@misc{MiklashevskyFischerLindemann2022,
  author    = {Miklashevsky, Alex and Fischer, Martin H. and Lindemann, Oliver},
  title     = {Spatial-numerical associations without a motor response? Grip force says 'Yes'},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {810},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-57832},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-578324},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In numerical processing, the functional role of Spatial-Numerical Associations (SNAs, such as the association of smaller numbers with left space and larger numbers with right space, the Mental Number Line hypothesis) is debated. Most studies demonstrate SNAs with lateralized responses, and there is little evidence that SNAs appear when no response is required. We recorded passive holding grip forces in no-go trials during number processing. In Experiment 1, participants performed a surface numerical decision task ("Is it a number or a letter?"). In Experiment 2, we used a deeper semantic task ("Is this number larger or smaller than five?"). Despite instruction to keep their grip force constant, participants' spontaneous grip force changed in both experiments: Smaller numbers led to larger force increase in the left than in the right hand in the numerical decision task (500-700 ms after stimulus onset). In the semantic task, smaller numbers again led to larger force increase in the left hand, and larger numbers increased the right-hand holding force. This effect appeared earlier (180 ms) and lasted longer (until 580 ms after stimulus onset). This is the first demonstration of SNAs with passive holding force. Our result suggests that (1) explicit motor response is not a prerequisite for SNAs to appear, and (2) the timing and strength of SNAs are task-dependent. (216 words).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MiklashevskyFischerLindemann2022,
  author    = {Miklashevsky, Alex and Fischer, Martin H. and Lindemann, Oliver},
  title     = {Spatial-numerical associations without a motor response? Grip force says 'Yes'},
  series = {Acta Psychologica},
  volume    = {231},
  journal   = {Acta Psychologica},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1873-6297},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103791},
  pages     = {1 -- 17},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In numerical processing, the functional role of Spatial-Numerical Associations (SNAs, such as the association of smaller numbers with left space and larger numbers with right space, the Mental Number Line hypothesis) is debated. Most studies demonstrate SNAs with lateralized responses, and there is little evidence that SNAs appear when no response is required. We recorded passive holding grip forces in no-go trials during number processing. In Experiment 1, participants performed a surface numerical decision task ("Is it a number or a letter?"). In Experiment 2, we used a deeper semantic task ("Is this number larger or smaller than five?"). Despite instruction to keep their grip force constant, participants' spontaneous grip force changed in both experiments: Smaller numbers led to larger force increase in the left than in the right hand in the numerical decision task (500-700 ms after stimulus onset). In the semantic task, smaller numbers again led to larger force increase in the left hand, and larger numbers increased the right-hand holding force. This effect appeared earlier (180 ms) and lasted longer (until 580 ms after stimulus onset). This is the first demonstration of SNAs with passive holding force. Our result suggests that (1) explicit motor response is not a prerequisite for SNAs to appear, and (2) the timing and strength of SNAs are task-dependent. (216 words).},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuehneFischerJeglinskiMende2022,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A.},
  title     = {During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56218},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-562189},
  pages     = {1 -- 12},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers' task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuehneFischerJeglinskiMende2022,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Jeglinski-Mende, Melinda A.},
  title     = {During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2045-2322},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-022-16730-1},
  pages     = {1 -- 12},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers' task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuehneFischerZhou2020,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Zhou, Yuefang},
  title     = {The Human Takes It All},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {700},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-49162},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-491625},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: The increasing involvement of social robots in human lives raises the question as to how humans perceive social robots. Little is known about human perception of synthesized voices. Aim: To investigate which synthesized voice parameters predict the speaker's eeriness and voice likability; to determine if individual listener characteristics (e.g., personality, attitude toward robots, age) influence synthesized voice evaluations; and to explore which paralinguistic features subjectively distinguish humans from robots/artificial agents. Methods: 95 adults (62 females) listened to randomly presented audio-clips of three categories: synthesized (Watson, IBM), humanoid (robot Sophia, Hanson Robotics), and human voices (five clips/category). Voices were rated on intelligibility, prosody, trustworthiness, confidence, enthusiasm, pleasantness, human-likeness, likability, and