@article{LogacevVasishth2016,
  author    = {Logacev, Pavel and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {A Multiple-Channel Model of Task-Dependent Ambiguity Resolution in Sentence Comprehension},
  series = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  volume    = {40},
  journal   = {Cognitive science : a multidisciplinary journal of anthropology, artificial intelligence, education, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology ; journal of the Cognitive Science Society},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0364-0213},
  doi       = {10.1111/cogs.12228},
  pages     = {266 -- 298},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Traxler, Pickering, and Clifton (1998) found that ambiguous sentences are read faster than their unambiguous counterparts. This so-called ambiguity advantage has presented a major challenge to classical theories of human sentence comprehension (parsing) because its most prominent explanation, in the form of the unrestricted race model (URM), assumes that parsing is non-deterministic. Recently, Swets, Desmet, Clifton, and Ferreira (2008) have challenged the URM. They argue that readers strategically underspecify the representation of ambiguous sentences to save time, unless disambiguation is required by task demands. When disambiguation is required, however, readers assign sentences full structure—and Swets et al. provide experimental evidence to this end. On the basis of their findings, they argue against the URM and in favor of a model of task-dependent sentence comprehension. We show through simulations that the Swets et al. data do not constitute evidence for task-dependent parsing because they can be explained by the URM. However, we provide decisive evidence from a German self-paced reading study consistent with Swets et al.'s general claim about task-dependent parsing. Specifically, we show that under certain conditions, ambiguous sentences can be read more slowly than their unambiguous counterparts, suggesting that the parser may create several parses, when required. Finally, we present the first quantitative model of task-driven disambiguation that subsumes the URM, and we show that it can explain both Swets et al.'s results and our findings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LaurinavichyuteSekerinaAlexeevaetal.2019,
  author    = {Laurinavichyute, Anna and Sekerina, Irina A. and Alexeeva, Svetlana and Bagdasaryan, Kristine and Kliegl, Reinhold},
  title     = {Russian Sentence Corpus: Benchmark measures of eye movements in reading in Russian},
  series = {Behavior research methods : a journal of the Psychonomic Society},
  volume    = {51},
  journal   = {Behavior research methods : a journal of the Psychonomic Society},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1554-351X},
  doi       = {10.3758/s13428-018-1051-6},
  pages     = {1161 -- 1178},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This article introduces a new corpus of eye movements in silent readingthe Russian Sentence Corpus (RSC). Russian uses the Cyrillic script, which has not yet been investigated in cross-linguistic eye movement research. As in every language studied so far, we confirmed the expected effects of low-level parameters, such as word length, frequency, and predictability, on the eye movements of skilled Russian readers. These findings allow us to add Slavic languages using Cyrillic script (exemplified by Russian) to the growing number of languages with different orthographies, ranging from the Roman-based European languages to logographic Asian ones, whose basic eye movement benchmarks conform to the universal comparative science of reading (Share, 2008). We additionally report basic descriptive corpus statistics and three exploratory investigations of the effects of Russian morphology on the basic eye movement measures, which illustrate the kinds of questions that researchers can answer using the RSC. The annotated corpus is freely available from its project page at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/x5q2r/.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{GerkenUebernickeldePaula2022,
  author    = {Gerken, Stefanie and Uebernickel, Falk and de Paula, Danielly},
  title     = {Design Thinking: a Global Study on Implementation Practices in Organizations},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-525-5},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-53466},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-534668},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {230},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {These days design thinking is no longer a "new approach". Among practitioners, as well as academics, interest in the topic has gathered pace over the last two decades. However, opinions are divided over the longevity of the phenomenon: whether design thinking is merely "old wine in new bottles," a passing trend, or still evolving as it is being spread to an increasing number of organizations and industries. Despite its growing relevance and the diffusion of design thinking, knowledge on the actual status quo in organizations remains scarce. With a new study, the research team of Prof. Uebernickel and Stefanie Gerken investigates temporal developments and changes in design thinking practices in organizations over the past six years comparing the results of the 2015 "Parts without a whole" study with current practices and future developments. Companies of all sizes and from different parts of the world participated in the survey. The findings from qualitative interviews with experts, i.e., people who have years of knowledge with design thinking, were cross-checked with the results from an exploratory analysis of the survey data. This analysis uncovers significant variances and similarities in how design thinking is interpreted and applied in businesses.},
  language  = {en}
}