类比推理指个体把先前获得的有关源情景解决方法的知识向靶情景迁移的过程（Holyoak, 2012）。类比推理赋予了人类在未经历过的复杂情况下，可以基于原有知识和经验进行推断和学习的能力，是人类智能的主要载体之一。在过去的数十年里，研究者发展出不同的测量任务，从行为层面、计算机模型及神经层面等角度提出了不同理论揭示了类比推理的发展与影响因素。近年来，很多研究者从执行功能的角度关注类比推理的发展及影响因素。执行功能指个体在完成复杂的认知任务过程中，不能依靠直觉和本能达成目标，需要对其他认知过程进行控制和调节的心理过程，主要由工作记忆、抑制控制和认知灵活性三种认知成分组成（Diamond, 2013, 2016）。

但由于不同研究者采用不同的执行功能框架及不同的测查任务，且多局限于某一年龄群体考察执行功能和类比推理的相关关系，造成执行功能与类比推理的关系研究仍多停留在对现象的描述上，缺乏对具体的认知过程尤其是不同执行功能的认知成分在不同年龄群体类比推理中的具体作用模式的进一步考察。

为此，本研究首先从发展的角度，以学前年龄儿童为起点，在较大的年龄范围揭示类比推理的发展特点，为探明执行功能与类比推理的关系做准备。其次，本研究建立在Diamond的执行功能框架下，明晰了“工作记忆”、“抑制控制”和“认知灵活性”的概念内涵，并选用适宜的测查任务，探究了执行功能的不同认知成分与类比推理的关系，发现在控制年龄的基础上，“工作记忆”和“抑制控制”能显著预测类比推理的发展，“认知灵活性”无法显著预测类比推理的发展。再次，本研究创造性地建立了一套同时包含知觉干扰和语义干扰以及不同关系整合水平的情景类比任务，通过设置类比推理情景中有无知觉或语义干扰作为对抑制控制能力的测查，操纵类比情景不同的关系整合水平作为对个体完成类比推理任务中工作记忆的考察，全面探究并比较了不同类型的干扰和关系整合在不同年龄群体的类比推理中的作用模式来揭示抑制控制和工作记忆在儿童和成人群体类比推理中的具体作用机制。发现对于儿童类比推理来说，“工作记忆”和“抑制控制”的交互作用小于两者各自作用之和；具体来说，儿童在类比过程中，当某一个因素（如，需要抑制干扰）需要比较多的认知资源的时候，留个另一个因素（如，关系整合）的认知资源就非常有限，所以另一个因素的破坏作用无法较大地发挥出来。但对于成人类比推理来说，“工作记忆”和“抑制控制”的交互作用大于两者各自作用之和；具体来说，在类比推理中，干扰的存在和关系复杂性的增加可以同时降低成人类比推理的表现。最后，本研究结合眼动技术，采用“前测-干预-后测”范式，考察并比较工作记忆训练和抑制控制训练对儿童类比推理行为表现和眼动模式的促进作用，以期得到对提升儿童类比推理更有效的认知因素。结果表明，对于儿童类比推理来说，工作记忆是更有效的认知因素。本论文具体包含以下四个研究（5个子实验）：

研究一（实验1）31名3-4岁幼儿、35名5-6岁儿童、37名8-9岁儿童、38名13-14岁青少年及41名成人完成经典的A:B::C:D类比推理任务，揭示类比推理的发展特点。结果发现， 3-4岁儿童具备基本的类比推理能力，完成类比推理任务时容易受到知觉干扰的影响；5-6岁完成类比推理任务时不仅容易受到知觉干扰的影响还容易受到语义干扰的影响；8-9岁儿童完成类比推理任务时基本能克服知觉干扰的影响，但仍容易受到语义干扰的影响。13-14岁青少年完成类比推理任务时能克服知觉干扰和语义干扰的影响进行正确的类比关系匹配，能力接近成人水平。此外，儿童类比推理发展的重要转折期是8-9岁。

