@article{SchoknechtRoehmSchlesewskyetal.2022,
  author    = {Schoknecht, Pia and Roehm, Dietmar and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina},
  title     = {The interaction of predictive processing and similarity-based retrieval interference},
  series = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Language, cognition and neuroscience},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {2327-3798},
  doi       = {10.1080/23273798.2022.2026421},
  pages     = {883 -- 901},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Language processing requires memory retrieval to integrate current input with previous context and making predictions about upcoming input. We propose that prediction and retrieval are two sides of the same coin, i.e. functionally the same, as they both activate memory representations. Under this assumption, memory retrieval and prediction should interact: Retrieval interference can only occur at a word that triggers retrieval and a fully predicted word would not do that. The present study investigated the proposed interaction with event-related potentials (ERPs) during the processing of sentence pairs in German. Predictability was measured via cloze probability. Memory retrieval was manipulated via the position of a distractor inducing proactive or retroactive similarity-based interference. Linear mixed model analyses provided evidence for the hypothesised interaction in a broadly distributed negativity, which we discuss in relation to the interference ERP literature. Our finding supports the proposal that memory retrieval and prediction are functionally the same.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Ziemann2022,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Ziemann, Niklas},
  title     = {You will receive your money next week!},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {56},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56398},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-563983},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Against the background of the increasingly discussed "Linguistic Saving Hypothesis" (Chen, 2013), I studied whether the targeted use of a present tense (close tense) and a future tense (distant tense) within the same language have an impact on intertemporal decision-making. In a monetarily incentivized laboratory experiment in Germany, I implemented two different treatments on intertemporal choices. The treatments differed in the tense in which I referred to future rewards. My results show that individuals prefer to a greater extent rewards which are associated with a present tense (close tense). This result is in line with my prediction and the first empirical support for the Linguistic Saving Hypothesis within one language. However, this result holds exclusively for males. Females seem to be unaffected by the linguistic manipulation. I discuss my findings in the context of "gender-as-culture" as well as their potential policy-implications.},
  language  = {en}
}