@article{WilhelmOberauer2006, author = {Wilhelm, Oliver and Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus- response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks}, doi = {10.1080/09541440500215921}, year = {2006}, abstract = {A study with 114 young adults investigated the correlations of intelligence factors and working-memory capacity with reaction time (RT) tasks. Within two sets of four-choice RT tasks, stimulus-response compatibility was varied over three levels: compatible, incompatible, and arbitrary mappings. Two satisfactory measurement models for the RTs could be established: A general factor model without constraints on the loadings and a nested model with two correlated factors, distinguishing compatible from arbitrary mappings, with constraints on the loadings. Structural models additionally including factors for working memory and intelligence showed that the nested model with correlated factors is superior in fit. Working-memory capacity and fluid intelligence were correlated strongly with the nested factor for the RT tasks with arbitrary mappings, and less with the general RT factor. The results support the hypothesis that working memory is needed to maintain arbitrary bindings between stimulus representations and response representations, and this could explain the correlation of working-memory capacity with speed in choice RT tasks}, language = {en} } @article{WeidenfeldOberauerHornig2005, author = {Weidenfeld, Andrea and Oberauer, Klaus and Hornig, R}, title = {Causal and noncausal conditionals : an integrated model of interpretation and reasoning}, year = {2005}, abstract = {We present an integrated model for the understanding of and the reasoning from conditional statements. Central assumptions from several approaches are integrated into a causal path model. According to the model, the cognitive availability of exceptions to a conditional reduces the subjective conditional probability of the consequent, given the antecedent. This conditional probability determines people's degree of belief in the conditional, which in turn affects their willingness to accept logically valid inferences. In addition to this indirect pathway, the model contains a direct pathway: Availability of exceptional situations directly reduces the endorsement of valid inferences. We tested the integrated model with three experiments using conditional statements embedded in pseudonaturalistic cover stories. An explicitly mentioned causal link between antecedent and consequent was either present (causal conditionals) or absent (arbitrary conditionals). The model was supported for the causal but not for the arbitrary conditional statements}, language = {en} } @article{RodriguezVillagraGoetheOberaueretal.2013, author = {Rodriguez-Villagra, Odir Antonio and G{\"o}the, Katrin and Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Working memory capacity in a go/no-go task - age differences in interference, processing speed, and attentional control}, series = {Developmental psychology}, volume = {49}, journal = {Developmental psychology}, number = {9}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0012-1649}, doi = {10.1037/a0030883}, pages = {1683 -- 1696}, year = {2013}, abstract = {We tested the limits of working-memory capacity (WMC) of young adults, old adults, and children with a memory-updating task. The task consisted of mentally shifting spatial positions within a grid according to arrows, their color signaling either only go (control) or go/no-go conditions. The interference model (IM) of Oberauer and Kliegl (2006) was simultaneously fitted to the data of all groups. In addition to the 3 main model parameters (feature overlap, noise, and processing rate), we estimated the time for switching between go and no-go steps as a new model parameter. In this study, we examined the IM parameters across the life span. The IM parameter estimates show that (a) conditions were not different in interference by feature overlap and interference by confusion; (b) switching costs time; (c) young adults and children were less susceptible than old adults to interference due to feature overlap; (d) noise was highest for children, followed by old and young adults; (e) old adults differed from children and young adults in lower processing rate; and (f) children and old adults had a larger switch cost between go steps and no-go steps. Thus, the results of this study indicated that across age, the IM parameters contribute distinctively for explaining the limits of WMC.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWilhelmRosas1999, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Wilhelm, Oliver and Rosas, D. R.}, title = {Bayesian rationality for the selection task? : a test of optimal data selection theory}, year = {1999}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWilhelm2000, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Wilhelm, Oliver}, title = {Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning : I. The comprehension of single relational premises}, issn = {0278-7393}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWendlandKliegl2003, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Wendland, Mirko and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Age differences in working memory : the roles of storage and selective access}, year = {2003}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWeidenfeldHoernig2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea and H{\"o}rnig, Robin}, title = {Working memory capacity and the construction of spatial mental models in comprehension and deductive reasoning}, doi = {10.1080/17470210500151717}, year = {2006}, abstract = {We asked 149 high-school students who were pretested for their working memory capacity (WMC) to read spatial descriptions relating to five objects and to evaluate conclusions asserting an unmentioned relationship between two of the objects. Unambiguous descriptions were compatible with a single spatial arrangement, whereas ambiguous descriptions permitted two arrangements; a subset of the ambiguous descriptions still determined the relation asserted in the conclusion, whereas another subset did not. Two groups of