＊黑體字為早上上班之暫定計畫；紅體字為下午下班之任務紀錄。
◎細讀並彙整： Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind” ?
1. polish discussion（上週五未修改）
2. 今天下午將與Lynn確認下面文意問題：
(1) result section
a. "The Belief Question for both trials was answered consistently by each child with the sole exception of one Down’s Syndrome child who failed trial 1 and passed trial 2."
問題：trail 1 & 2分別是指什麼？句型看不太懂..
(2) discussion section：
a. " This becomes especially clear on trial 2 where the autistic children never
pointed to the box (which had been the ‘wrong’ location on trial l), but instead to the experimenter’s pocket-that is, again to where the marble really was."
待釐清trail 1& trail 2 差別；為何會提到experimenter's pocket (在result之前的內文均沒提到)？
b. "The ability we have been testing could be considered as a kind of conceptual perspective-taking skill (Shantz, 1983). However, it is important to contrast the present task with traditional perceptual perspective-taking tasks, such as ‘line of sight’ or ‘three mountains’, where a child has to indicate what
can be seen from another point of view (Hobson, 1982; Hughes & Donaldson,
1979; Piaget and Inhelder, 1956).
確認文意理解是否正確：一直以來在探討conceptual perspective-taking skill，然而現在的任務較多是傳統的perceptual perspective-taking skill（透過該能力，可以去理解他人觀點） ？
c. 接續上點2句子，" Such perceptual perspective-taking tasks can be solved using solely visuo-spatial skills and in no way require imputing beliefs to others (Cox, 1980; Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979)."
若對於點2句子的理解是正確的（透過persceptual perspective-taking skill可以理解他人觀點），為何下一句又說perceptual perspective-taking taskds只需要用到視覺空間能力、而不需要輸入他人信念？上下句矛盾了？
d. "This finding, Hobson argued, suggests that it is very unlikely that the cognitive abilities required in taking different points of view in perceptual situations are the same as those that underlie the autistic child’s social disability. "
"Hobosn argued"是否為省略之複合子句"Hobson was argued"，我的理解是"Hobson 在提出這個觀點時，被挑戰"。而他的觀點為"自閉症社交能力缺損之能力，在理解他人觀點的層面上，不可能只受認知能力影響"
e. "The results of the present study would confirm this interpretation and point
towards a crucial distinction between the understanding of perceptual situations and the attribution of higher order mental states."
perceptual situations 是更高層度的mental states?
f. "Thus we have demonstrated a cognitive deficit that is largely independent of general intellectual level and has the potential to explain both lack of pretend play and social impairment by ‘virtue of a circumscribed cognitive failure. "
確認文意理解是否正確：因此，可以證明認知缺損是獨立於一般智商階層，且具備解釋缺乏假扮遊戲與社交能力缺損之潛力。
lack of pretend play and social impairment by ‘virtue of a circumscribed cognitive failure
[下班工作進度更新]下午有跟Lynn討論上述問題。
部分問題－較偏英文語法理解方面，當下有結論，將紀錄在下方；
部分問題－需要理解研究內容的，Lynn說她需要再看過一次、確認上下文，禮拜三下午再跟我討論。
文獻彙整檔已根據今日討論做修改，其餘問題待禮拜三確認後調整；檔案修改完整後再找謝老師討論。
※已解答問題-discussion part：
b. "The ability we have been testing could be considered as a kind of conceptual perspective-taking skill (Shantz, 1983). However, it is important to contrast the present task with traditional perceptual perspective-taking tasks, such as ‘line of sight’ or ‘three mountains’, where a child has to indicate what can be seen from another point of view (Hobson, 1982; Hughes & Donaldson,
1979; Piaget and Inhelder, 1956).
問題：確認文意理解是否正確，一直以來在探討conceptual perspective-taking skill，然而現在的任務較多是傳統的perceptual perspective-taking skill（透過該能力，可以去理解他人觀點） ？
解答：文意是指現在再測的概念，會被認為是conceptual perspective taking skill。但作者認為可能不只是conceptual，更要去探討perceptual，perceptual之能力讓孩童可以去理解他人觀點。
c. 接續上點2句子，" Such perceptual perspective-taking tasks can be solved using solely visuo-spatial skills and in no way require imputing beliefs to others (Cox, 1980; Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979)."
