@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{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{Oberauer1998,
  author    = {Oberauer, Klaus},
  title     = {Schlußfolgendes Denken und Rationalit{\"a}t},
  year      = {1998},
  language  = {de}
}
@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{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{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{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{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{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{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}
}