participants received different instructions: The deduction group should accept conclusions only if they followed with logical necessity from the description, whereas the comprehension group should accept a conclusion if it agreed with their representation of the arrangement. Self-paced reading times increased on sentences that introduced an ambiguity, replicating previous findings in deductive reasoning experiments. This effect was also found in the comprehension group, casting doubt on the interpretation that people consider multiple possible arrangements online. Responses to conclusions could be modelled by a multinomial processing model with four parameters: the probability of constructing a correct mental model, the probability of detecting an ambiguity, and two guessing parameters. Participants with high and with low WMC differed mainly in the probability of successfully constructing a mental model}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWeidenfeldHornig2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea and Hornig, R.}, title = {Logical reasoning and probabilities: A comprehensive test of Oaksford and Chater (2001)}, issn = {1069-9384}, year = {2004}, abstract = {We report two experiments testing a central prediction of the probabilistic account of reasoning provided by Oaksford and Chater (2001): Acceptance of standard conditional inferences, card choices in the Wason selection task, and quantifiers chosen for conclusions from syllogisms should vary as a function of the frequency of the concepts involved. Frequency was manipulated by a probability-learning phase preceding the reasoning tasks to simulate natural sampling. The effects predicted by Oaksford and Chater (2001) were not obtained with any of the three paradigms}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerVockenberg2009, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Vockenberg, Kerstin}, title = {Updating of working memory : lingering bindings}, issn = {1747-0218}, doi = {10.1080/17470210802372912}, year = {2009}, abstract = {Three experiments investigated proactive interference and proactive facilitation in a memory-updating paradigm. Participants remembered several letters or spatial patterns, distinguished by their spatial positions, and updated them by new stimuli up to 20 times per trial. Self-paced updating times were shorter when an item previously remembered and then replaced reappeared in the same location than when it reappeared in a different location. This effect demonstrates residual memory for no-longer-relevant bindings of items to locations. The effect increased with the number of items to be remembered. With one exception, updating times did not increase, and recall of final values did not decrease, over successive updating steps, thus providing little evidence for proactive interference building up cumulatively.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerSuess2000, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and S{\"u}ß, Heinz-Martin}, title = {Working memory and interference : a comment on Jenkins, Myerson, Hale, and Fry (1999)}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerSussWilhelmetal.2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Suss, H. M. and Wilhelm, Oliver and Wittman, W. W.}, title = {The multiple faces of working memory : storage, processing, supervision, and coordination}, issn = {0160-2896}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerSussWilhelmetal.2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Suss, H. M. and Wilhelm, Oliver and Wittman, W. W.}, title = {The multiple faces of working memory : Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination}, issn = {0160-2896}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerSuessSchulzeetal.2000, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Suess, Heinz-Martin and Schulze, Ralf and Wilhelm, Otto and Wittmann, W. W.}, title = {Working memory capacity - facets of a cognitive ability construct}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerSchulzeWilhelmetal.2005, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Schulze, Ralf and Wilhelm, Oliver and S{\"u}ss, Heinz-Martin}, title = {Working memory and intelligence : their correlation and their relation ; Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005)}, issn = {0033-2909}, year = {2005}, abstract = {On the basis of a mete-analysis of pairwise correlations between working memory tasks and cognitive ability measures, P. L. Ackerman. M. E. Beier, and M. O. Boyle (2005) claimed that working memory capacity (WMC) shares less than 25\% of its variance with general intelligence (,;) and with reasoning ability. In this comment, the authors argue that this is an underestimation because of several methodological shortcomings and biases. A reanalysis of the data reported in Ackerman et al. using the correct statistical procedures demonstrates that g and WMC are very highly correlated. On a conceptual level. the authors point out that WMC should be regarded as an explanatory construct for intellectual abilities. Theories of working memory do not claim that WMC is isomorphic with intelligence factors but that it is a very strong predictor of reasoning ability and also predicts general fluid intelligence and g.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerMeyer2009, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Meyer, Nadine}, title = {The contributions of encoding, retention, and recall to the Hebb effect}, issn = {0965-8211}, doi = {10.1080/09658210903107861}, year = {2009}, abstract = {The article reports an experiment testing whether the Hebb repetition effectthe gradual improvement of immediate serial recall when the same list is repeated several timesdepends on overt recall of the repeated lists. Previous reports which suggest that recall is critical confound the recall manipulation with retention interval. The present experiment orthogonally varies retention interval (0 or 9 s) and whether the list is to be recalled after the retention interval. Hebb repetition learning is assessed in a final test phase. A repetition effect was obtained in all four experimental conditions; it was larger for recalled than non-recalled lists, whereas retention interval had no effect. The results show that encoding is sufficient to generate cumulative long-term learning, which is strengthened by recall. Rehearsal, if it takes place in the retention interval at all, does not have the same effect on long-term learning as overt recall.