單位，回視時間都顯著短於非空間組。另外，空間組在閱讀有關動力訊息的出水系統句子、重要部件，總凝視時間和回視時間都顯著短於讀圖組。實驗二驗證了讀者能從文字描述空間關係形成心像表徵，但文字和圖片表述空間結構各有優勢，文字的優勢是表達細部的接續關係，圖片則是整體的類比關係；此外，形成動力訊息必須以空間結構為基礎，但動力訊息也能修正與調整空間表徵。整體而言，本文藉由兩個實驗驗證本論文所提出之機械動態表徵的認知模式；文末將從實徵研究和理論模式兩個層次分別與文獻進行綜合討論。

The process of forming kinematic representations contributes to high-order cognitive behavior in humans. The purpose of this study was to construct a cognitive model of kinematic representations within a machine. Two experiments were designed to confirm this model. This model examined the function of text and diagrams for forming internal representations of configurations and kinematic information. Moreover, this model also examined how configuration and kinematic information interact with each other during reading. Readers’ eye movements and comprehension were monitored as they read a piece of text. Experiment 1 consisted of a two-stage procedure: readers first read diagrams and then read a text-and-diagram article about a flushing cistern. We investigated whether readers could construct kinematic representations of diagrams with or without arrows (arrow group versus non-arrow group). Results showed that step-by-step question scores were higher for the arrow group than for the non-arrow group after reading the mechanical diagrams; however, this difference disappeared when both groups read the text-and-diagram article and then revised the step-by-step questions. In addition, scores on troubleshooting questions were higher for the arrow group than for the non-arrow group after reading the text-and-diagram article. In our analysis of eye movements, the arrow group had shorter mean saccade lengths on the diagrams and had longer gaze durations toward the first diagram than the non-arrow group. As for the non-arrow group, the strategy they seemed to use was comparing the status between the two diagrams. Therefore, there were more saccades between the two diagrams for the non-arrow group than for the arrow group. Experiment 1 confirmed that diagrams with arrows conveyed kinematic information, but the kinematic information conveyed was not the same as what could be conveyed by words. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether readers have the ability to form internal representations of mechanical configurations described via written text. The relationship between a mechanical configuration and kinematic information was also of interest. Readers first read the mechanical configurations, which consisted of text or a diagram, and then read text describing kinematic information of the same system. Participants were assigned to one of three groups (configuration group, non-configuration group, or diagram group). Results showed that the configuration group had higher configuration tests scores than the non-configuration group. However, both groups made progress on the revised configuration tests after reading the kinematic text. In addition, the configuration test scores regarding local connective relations were higher for the configuration group than for the diagram group. However, on the global dimension of the same test, the diagram group did better than the configuration group. In our analysis of eye movements, the configuration group displayed shorter total fixation durations and rereading times of the kinematic text than did the non-configuration and diagram groups. Experiment 2 confirmed that readers were able to form a mental representation of the mechanical configuration described by written words. However, both text and diagrams have their advantages for describing configurations; the former’s advantage is on the level of describing local connective relations, while the latter’s advantage is on the level of global analogic relations within the mechanical system. Readers can utilize mechanical configurations to form kinematic information. Conversely, kinematic information could also be used to revise and adjust readers’ mental representations of mechanical configurations. In sum, the model of the current study has been confirmed through the results of two experiments. We discuss relevant empirical research and theoretical underpinnings as they pertain to the current study.

柯華葳、陳明蕾、廖家寧（2005）：詞頻、詞彙類型與眼球運動型態：來自篇章閱讀的證據。中華心理學刊，47，381-398。
陳琪瑤、吳昭容（已接受）：幾何證明文本閱讀的眼動研究：圖文比重及圖示著色效果。教育實踐與研究。
儲澤祥（2010）：漢語空間短語研究。北京：北京大學出版社。
簡郁芩、吳昭容（2012）：以眼動型態和閱讀測驗表現探討箭頭在科學圖文閱讀中的圖示效果。中華心理學刊，54，385-402。
簡郁芩、吳昭容（2011，12月）：以眼球追蹤技術探討科學文章閱讀中圖的功能。國立中山大學主辦，中華民國第二十七屆科學教育學術研討會，高雄市。
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131-152.
Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working Memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829-839.
Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 123-135.
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155-166.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26.
Chen, M. L., & Ko, H. W. (2011). Exploring the eye movement patterns as Chinese children reading texts: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 232-246.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves learning. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-478.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073-1091.
Cook, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 239-261.
de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 501-521.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 731-746.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20, 111-122.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working Memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.
Graesser, A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 17-32.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14, 462-466.
Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
Hayward, W. G & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39-84.
Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1084-1102.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning as mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 280-285.
Hegarty, M., Canham, M., & Fabrikant, S. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 37-53.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 641-668). New York: Longman.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The role of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, A. C. Graesser, & J. Leon (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 357-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Heiser, J., & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30, 581-592.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215-1226.
Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172-176.
Inhoff, A. W., & Wu, C. (2005). Eye movements and the identification of spatially ambiguous words during Chinese sentence reading. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1345-1356.
Jahn, G., Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2007). Preferred mental models in reasoning about spatial relations. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2075-2087.
Jian, Y. C., & Ko, H. W. (2007, August). Investigating the effects of background knowledge on Chinese word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Paper presented at ECEM 14th European Conference on Eye Movements, Potsdam, Germany.
Jian, Y. C & Ko, H. W (2012, July, first published online). Investigating the effects of background knowledge on Chinese word processing during text reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading.
Jian, Y. C., Wu, C. J., & Su, J. H. (2011, August). Eye movements when integrating scientific text and graphics information: The effect of sequential layouts on graphics. Poster session presented at the 16th European Conference on Eye Movements, Marseille, France.
Johnson, C. I. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178-191.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, interference, and consciousness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 439-453.
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 29-35.
Larkin, J. & Simon, H. (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
Li, X., Liu. P., & Rayner, K. (2011). Eye movement guidance in Chinese reading: Is there a preferred viewing location? Vision Research, 51, 1146-1156.
Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2008). Learning with animation: Research implications for design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95-109.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256-265.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Medin, D. L., Ross, B. H., & Markman, A. B. (2005). Cognitive psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I. & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behaviors, 26, 110-117.
Paivio, A. (1990). Dual coding theory. In A. Paivio (Ed.), Mental representations: A dual coding approach (pp. 53-83). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
Rapp, D. N., & Kurby, C. A. (2008). The ‘Ins’ and ‘Outs’ of learning: Internal representations and external visualizations. In M. R. a. M. N. John K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 29-52). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618-660.
Rayner, K. (1979). Eye movements in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21-30.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 372-422.
Rayner, K., & Juhasz, B. J. (2004). Eye movement in reading: Old questions and new directions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 340-352.
Rayner, K., Rotello, C. M., Stewart, A. J., Keir, J., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Integrating text and pictorial information: Eye movements when looking at print advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 219-226.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100-110.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
She, H. C., & Chen, Y. Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53, 1297-1307.
Sims, V. K., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-tasks studies. Memory and Cognition, 25, 321-332.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available from brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74, 1-29.
Su, J. H., Jian, Y. C., & Ko, H. W. (2011, August). Do readers have preferred viewing location on Chinese words when reading in the texts? Poster session presented at the 16th European Conference on Eye Movements, Marseille, France.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp.79-111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., Lai, M. L., Liu, W. Y., & Yang, F. Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education. 58, 375-385.
van Dijk & Kintsch. T. A., (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror-neuron system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 21-30.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3-21.