@book{AbdelRahmanAbrahamAheretal.2010,
  author    = {Abdel Rahman, Rasha and Abraham, Andreas and Aher, Martin and Albrecht, Jessica and Albrecht, Sven and Alexejenko, Sascha and Amunts, Katrin and Andermann, Martin and Anders, Silke and Andonova, Elena and Angele, Bernhard and Angerer, Benjamin and Anil, Beena and Ansorge, Ulrich and Antons, Jan-Niklas and Auksztulewicz, Ryszard},
  title     = {Proceedings of KogWis 2010 : 10th Biannual Meeting of the German Society for Cognitive Science},
  editor    = {Haack, Johannes and Wiese, Heike and Abraham, Andreas and Chiarcos, Christian},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-087-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-46055},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {268},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {As the latest biannual meeting of the German Society for Cognitive Science (Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Kognitionswissenschaft, GK), KogWis 2010 at Potsdam University reflects the current trends in a fascinating domain of research concerned with human and artificial cognition and the interaction of mind and brain. The Plenary talks provide a venue for questions of the numerical capacities and human arithmetic (Brian Butterworth), of the theoretical development of cognitive architectures and intelligent virtual agents (Pat Langley), of categorizations induced by linguistic constructions (Claudia Maienborn), and of a cross-level account of the "Self as a complex system" (Paul Thagard). KogWis 2010 integrates a wealth of experimental research, cognitive modelling, and conceptual analysis in 5 invited symposia, over 150 individual talks, 6 symposia, and more than 40 poster contributions. Some of the invited symposia reflect local and regional strenghts of research in the Berlin-Brandenburg area: the two largests research fields of the university Cognitive Sciences Area of Excellence in Potsdam are represented by an invited symposium on "Information Structure" by the Special Research Area 632 ("Sonderforschungsbereich", SFB) of the same name, of Potsdam University and Humboldt-University Berlin, and by a satellite conference of the research group "Mind and Brain Dynamics". The Berlin School of Mind and Brain at Humboldt-University Berlin takes part with an invited symposium on "Decision Making" from a perspective of cognitive neuroscience and philosophy and the DFG Cluster of Excellence "Languages of Emotion" of Free University presents interdisciplinary research results in an invited symposium on "Symbolising Emotions".},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AngeleSlatteryYangetal.2008,
  author    = {Angele, Bernhard and Slattery, Timothy J. and Yang, Jinmian and Kliegl, Reinhold and Rayner, Keith},
  title     = {Parafoveal processing in reading : manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously},
  issn      = {1350-6285},
  doi       = {10.1080/13506280802009704},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {The boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) with a novel preview manipulation was used to examine the extent of parafoveal processing of words to the right of fixation. Words n + 1 and n + 2 had either correct or incorrect previews prior to fixation (prior to crossing the boundary location). In addition, the manipulation utilized either a high or low frequency word in word n + 1 location on the assumption that it would be more likely that n + 2 preview effects could be obtained when word n + 1 was high frequency. The primary findings were that there was no evidence for a preview benefit for word n + 2 and no evidence for parafoveal-on-foveal effects when word n + 1 is at least four letters long. We discuss implications for models of eye-movement control in reading.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{AngeleSlatteryYangetal.2008,
  author    = {Angele, Bernhard and Slattery, Timothy J. and Yang, Jinmian and Kliegl, Reinhold and Rayner, Keith},
  title     = {Parafoveal processing in reading: Manipulating n+1 and n+2 previews simultaneously},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-57128},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {The boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) with a novel preview manipulation was used to examine the extent of parafoveal processing of words to the right of fixation. Words n+1 and n+2 had either correct or incorrect previews prior to fixation (prior to crossing the boundary location). In addition, the manipulation utilized either a high or low frequency word in word n+1 location on the assumption that it would be more likely that n+2 preview effects could be obtained when word n+1 was high frequency. The primary findings were that there was no evidence for a preview benefit for word n+2 and no evidence for parafoveal-on-foveal effects when word n+1 is at least four letters long. We discuss implications for models of eye-movement control in reading.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vonderMalsburgAngele2017,
  author    = {von der Malsburg, Titus Raban and Angele, Bernhard},
  title     = {False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading},
  series = {Journal of memory and language},
  volume    = {94},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003},
  pages     = {119 -- 133},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In research on eye movements in reading, it is common to analyze a number of canonical dependent measures to study how the effects of a manipulation unfold over time. Although this gives rise to the well-known multiple comparisons problem, i.e. an inflated probability that the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (Type I error), it is accepted standard practice not to apply any correction procedures. Instead, there appears to be a widespread belief that corrections are not necessary because the increase in false positives is too small to matter. To our knowledge, no formal argument has ever been presented to justify this assumption. Here, we report a computational investigation of this issue using Monte Carlo simulations. Our results show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, false positives are increased to unacceptable levels when no corrections are applied. Our simulations also show that counter-measures like the Bonferroni correction keep false positives in check while reducing statistical power only moderately. Hence, there is little reason why such corrections should not be made a standard requirement. Further, we discuss three statistical illusions that can arise when statistical power is low, and we show how power can be improved to prevent these illusions. In sum, our work renders a detailed picture of the various types of statistical errors than can occur in studies of reading behavior and we provide concrete guidance about how these errors can be avoided. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}