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerLange2009, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Lange, Elke B.}, title = {Activation and binding in verbal working memory : a dual-process model for the recognition of nonwords}, issn = {0010-0285}, doi = {10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.003}, year = {2009}, abstract = {The article presents a mathematical model of short-term recognition based on dual-process models and the three- component theory of working memory [Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 411-421]. Familiarity arises from activated representations in long-term memory, ignoring their relations; recollection retrieves bindings in the capacity- limited component of working memory. In three experiments participants encoded two short lists of nonwords for immediate recognition, one of which was then cued as irrelevant. Probes from the irrelevant list were rejected more slowly than new probes; this was also found with probes recombining letters of irrelevant nonwords, suggesting that familiarity arises from individual letters independent of their relations. When asked to accept probes whose letters were all in the relevant list, regardless of their conjunction, participants accepted probes preserving the original conjunctions faster than recombinations, showing that recollection accessed feature bindings automatically. The model fit the data best when familiarity depended only on matching letters, whereas recollection used binding information.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice}, issn = {0096-1523}, year = {2004}, abstract = {The authors tested the hypothesis that with adequate practice, people can execute 2 cognitive operations in working memory simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 6 students practiced updating 2 items in working memory through 2 sequences of operations (1 numerical, 1 spatial). In different blocks, imperative stimuli for the 2 sequences of operations were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. Initially, most participants experienced substantial dual-task costs. After 24 sessions of practice, operation latencies for simultaneous presentation were equal to the maximum of times for the 2 operations in the sequential condition, suggesting perfect timesharing. Experiment 2 showed that a reduction of dual-task costs requires practice on the combination of the 2 updating tasks, not just practice on each individual task. Hence, the reduction of dual-task costs cannot be explained by shortening or automatization of individual operations}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2010, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Interferenz im Arbeitsged{\"a}chtnis : ein formales Modell}, issn = {0033-3042}, doi = {10.1026/0033-3042/a000008}, year = {2010}, language = {de} } @article{OberauerKliegl2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {A formal model of capacity limits in working memory}, series = {Journal of Memory and Language}, volume = {55}, journal = {Journal of Memory and Language}, number = {4}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.009}, pages = {601 -- 626}, year = {2006}, abstract = {A mathematical model of working-memory capacity limits is proposed on the key assumption of mutual interference between items in working memory. Interference is assumed to arise from overwriting of features shared by these items. The model was fit to time-accuracy data of memory-updating tasks from four experiments using nonlinear mixed effect (NLME) models as a framework. The model gave a good account of the data from a numerical and a spatial task version. The performance pattern in a combination of numerical and spatial updating could be explained by variations in the interference parameter: assuming less feature overlap between contents from different domains than between contents from the same domain, the model can account for double dissociations of content domains in dual-task experiments. Experiment 3 extended this idea to similarity within the verbal domain. The decline of memory accuracy with increasing memory load was steeper with phonologically similar than with dissimilar material, although processing speed was faster for the similar material. The model captured the similarity effects with a higher estimated interference parameter for the similar than for the dissimilar condition. The results are difficult to explain with alternative models, in particular models incorporating time-based decay and models assuming limited resource pools.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2001, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Beyond resources : formal models of complexity effects in age differences in working memory}, year = {2001}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerHornigWeidenfeldetal.2005, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Hornig, R. and Weidenfeld, Andrea and Wilhelm, Oliver}, title = {Effects of directionality in deductive reasoning : II. Premise integration and conclusion evaluation}, issn = {0272-4987}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Previous research (Oberauer \& Wilhelm, 2000) has shown an inherent directionality between the two terms linked in premises of typical deductive reasoning tasks. With three experiments we investigated the effect of inherent directionality on the time to integrate two premises and for the derivation of a conclusion. We varied figure (i.e., order of terms in the premises) and direction of inference (i.e., order of terms in the conclusion) in deduction tasks from various domains (propositional reasoning, syllogisms, spatial, temporal, and linear order reasoning). Effects of figure on premise reading times varied with the directionality of the relations. Effects of direction of inference reflected the same directionality