@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}
}
@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}
}