問題：若對於點2句子的理解是正確的（透過persceptual perspective-taking skill可以理解他人觀點），為何下一句又說perceptual perspective-taking taskds只需要用到視覺空間能力、而不需要輸入他人信念？上下句矛盾了？
解答：所以，是不需要perceptual的能力，需要conceptual的能力。
d. "This finding, Hobson argued, suggests that it is very unlikely that the cognitive abilities required in taking different points of view in perceptual situations are the same as those that underlie the autistic child’s social disability. "
問題："Hobosn argued"是否為省略之複合子句"Hobson was argued"，我的理解是"Hobson 在提出這個觀點時，被挑戰"。而他的觀點為"自閉症社交能力缺損之能力，在理解他人觀點的層面上，不可能只受認知能力影響"
解答：句型調整，原句型應是＂Hobson argued that this finding suggests..."。所以僅是Honson提出這個觀點。
e. "The results of the present study would confirm this interpretation and point
towards a crucial distinction between the understanding of perceptual situations and the attribution of higher order mental states."
問題：perceptual situations 是更高層度的mental states?
解答：並沒有比較他們的層級高低，句子重點在point towards a crucial distinction between A & B；然A是指"the understanding of perceptual situations"、B是指" the attribution of higher order mental states"，在講這兩個東西是不一樣的。
f. "Thus we have demonstrated a cognitive deficit that is largely independent of general intellectual level and has the potential to explain both lack of pretend play and social impairment by ‘virtue of a circumscribed cognitive failure. "
問題：確認文意理解是否正確：因此，可以證明認知缺損是獨立於一般智商階層，且具備解釋缺乏假扮遊戲與社交能力缺損之潛力。
解答： 文意理解正確。補充－句型"lack of pretend play and social impairment by ‘virtue of a circumscribed cognitive failure"，"by virtue of a circumscribed cognitive failure"是在形容"lack of"這件事。
◎與上週任務同：建立／調整收案檔案之內容（因應「台大醫院附設幼兒園」收案）
待建立檔案包含：
(1) 台大附設員工醫院感謝狀
(2) 台北研究說明單（一般發展兒童版）
(3) 臺大醫院追蹤評估時間表
(4) 臺大醫院新追蹤評估時間表（新招募的等9、10月）
(5) 評估資料輸入
(6) 台北新版同意書（給新招募的對象）
(7) 材料清單確認表
(8) 準備工作檢核表
[下班工作進度更新]
(1) 感謝狀－已建立台大醫院版，但因收案日期未訂，故日期未壓
(2)、(3)、(4)、(5)、(6)、(7)、(8)檔案－完成調整與建立
已將上述檔案均上傳雲端，待黃老師、與雨灣看過，確認有無問題。
◎新增任務：修改台北小兒AI計畫IRB送審所需紙本資料
[下班工作進度更新]今天沒時間弄，明天弄~
◎新增任務：確認研究同意書簽署問題
[下班工作進度更新]
已回報阿沛。
前情提要：2020/12/24 同意書變更案通過，可開始使用
雖於2021/1、2月份才到德上診所進行收案，但因在2020/12月初就已前往招募、並請家長簽署同意書，故有在同意書變更案後收案，但卻使用舊版同意書簽署的問題。
◎待辦試項：
1. 待sop調整好，重新錄製「影片拍攝收案講解」
*需重新錄製
(1) 在影片介紹一開始，增加各檔案說明順序，先有大架構
(2) 增加每個檔案說明前的介紹開場白，以及每個檔案會講到那些內容、重點
(3) 將檔案中不必要的註解隱藏，避免畫面雜亂
2. 與培雅確定「成品收案講解」架構並練習試講
3.
錄製「成品收案講解」之交接影片
4. 待與謝老師釐清文獻之問題紀錄
(1) 一般小兒研究，約需收到幾筆受試者，才可以算是有充分收案對象、較完整的研究？ (2) discussion的部分，最後面說明"此研究鼓勵我們持續發展該理論架構，特別在於連結假扮遊戲、心智理論概念與社交技巧"，是否應該增加對於起初研究假說 ：「成立新模型」這件事情多做說明、交代，或連結該模型至臨床問題，而非這樣帶過（有說，又好像沒說...）。
