@article{WendtMorriss2022,
  author    = {Wendt, Julia and Morriss, Jayne},
  title     = {An examination of intolerance of uncertainty and contingency instruction on multiple indices during threat acquisition and extinction training},
  series = {International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology},
  volume    = {177},
  journal   = {International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
  issn      = {0167-8760},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.05.005},
  pages     = {171 -- 178},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Individuals who score high in self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) tend to find uncertainty aversive. Prior research has demonstrated that under uncertainty individuals with high IU display difficulties in updating learned threat associations to safety associations. Importantly, recent research has shown that providing contingency instructions about threat and safety contingencies (i.e. reducing uncertainty) to individuals with high IU promotes the updating of learned threat associations to safety associations. Here we aimed to conceptually replicate IU and contingency instruction-based effects by conducting a secondary analysis of self-reported IU, ratings, skin conductance, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data recorded during uninstructed/instructed blocks of threat acquisition and threat extinction training (n = 48). Generally, no significant associations were observed between self-reported IU and differential responding to learned threat and safety cues for any measure during uninstructed/instructed blocks of threat acquisition and threat extinction training. There was some tentative evidence that higher IU was associated with greater ratings of unpleasantness and arousal to the safety cue after the experiment and greater skin conductance response to the safety cue during extinction generally. Potential explanations for these null effects and directions for future research are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{vanOmmenBollAvetisyanLarrazaetal.2020,
  author    = {van Ommen, Sandrien and Boll-Avetisyan, Natalie and Larraza, Saioa and Wellmann, Caroline and Bijeljac-Babic, Ranka and H{\"o}hle, Barbara and Nazzi, Thierry},
  title     = {Language-specific prosodic acquisition},
  series = {Journal of memory and language: JML},
  volume    = {112},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language: JML},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2020.104108},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This study compares the development of prosodic processing in French- and German-learning infants. The emergence of language-specific perception of phrase boundaries was directly tested using the same stimuli across these two languages. French-learning (Experiment 1, 2) and German-learning 6- and 8-month-olds (Experiment 3) listened to the same French noun sequences with or without major prosodic boundaries ([Loulou et Manou] [et Nina]; [Loulou et Manou et Nina], respectively). The boundaries were either naturally cued (Experiment 1), or cued exclusively by pitch and duration (Experiment 2, 3). French-learning 6- and 8-month-olds both perceived the natural boundary, but neither perceived the boundary when only two cues were present. In contrast, German-learning infants develop from not perceiving the two-cue boundary at 6 months to perceiving it at 8 months, just like German-learning 8-month-olds listening to German (Wellmann, Holzgrefe, Truckenbrodt, Wartenburger, \& Hohle, 2012). In a control experiment (Experiment 4), we found little difference between German and French adult listeners, suggesting that later, French listeners catch up with German listeners. Taken together, these cross-linguistic differences in the perception of identical stimuli provide direct evidence for language-specific development of prosodic boundary perception.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BaerHenneyKueglervandeVijver2015,
  author    = {Baer-Henney, Dinah and K{\"u}gler, Frank and van de Vijver, Ruben},
  title     = {The Interaction of Language-Specific and Universal Factors During the Acquisition of Morphophonemic Alternations With Exceptions},
  series = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0364-0213},
  doi       = {10.1111/cogs.12209},
  pages     = {1537 -- 1569},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Using the artificial language paradigm, we studied the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations with exceptions by 160 German adult learners. We tested the acquisition of two types of alternations in two regularity conditions while additionally varying length of training. In the first alternation, a vowel harmony, backness of the stem vowel determines backness of the suffix. This process is grounded in substance (phonetic motivation), and this universal phonetic factor bolsters learning a generalization. In the second alternation, tenseness of the stem vowel determines backness of the suffix vowel. This process is not based in substance, but it reflects a phonotactic property of German and our participants benefit from this language-specific factor. We found that learners use both cues, while substantive bias surfaces mainly in the most unstable situation. We show that language-specific and universal factors interact in learning.},
  language  = {en}
}