for a subset of relations. We propose that two factors are jointly responsible for a large part of observed directionality effects in premise integration: the inherent directionality of relational statements and a general advantage for a given-new order of terms in the second premise. Difficulty of deriving a conclusion is affected by the directionality or relations if and only if the relation is semantically asymmetric, so that the directionality must be preserved in the integrated mental model}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerGoethe2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and G{\"o}the, Katrin}, title = {Dual-task effects in working memory : interference between two processing tasks, between two memory demands, and between storage and processing}, doi = {10.1080/09541440500423038}, year = {2006}, abstract = {Two experiments with a working-memory updating task investigated dual-task interference between short-term storage of numerical and spatial material, between execution of a numerical and a spatial updating operation, and between storage and processing. Participants memorised a set of digits and a set of spatial positions, updated elements of both sets by a sequence of operations, and then recalled the final values. In Experiment 1, a single element in each memory set had to be updated several times. There was little interference between storage of the two sets, and between storage and processing, but parallel execution of the two operations was not possible. In Experiment 2, all elements in both memory sets were updated in random order. There was substantial interference between memory for the numerical and the spatial sets, and between storage and processing. Parallel execution of two operations was again not possible. Moreover, trying to do two operations simultaneously resulted in impaired memory of final results. The results support the distinction between the activated part of long-term memory that can hold elements currently not needed for processing, and a more central, capacity-limited part of working memory that provides access to its contents for processing}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerDemmrichMayretal.2001, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Demmrich, Anke and Mayr, Ulrich and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Dissociating retention and access in working memory : an age-comparative study of mental arithmetic}, year = {2001}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Reasoning with conditionals: A test of formal models of four theories}, series = {Cognitive psychology}, volume = {53}, journal = {Cognitive psychology}, number = {3}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0010-0285}, doi = {10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.001}, pages = {238 -- 283}, year = {2006}, abstract = {The four dominant theories of reasoning from conditionals are translated into formal models: The theory of mental models (Johnson-Laird, P. N., \& Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646-678), the suppositional theory (Evans, J. S. B. T., \& Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press), a dual-process variant of the model theory (Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., \& d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). A dual-process specification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking \& Reasoning, 11, 278-293), and the probabilistic theory (Oaksford, M., Chater, N., \& Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 883-899). The first three theories are formalized as multinomial models. The models are applied to the frequencies of patterns of acceptance or rejection across the four basic inferences modus ponens, acceptance of the consequent, denial of the antecedent, and modus tollens. Model fits are assessed for two large data sets, one representing reasoning with abstract, basic conditionals, the other reflecting reasoning with pseudo-realistic causal and non-causal conditionals. The best account of the data was provided by a modified version of the mental-model theory, augmented by directionality, and by the dual-process model.}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Is the focus of attention in working memory expanded through practice?}, doi = {10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.197}, year = {2006}, abstract = {This article reinvestigates the claim by P. Verhaeghen, J. Cerella, and C. Basak (2004) that the focus of attention in working memory can be expanded from 1 to 4 items through practice. Using a modified version of Verhaeghen et al.'s n-back paradigm, Experiments 1 and 3 show that a signature of a one-item focus, the time cost for switching between items in working memory, persists over practice. Verhaeghen et al. reported a shift over practice from a step function to a linear slope of reaction times over set size and argued that it reflects the expansion of the focus. With an improved counterbalancing scheme, a continuously increasing slope was found even without practice in Experiment 2. The results question the hypothesis that the focus is expanded through practice. They are in line with predictions from a model that distinguishes a one-item focus from a direct-access region holding about 4 items}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer2005, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Binding and inhibition in working memory : individual and age differences in short-term recognition}, issn = {0096-3445}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Two studies investigated the relationship between working memory capacity (WMC), adult age, and the resolution of conflict between familiarity and recollection in short-term recognition tasks. Experiment 1 showed a specific deficit of young adults with low WMC in rejecting intrusion probes (i.e., highly familiar probes) in a modified Sternberg task, which was similar to the deficit found in old adults in a parallel experiment (K. Oberauer, 2001). Experiment 2 generalized these results to 3 recognition paradigms (modified Sternberg, local recognition, and n back tasks). Old adults showed