近年來由於認知神經科學領域的發展，促使許多的研究者紛紛使用先進的電子測量儀器進行實驗。大腦認知科學相關的研究也開始藉由腦電波的方式去分析及探討，找出人們在決策或是思考各類不同問題時，大腦腦波的區域或是頻段上的變化。
Kahnema與Trersky於1979年從認知心理學的角度提出展望理論來對應遊戲理論中的期望效用理論。展望理論採用非線性效用函數或稱為價值函數，來解釋決策過程中決策者的心理行為。此理論認為個人基於參考點位置的不同，會有不同的風險態度。許多的研究顯示人類的許多心理行為，都可以利用生理訊號來加以偵測。如心跳頻率，腦波訊號等。而目前已證明人類的大腦皮質在情緒、行為和經驗等方面，扮演著一個重要的角色，如前額皮質區的不對稱性功能，和不同情緒的行為有所相關。但對於風險的追逐與趨避是否有相同的影響，仍待探討。因此本研究將嘗試利用腦波訊號來研究決策者在偏好選擇時，分別處於風險趨避及風險追逐時的腦部活動特徵。並透過此一研究來協助決策者決定其在不同的決策準則下的參考點設定。

In recent years, due to the development in the field of cognitive neuroscience, have prompted many researchers to use advanced electronic measurement instruments to do experiments. Cognitive science research related to the brain have begun to analyze and explore through brain waves ways to find out people in decision-making or thinking different types of problems, changes in the brain region or EEG frequency. 
Kahnema and Trersky put forward prospect theory in 1979, from the perspective of cognitive psychology, corresponds to expected utility theory in game theory. Prospect theory used nonlinear utility function or value function to explain the psychological and behavioral of decision makers in decision-making process. This theory suggests that individual positions based on different reference points have different risk attitudes. Many studies have shown that many human psychological behavior can use physiological signals to detect. Such as heart rate, brain waves and other signals. And now has proved that human cerebral cortex in mood, behavior and experience, etc., play an important role, such as the prefrontal cortex functional asymmetry zones are related to different emotions behavior. But pending explore whether the same effect on the risk chase or on the risk averse. Therefore, this study will attempt to use EEG to study the decision-makers's brain activity characteristics in the preferences selected, respectively in risk aversion or in risk chase. Through this research to help decision makers determine its reference point in different decision rules settings.

目錄
摘要	I
Abstract	II
 第一章　緒論	- 1 -
1.1	研究背景與目的	- 1 -
 第二章　文獻探討	- 4 -
2.1	展望理論（Prospect Theory）	- 4 -
2.2	腦波量測（Electroencephalography ,EEG）	- 5 -
2.2.1	大腦基本構造	- 5 -
2.2.2	腦波	- 6 -
2.2.3	腦波相關量測	- 7 -
 第三章　實驗方法	- 10 -
3.1	實驗對象	- 10 -
3.2	實驗流程	- 10 -
3.3	研究工具	- 12 -
3.3.1	腦波儀器	- 12 -
3.3.2	情境模擬軟體	- 13 -
3.3.3	分析方法	- 15 -
 第四章　實驗結果	- 18 -
 第五章　結論	- 34 -
參考文獻	- 38 -
附錄	- 40 -
圖目錄
圖 1-1：價值曲線	- 2 -
圖 3-1：實驗流程	- 11 -
圖 3-2：Emotiv EPOC	- 13 -
圖 3-3：14個頻道位置圖	- 13 -
圖 3-4：實驗一畫面(1)	- 14 -
圖 3-5：實驗一畫面(2)	- 14 -
圖 3-6：實驗二畫面(1)	- 15 -
圖 3-7：實驗二畫面(2)	- 15 -
圖 3-8：EDF Browser 裁剪訊號	- 16 -
圖 3-9：AF3頻道之β波頻率功率圖	- 17 -
圖 3-10：β波功率分佈頻譜圖	- 17 -
圖 4-1：α波(8~12Hz) 閉眼時腦波功率分布圖	- 19 -
圖 4-2：α波(8~12Hz) 決策時腦波功率分布圖	- 19 -
圖 4-3：β波(13~30Hz) 閉眼時腦波功率分布圖	- 20 -
圖 4-4：β波(13~30Hz) 決策時腦波功率分布圖	- 20 -
圖 4-5：θ波(6~8Hz) 閉眼時腦波功率分布圖	- 21 -
圖 4-6：θ波(6~8Hz) 決策時腦波功率分布圖	- 21 -
圖 4-7：α波(8~12Hz)，Channel 1 (AF3)	- 21 -
圖 4-8：α波(8~12Hz)，Channel 14 (AF4)	- 22 -
圖 4-9：檢定一顯著差異位置圖	- 27 -
圖 4-10：檢定二顯著差異位置圖	- 29 -
圖 4-11：檢定三顯著差異位置圖	- 30 -
圖 4-12：檢定五顯著差異位置圖	- 33 -
圖 5-1：腦波強度顯著差異位置圖	- 37 -
表目錄
表 4-1：12個頻道對照表	- 22 -
表 4-2：第一階段Alpha腦波功率相對值	- 23 -
表 4-3：全部個體Alpha波閉眼時各頻道平均值	- 24 -
表 4-4：全部個體Alpha波思考決策時各頻道平均值	- 24 -
表 4-5：全部個體Alpha波閉眼與思考相對值	- 25 -
表 4-6：第一階段實驗人數並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Alpha	- 26 -
表 4-7：第一階段實驗人數並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Beta	- 26 -
表 4-8：第一階段實驗人數並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Theta	- 27 -
表 4-9：採全部個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Alpha	- 28 -
表 4-10：採全部個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Beta	- 28 -
表 4-11：採全部個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Theta	- 28 -
表 4-12：採符合決策個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Alpha	- 29 -
表 4-13：採符合決策個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Beta	- 30 -
表 4-14：採符合決策個體並依實驗一、二分組之檢定_Theta	- 30 -
表 4-15：採用全部個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Alpha	- 31 -
表 4-16：採用全部個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Beta	- 31 -
表 4-17：採用全部個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Theta	- 31 -
表 4-18：採用符合預期個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Alpha	- 32 -
表 4-19：採用符合預期個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Beta	- 32 -
表 4-20：採用符合預期個體，比較個體於實驗一、二之腦波差異檢定_Theta	- 33 -
表 5-1：檢定一及檢定二結果比較表	- 35 -
表 5-2：檢定一、檢定二及檢定三結果比較表	- 36 -