研究二（实验2）27名3-4岁幼儿、31名5-6岁儿童、34名8-9岁儿童、34名13-14岁青少年及37名成人完成视空间工作记忆任务、言语工作记忆任务、Stroop任务、Go/no-go任务、数字转换任务以及经典的A:B::C:D类比推理任务，探究执行功能的不同认知成分与类比推理发展的关系。结果发现，在控制年龄的基础上，工作记忆和抑制控制可以显著预测类比推理的发展，但是认知灵活性不能显著预测类比推理的发展。

研究三（实验3、实验4）为探究并比较工作记忆和抑制控制在儿童和成人类比推理中的作用机制，研究三通过两个实验设置含有不同类型干扰刺激的情景类比推理任务，操纵类比情景不同的关系整合水平作为对个体完成类比推理任务中工作记忆的考察，设置类比推理情景中干扰刺激作为对个体抑制控制能力的测查。具体来说，实验3以30名3-4岁幼儿、27名8-9岁儿童和40名成人为被试，设置含有知觉干扰及不同关系整合水平的情景类比任务，实验4以30名3-4岁儿童、27名8-9岁儿童和38名成人为被试，设置含有语义干扰及不同关系整合水平的情景类比任务。结果发现，工作记忆和抑制控制在儿童和成人类比推理中的具体作用模式存在差异。对于儿童的类比推理来说，工作记忆和抑制控制的交互作用小于两者各自作用之和，当类比推理情景中的关系复杂程度没有超过儿童当前工作记忆能力时（一元关系），类比情景的干扰刺激能显著降低儿童的类比推理表现，而当关系复杂度增加时（二元关系），此时类比情景的干扰刺激无法继续显著降低儿童的类比推理表现。或者说当类比情景中不存在干扰因素需要主体去抑制的时候，类比情景中的关系复杂性才能对儿童类比推理表现产生较大的负向影响，而当类比情景中已存在干扰时，关系复杂性无法继续显著降低儿童类比推理的表现。但是对于成人类比推理来说，工作记忆和抑制控制的交互作用大于两者各自作用之和，即使类比推理情景中的类比关系比较复杂，类比任务中干扰仍能显著负向影响成人的类比推理表现；或者即使类比情景中存在干扰刺激，复杂的类比关系也仍能显著负向影响成人的类比推理表现。

研究四（实验5）结合行为与眼动两方面的证据，探究并比较工作记忆训练和抑制控制训练对儿童类比推理表现及眼动模式的影响。60名8-9岁儿童被随机分到工作记忆训练组、抑制控制训练组和控制组。三组儿童在前后测阶段均需要完成视空间工作记忆任务、言语工作记忆任务、Stroop任务、Go/no-go任务、瑞文推理任务以及A:B::C:D类比推理任务。被试完成类比推理任务时用Tobii T120记录被试的眼动数据，并计算儿童完成类比推理任务时的眼动模式及随时间进程的眼动变化。此外，工作记忆训练组在训练阶段接受12次自适应的视空间工作记忆训练和言语工作记忆训练；抑制控制组在训练阶段接受12次自适应的冲突控制和反应抑制训练；控制组不进行训练，只进行前后测。结果发现，抑制控制训练和工作记忆训练均可以提高儿童在后测阶段的类比推理行为表现及眼动模式。但相对抑制控制训练组来说，工作记忆训练组在后测阶段提升地更好。具体体现在：工作记忆训练组在前后测阶段完成类比推理任务的正确率差值显著大于抑制控制组，且工作记忆训练组在后测阶段呈现成熟的“项目优先”眼动模式的比例更高，在Slice1和Slice2时对A物体和B物体的加工更充分。

综上，本研究表明，儿童期是类比推理发展的重要时期。执行功能的两个重要成分—— 抑制控制和工作记忆对于类比推理的发展尤为重要，且两个认知因素在儿童和成人类比推理中的具体认知机制不同。对于儿童来说，相比抑制干扰刺激，在工作记忆中对类比情景中的物体及物体关系进行充分有效加工是解决类比推理问题的关键。本研究为更深入地了解执行功能的不同成分在不同年龄段类比推理中的认知机制提供了证据，揭示了人类认知发展的复杂性。

Analogical reasoning is the process of drawing relationships between representations of two domains. Children capable of analogical reasoning are able to extend their existing knowledge to new contexts. Over the past decades, researchers have set many kinds of measurements of analogical reasoning and put forward several theories to explain the development of analogical reasoning. In recent years, researchers began to focus on the development of analogical reasoning from executive function perspective. Executive function refers to a set of cognitive processes and mental skills that help an individual plan, monitor, and successfully execute their goals, which including working memory (WM), inhibitory control (IC) and cognitive flexibility (CF).