disproportional performance deficits on intrusion probes only in terms of reaction times, whereas young adults with low WMC showed them only in terms of errors. The generality of the effect across paradigms is more compatible with a deficit in content-context bindings subserving recollection than with a deficit in inhibition of irrelevant information in working memory. Structural equation models showed that WMC is related to the efficiency of recollection but not of familiarity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer2005, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Control of the contents of working memory : a comparison of two paradigms and two age groups}, issn = {0278-7393}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Two experiments investigated whether young and old adults can temporarily remove information from a capacity- limited central component of working memory (WM) into another component, the activated part of long-term memory (LTM). Experiment I used a modified Sternberg recognition task (S. Sternberg, 1969); Experiment 2 used an arithmetic memory- updating task. In both paradigms, participants memorized 2 lists, one of which was cued as temporarily irrelevant. Removal of the irrelevant list from capacity-limited WM was indexed by the disappearance of list-length effects of that list on latencies for concurrent processing tasks. Young adults could oursource the irrelevant list within 2-3 s and retrieve it back into the central part of WM later. Old adults showed the same flexibility in the arithmetic updating task but seemed somewhat less able or inclined to temporarily move information into the activated part of LTM in the modified Sternberg task}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Simultaneous execution of two cognitive operations : Evidence from a continuous updating paradigm}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{Oberauer1998, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Schlußfolgendes Denken und Rationalit{\"a}t}, year = {1998}, language = {de} } @article{LewandowskyStritzkeOberaueretal.2005, author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Stritzke, W. G. K. and Oberauer, Klaus and Morales, M.}, title = {Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation : the Iraq War 2003}, issn = {0956-7976}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Media coverage of the 2003 Iraq War frequently contained corrections and retractions of earlier information. For example, claims that Iraqi forces executed coalition prisoners of war after they surrendered were retracted the day after the claims were made. Similarly, tentative initial reports about the discovery of weapons of mass destruction were all later disconfirmed. We investigated the effects of these retractions and disconfirmations on people's memory for and beliefs about war-related events in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one country that opposed the war (Germany). Participants were queried about (a) true events, (b) events initially presented as fact but subsequently retracted, and (c) fictional events. Participants in the United States did not show sensitivity to the correction of misinformation, whereas participants in Australia and Germany discounted corrected misinformation. Our results are consistent with previous findings in that the differences between samples reflect greater suspicion about the motives underlying the war among people in Australia and Germany than among people in the United States}, language = {en} } @article{LewandowskyStritzkeOberaueretal.2004, author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Stritzke, W. g. k. and Oberauer, Klaus and Morales, M.}, title = {Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation : the Iraq War 2003}, issn = {0020-7594}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{LangeOberauer2005, author = {Lange, Elke B. and Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Overwriting of phonemic features in serial recall}, issn = {0965-8211}, year = {2005}, abstract = {We tested explanations of the phonological similarity effect in verbal short-term memory: the confusion hypothesis assumes that serial positions of similar items are confused. The overwriting hypothesis states that similar items share feature representations, which are overwritten. Participants memorised a phonologically dissimilar list of CVC-trigrams (Experiment 1) or words (Experiment 2 and 3) for serial recall. In the retention interval they real aloud other items. The material of the distractor task jointly overlapped one item of the memory list. The recall of this item was impaired, and the effect was not based on intrusions from the distractor task alone. The results provide evidence for feature overwriting as one potential mechanism contributing to the phonological similarity effect}, language = {en} } @article{KlieglMayrOberauer2000, author = {Kliegl, Reinhold and Mayr, Ulrich and Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Resource limitations and process dissociations in individual differences research}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{JuengerKlieglOberauer2014, author = {J{\"u}nger, Elisabeth and Kliegl, Reinhold and Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {No evidence for feature overwriting in visual working memory}, series = {Memory}, volume = {22}, journal = {Memory}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0965-8211}, pages = {374 -- 389}, year = {2014}, language = {en} } @article{HornigOberauerWeidenfeld2005, author = {Hornig, R. and Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea}, title = {Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning}, year = {2005}, abstract = {We propose two principles that facilitate integration of two relational premises in spatial reasoning. Integration is easier if the anaphor in the second premise, P2, bears the role of the relatum (relatum = given). Moreover, integration is easier if, in P2, the anaphor is mentioned before the new element (given-new). In premises with canonical word order (grammatical subjects mentioned first), these principles always conflict with one another. In topicalized statements