[1]	朱璿瑾;江政祐;劉寧漢 (2013), 運用腦波識別專注狀態
[2]	Andreassi, J. L. (1995). Psychophysiology: Human Behavior and Physiological Response. (3rd Ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[3]	Berger, H. (1929). “Uber das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen (On the EEG in humans),” Journal of European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical 'euroscience , Vol. 87, No. 1, pp.527-570, 1929
[4]	Chang, W.J., Tsai, C.M and Yeh, Z.M., “EEG for Recognizing Answers to Yes-or-No Questions and Analyzing Responses to Multiple-Choice Items”, Journal of Science and Engineering Technology, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 29-42 (2009)
[5]	Cheng, S., Chan, C.W., Huang, G.H. (2002), Using multiple criteria decision analysis for supporting decision of solid waste management. J. of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 37(6), 975-990.
[6]	Davison, R. J., “Hemispheric Specialization for Affective Process in Normals: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Studies”, The Meeting of the Society for Biological Psychiatry, Atlanta, Georgia, May (1978).
[7]	Davison, R. J., Cerebral Asymmetry, Emotion and Affective Style, Brain Asymmetry, MIT Press: Cambridge (1995).
[8]	Hsieh, C.W., Hung, C.L., Lin, J.H., Hung, T.M. (2009), The Relationship between Athlete’s Self-Confidence and Frontal EEG Asymmetry
[9]	Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.(1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[10]	Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). A psychological analysis of conflict,choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
[11]	Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.(1979), Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica , 47(2), 263-291.
[12]	Khushaba, R.N., Kodagoda, S., Dissanayake, G., Greenacre, L., Burke, S., Louviere, J. (2012), A neuroscientific approach to choice modeling: Electroencephalogram (EEG) and user preferences
[13]	Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in  organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845.
[14]	Li, Y., Li, X., Ratcliffe, M., Liu, L., Qi, Y. and Liu, Q., “A real-time EEG-based BCI System for Attention Recognition in Ubiquitous Environment.,” UAAII '11 Proceedings of 2011 international workshop on Ubiquitous affective awareness and intelligent interaction, pp.33-40, 2011
[15]	Lin, Y. P., “Exploring EEG Spectral Dynamics of Emotional Responses in Music Appreciation,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan(R.O.C), 2011
[16]	Nakayama, K. and Inagaki, K. , “A Brain Computer Interface Based on Neural Network with Efficient Pre-Processing”, ISPACS 2006, 2006
[17]	O’Connor, K. P. and Shaw, J. C. (1978) Field dependence, laterality, and the EEG. Biological Psychology, 6, 93-109.
[18]	Politser, P., “Neuroeconomics: A Guide to the New Science of Making Choices”, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2008.
[19]	Rocha, F. T., Rocha, A. F., Massad, E. and Menezes, R. (2005) Brain mappings of the arithmetic processing in children and adults. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 359-372.
[20]	Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (la methode ELECTRE), La Revue d'Informatique et de Recherche Operationelle (RIRO), 8, 57–75.
[21]	Satty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[22]	Shyur, H.J. and Shih, H.S. (2006), A Hybrid MCDM Model for Strategic Vendor Selection, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 44, 749-761.
[23]	Zanakis, S.H. , Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S. (1998), Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of selection methods. European J. of Operational Research, 107, 507-529.
[24]	Zhang, S., Gao, J. and Chen, Z., “Analysis f Emotion EEG Classification Based on GA-Fisher Classifier,” Complexity and Data Mining (IWCDM), 2011 First International Workshop, pp. 24-27, 2011