However, due to difference researchers used different functional framework and different measure tasks, the studies about the relationship between executive function and analogical reasoning are still stay on the description of the phenomenon level. More work is still needed to explore the specific cognitive mechanism underlying the analogical reasoning. The current study reveals the relationship among different cognitive components of executive function and analogical reasoning from developmental perspective. Furthermore, the current study investigated and compared the roles of working memory and inhibitory control in analogical reasoning between children and adults. Finally, the current study used eye tracking technology to explore the effects of working memory training and inhibitory control training on children’s analogical reasoning.

Study 1 was to reveal the development of analogical reasoning. Thirty-one 3-4 years old, 35 5-6 years old, 37 8-9 years old, 38 13-14years old and 41 adults completed the classical A:B::C:D analogical reasoning task. The results showed that 3-4 years old have the basic ability of analogical reasoning, which was easily influenced by perception interference. 5-6 years old completed the analogical reasoning task was not only easily influenced by perception interference, but also influenced by semantic interference. 8-9 years old completed the analogical reasoning task was easily influence by semantic interference. While, 13-14 years old could overcome the influence of perceptional and semantic interference when completing the analogical reasoning task. Additionally, 8-9 years old is the key period during the development of analogical reasoning.

Study 2 was to investigate the relationship between executive function and analogical reasoning. Twenty-seven 3-4 years old, 31 5-6 years old, 34 8-9 years old, 34 13-14 adolescents and 37 adults completed the visual spatial working memory task, verbal working memory task, Stroop task, Go/no-go task and analogical reasoning task. The results showed that, only working memory and inhibitory control could significantly predict the development of analogical reasoning with controlling for age. While, cognitive flexibility could not significantly predict analogical reasoning development with age controlling.

Study 3 was to examine the role of working memory and inhibitory control in the development of analogical reasoning, and to compare the interactive pattern of relational complexity and interference inhibition in children and adults. Specifically, in experiment 3, working memory was evaluated via manipulation of the number of objects in an analogical scene. Inhibitory control was evaluated via manipulation of the perception interference emergence. 30 3-4 years old, 27 8-9 years old, and 40 adults completed the analogical scene task. Experiment 4 differs from experiment 3 in the manipulation of inhibitory control through manipulation of sematic interference emergence. The results showed difference cognitive mechanism of working memory and inhibitory control between children’s and adults’ analogical reasoning. Specifically, for children’s analogical reasoning, working memory and inhibitory control depended on shared cognitive sources. If one factor needed more cognitive demand, there would be limited resources available for another factor. While for adults, working memory and inhibitory control could influence adults’ analogical reasoning performance simultaneously.

Study 4 was to explore the effects of working memory training and inhibitory control training on children’s analogical reasoning with eye track technique. Sixty 8-9 years old were divided into three groups: working memory training groups, inhibitory control training groups and control groups. All children were supposed to completed visual spatial working task, verbal working memory task, Stroop task and Go/no-go task and A:B::C:D task. Tobii T120 was used to record children’s eye movement pattern during analogical processing. The working memory training groups received 12 visual spatial working memory and verbal working memory training. The inhibitory control training groups received 12 response inhibition and conflict control training. While, the control groups receive no training. The results showed that working memory training and inhibitory control training both can improve children’s performance and eye pattern. More importantly, working memory training was a better motivator.

To sum up, this research indicated that childhood is the key period of the development of analogical reasoning. Besides, the first two cognitive component of executive function —— working memory and inhibitory control were important for the development of analogical reasoning. Importantly, the specific mechanism between working memory and inhibitory control underly analogical reasoning was different between children and adults. For children, the key during analogical reasoning is to process objects and their relations in the working memory effectively, rather than the inhibition of interference.