naturalness. Speakers were rated on appeal, credibility, human-likeness, and eeriness. Participants' personality traits, attitudes to robots, and demographics were obtained. Results: The human voice and human speaker characteristics received reliably higher scores on all dimensions except for eeriness. Synthesized voice ratings were positively related to participants' agreeableness and neuroticism. Females rated synthesized voices more positively on most dimensions. Surprisingly, interest in social robots and attitudes toward robots played almost no role in voice evaluation. Contrary to the expectations of an uncanny valley, when the ratings of human-likeness for both the voice and the speaker characteristics were higher, they seemed less eerie to the participants. Moreover, when the speaker's voice was more humanlike, it was more liked by the participants. This latter point was only applicable to one of the synthesized voices. Finally, pleasantness and trustworthiness of the synthesized voice predicted the likability of the speaker's voice. Qualitative content analysis identified intonation, sound, emotion, and imageability/embodiment as diagnostic features. Discussion: Humans clearly prefer human voices, but manipulating diagnostic speech features might increase acceptance of synthesized voices and thereby support human-robot interaction. There is limited evidence that human-likeness of a voice is negatively linked to the perceived eeriness of the speaker.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuehneFischerZhou2020,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Katharina and Fischer, Martin H. and Zhou, Yuefang},
  title     = {The Human Takes It All},
  series = {Frontiers in Neurorobotics},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Neurorobotics},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1662-5218},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnbot.2020.593732},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: The increasing involvement of social robots in human lives raises the question as to how humans perceive social robots. Little is known about human perception of synthesized voices. Aim: To investigate which synthesized voice parameters predict the speaker's eeriness and voice likability; to determine if individual listener characteristics (e.g., personality, attitude toward robots, age) influence synthesized voice evaluations; and to explore which paralinguistic features subjectively distinguish humans from robots/artificial agents. Methods: 95 adults (62 females) listened to randomly presented audio-clips of three categories: synthesized (Watson, IBM), humanoid (robot Sophia, Hanson Robotics), and human voices (five clips/category). Voices were rated on intelligibility, prosody, trustworthiness, confidence, enthusiasm, pleasantness, human-likeness, likability, and naturalness. Speakers were rated on appeal, credibility, human-likeness, and eeriness. Participants' personality traits, attitudes to robots, and demographics were obtained. Results: The human voice and human speaker characteristics received reliably higher scores on all dimensions except for eeriness. Synthesized voice ratings were positively related to participants' agreeableness and neuroticism. Females rated synthesized voices more positively on most dimensions. Surprisingly, interest in social robots and attitudes toward robots played almost no role in voice evaluation. Contrary to the expectations of an uncanny valley, when the ratings of human-likeness for both the voice and the speaker characteristics were higher, they seemed less eerie to the participants. Moreover, when the speaker's voice was more humanlike, it was more liked by the participants. This latter point was only applicable to one of the synthesized voices. Finally, pleasantness and trustworthiness of the synthesized voice predicted the likability of the speaker's voice. Qualitative content analysis identified intonation, sound, emotion, and imageability/embodiment as diagnostic features. Discussion: Humans clearly prefer human voices, but manipulating diagnostic speech features might increase acceptance of synthesized voices and thereby support human-robot interaction. There is limited evidence that human-likeness of a voice is negatively linked to the perceived eeriness of the speaker.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{FelisattiLaubrockShakietal.2020,
  author    = {Felisatti, Arianna and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Commentary},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {620},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-46041},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-460413},
  pages     = {6},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FelisattiLaubrockShakietal.2020,
  author    = {Felisatti, Arianna and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Commentary},
  series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1662-5161},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnhum.2020.00099},
  pages     = {4},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KulkovaFischer2019,
  author    = {Kulkova, Elena S. and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Idioms in the World},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {561},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43570},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435704},
  pages     = {4},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KulkovaFischer2019,
  author    = {Kulkova, Elena S. and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {Idioms in the World},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01155},
  pages     = {4},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}