mentioning the prepositional phrase first, the two principles work in tandem. By varying word order, we tested the two principles by measuring P2 comprehension times. Comprehension times indicated that integration was easiest when P2 obeyed both principles and most difficult when both principles were violated. Canonical premises were of intermediate difficulty. This pattern emerged regardless of whether the anaphor was a definite description or a pronoun}, language = {en} } @article{HoernigOberauerWeidenfeld2006, author = {Hoernig, Robin and Oberauer, Klaus and Weidenfeld, Andrea}, title = {Between reasoning}, series = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology}, volume = {59}, journal = {The quarterly journal of experimental psychology}, number = {10}, publisher = {SAGE Publishing}, address = {Thousand Oaks, CA}, issn = {1747-0218}, doi = {10.1080/17470210500416151}, pages = {1805 -- 1825}, year = {2006}, abstract = {In two experiments we investigated three-term reasoning with spatial relational assertions using the preposition between as compared to projective prepositions (such as to the left of). For each kind of assertion we distinguish the referent expression (i.e., the grammatical subject) from the relatum expression (i.e., the internal argument of the preposition; e.g., [The hedgehog](referent)_(expression) is to the left of [the frog](relatum)_(expression); [the snake](referent)_(expression) is between [the donkey and the deer](relatum)_(expression)). Previous research has shown that integrating premises with projective prepositions is easier (a) when the relatum expression of the second premise denotes an element already given by the first premise (relatum = given), and (b) when the term denoting a given element precedes the term denoting a new element (given - new). Experiment 1 extended this finding to second premises with the preposition between. In Experiment 2, between figured in the first premise. In this case, participants built an initial preferred model already from the first premise, although such a premise is indeterminate with respect to the array that it describes. Since there is no need left for integrating the second premise, this premise is instead used to verify the initial model and to modify it when necessary. A further investigation of conclusion evaluation times showed that conclusions were evaluated faster when they first mentioned the element that was included most recently into the mental model of the premises. The use of premises with between permitted the separation of recency of model inclusion from recency of appearance of an element in a premise.}, language = {en} } @article{GoetheOberauerKliegl2008, author = {G{\"o}the, Katrin and Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Age differences in dual-task performance after practice}, issn = {0882-7974}, doi = {10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.596}, year = {2008}, abstract = {This study investigated whether older adults could acquire the ability to perform 2 cognitive operations in parallel in a paradigm in which young adults had been shown to be able to do so (K. Oberauer \& R. Kliegl, 2004). Twelve young and 12 older adults practiced a numerical and a visuospatial continuous memory updating task in single-task and dual-task conditions for 16 to 24 sessions. After practice, 9 young adults were able to process the 2 tasks without dual- task costs, but none of the older adults had reached the criterion of parallel processing. The results suggest a qualitative difference between young and older adults in how they approach dual-task situations.}, language = {en} } @article{GoetheOberauerKliegl2016, author = {G{\"o}the, Katrin and Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Eliminating dual-task costs by minimizing crosstalk between tasks: The role of modality and feature pairings}, series = {Cognition : international journal of cognitive science}, volume = {150}, journal = {Cognition : international journal of cognitive science}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0010-0277}, doi = {10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.003}, pages = {92 -- 108}, year = {2016}, abstract = {We tested the independent influences of two content-based factors on dual-task costs, and on the parallel processing ability: The pairing of S-R modalities and the pairing of relevant features between stimuli and responses of two tasks. The two pairing factors were realized across four dual-task groups. Within each group the two tasks comprised two different stimulus modalities (visual and auditory), two different relevant stimulus features (spatial and verbal) and two response modalities (manual and vocal). Pairings of S-R modalities (standard: visual-manual and auditory-vocal, non-standard: visual-vocal and auditory manual) and feature pairings (standard: spatial-manual and verbal-vocal, non-standard: spatial-vocal and verbal-manual) varied across groups. All participants practiced their respective dual-task combination in a paradigm with simultaneous stimulus onset before being transferred to a psychological refractory period paradigm varying stimulus-onset asynchrony. A comparison at the end of practice revealed similar dual-task costs and similar pairing effects in both paradigms. Dual-task costs depended on modality and feature pairings. Groups training with non-standard feature pairings (i.e., verbal stimulus features mapped to spatially separated response keys, or spatial stimulus features mapped to verbal responses) and non-standard modality pairings (i.e., auditory stimulus mapped to manual response, or visual stimulus mapped to vocal responses) had higher dual-task costs than respective standard pairings. In contrast, irrespective of modality pairing dual-task costs virtually disappeared with standard feature pairings after practice in both paradigms. The results can be explained by crosstalk between feature-binding processes for the two tasks. Crosstalk was present for non-standard but absent for standard feature pairings. Therefore, standard feature pairings enabled parallel processing at the end of practice. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} }