According to the facial-feedback hypothesis,_____

单选题 　　According to the facial-feedback hypothesis,______．

A．thereis no link between emotions and facial expressions
B．people's facial expressions can only reflect their emotional states
C．people's emotional states cannot be influenced by their facial expressions
D．thecausal link between emotions and facial expressions is bidirectional

参考答案D

解析: 本题的出题点在转折处(however)。根据第三段，大部分人认为面部表情反映了人的情感状态，然而面部反应假说认为，面部肌肉传递的信息会反馈到大脑的情感中枢，因此人的面部表情也会影响到他的情感状态。可见面部表情和相应的情感状态之间的关系是双向的、互相影响的，故选D。

点击查看答案进入在线模考

你可能喜欢

单选题 　　Ekman has found that

A．people might have different expressions for the same emotion
B．pleasant feelings often stimulate Duchanne smile
C．"crow's feet" wrinkles often accompanied the Duchenne smile
D．keeping a stiff upper lip was useful for handling stress

点击查看答案进入在线模考

单选题　　Jan Hendrik Schon's success seemed too good to be true, and it was．In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—ne every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues,
　　and made them suspicious．When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers--which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature--the jig was up．In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data．His career as a scientist was finished.
　　If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk--the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells--it is．Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance．Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future．But it never is entirely．Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts arc evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats．In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success．The questions raised anew by Hwang's fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task asgate keepers.
　　Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals．Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth．Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry．As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers．And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists．Why do they care? Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals．Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications.
　　Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public．Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals．When more scientists know about a particular paper, they're more apt to cite it in their own papers．Being oft-cited will increase a scientist's "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers．Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of theinfluence of scientists they're considering supporting.
　　Whcther the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter.The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot．Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang's 2005article．Science editors recognized the manuscript's import almost as soon as it arrived．As part of the standardprocedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peerreview (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test)．This recommendation was made not on the scientificvalidity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at theUniversity of Geneva and a member of Science's Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science.
　　After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over．Their commentswere favorable．How were they to know that the data was fraudulent? "You look at the data and do not assume it'sfraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science.
　　In the end, a big scandal now and then isn't likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals．Whateditors and scientists worry about more arc the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which arcatmost impossible to dctcct．A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of allrespondents had committed some forms of misconduct．Tbesc included falsifying research data and having"questionable relationships" with students and subjects--both charges "leveled against Hwang．Nobody reallyknows if this kind of fraud is on tbe rise, but it is worrying.
　　Science editors don't have any plans to change the basic editorial peer-review process as a result of the Hwangscandal．They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but thatpolicy change had akcady been decided when the scandal struck．And even if it had been in place, it would nothave revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11colonies．With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it's unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet m_anuscripts．Beyond replicating the experiments themselves,which would be impractical, it's difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system.
　　根据以上内容，回答题。
Which of the following can be inferred fi'om the passage?

A．Key scientific journals are authoritative in evaluating scientific papers.
B．Peer-review is the most effective method in evaluating and selecting scientific papers.
C．Scientists are less likely to achieve career success without publications in top papers.
D．Fabricating evidence in scientific researches can be discovered by enough strict evaluation.

点击查看答案进入在线模考

单选题 　　Science and Nature are top journals in the word in that__________。

A．they are built on the honor system
B．they are the only world-recognized journals in the scientific circle
C．they cover all the research areas of science
D．they are as popular as public magazines

点击查看答案进入在线模考

hot热门搜索

你可能喜欢

延伸阅读