@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} } @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} } @article{Oberauer2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Simultaneous execution of two cognitive operations : Evidence from a continuous updating paradigm}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2004, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task practice}, issn = {0096-1523}, year = {2004}, abstract = {The authors tested the hypothesis that with adequate practice, people can execute 2 cognitive operations in working memory simultaneously. In Experiment 1, 6 students practiced updating 2 items in working memory through 2 sequences of operations (1 numerical, 1 spatial). In different blocks, imperative stimuli for the 2 sequences of operations were presented either simultaneously or sequentially. Initially, most participants experienced substantial dual-task costs. After 24 sessions of practice, operation latencies for simultaneous presentation were equal to the maximum of times for the 2 operations in the sequential condition, suggesting perfect timesharing. Experiment 2 showed that a reduction of dual-task costs requires practice on the combination of the 2 updating tasks, not just practice on each individual task. Hence, the reduction of dual-task costs cannot be explained by shortening or automatization of individual operations}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerWendlandKliegl2003, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Wendland, Mirko and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Age differences in working memory : the roles of storage and selective access}, year = {2003}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerDemmrichMayretal.2001, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Demmrich, Anke and Mayr, Ulrich and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Dissociating retention and access in working memory : an age-comparative study of mental arithmetic}, year = {2001}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2001, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Beyond resources : formal models of complexity effects in age differences in working memory}, year = {2001}, language = {en} } @article{KlieglMayrOberauer2000, author = {Kliegl, Reinhold and Mayr, Ulrich and Oberauer, Klaus}, title = {Resource limitations and process dissociations in individual differences research}, year = {2000}, language = {en} } @article{GoetheOberauerKliegl2008, author = {G{\"o}the, Katrin and Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Age differences in dual-task performance after practice}, issn = {0882-7974}, doi = {10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.596}, year = {2008}, abstract = {This study investigated whether older adults could acquire the ability to perform 2 cognitive operations in parallel in a paradigm in which young adults had been shown to be able to do so (K. Oberauer \& R. Kliegl, 2004). Twelve young and 12 older adults practiced a numerical and a visuospatial continuous memory updating task in single-task and dual-task conditions for 16 to 24 sessions. After practice, 9 young adults were able to process the 2 tasks without dual- task costs, but none of the older adults had reached the criterion of parallel processing. The results suggest a qualitative difference between young and older adults in how they approach dual-task situations.}, language = {en} } @article{OberauerKliegl2006, author = {Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {A formal model of capacity limits in working memory}, series = {Journal of Memory and Language}, volume = {55}, journal = {Journal of Memory and Language}, number = {4}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0749-596X}, doi = {10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.009}, pages = {601 -- 626}, year = {2006}, abstract = {A mathematical model of working-memory capacity limits is proposed on the key assumption of mutual interference between items in working memory. Interference is assumed to arise from overwriting of features shared by these items. The model was fit to time-accuracy data of memory-updating tasks from four experiments using nonlinear mixed effect (NLME) models as a framework. The model gave a good account of the data from a numerical and a spatial task version. The performance pattern in a combination of numerical and spatial updating could be explained by variations in the interference parameter: assuming less feature overlap between contents from different domains than between contents from the same domain, the model can account for double dissociations of content domains in dual-task experiments. Experiment 3 extended this idea to similarity within the verbal domain. The decline of memory accuracy with increasing memory load was steeper with phonologically similar than with dissimilar material, although processing speed was faster for the similar material. The model captured the similarity effects with a higher estimated interference parameter for the similar than for the dissimilar condition. The results are difficult to explain with alternative models, in particular models incorporating time-based decay and models assuming limited resource pools.}, language = {en} } @article{RodriguezVillagraGoetheOberaueretal.2013, author = {Rodriguez-Villagra, Odir Antonio and G{\"o}the, Katrin and Oberauer, Klaus and Kliegl, Reinhold}, title = {Working memory capacity in a go/no-go task - age differences in interference, processing speed, and attentional control}, series = {Developmental psychology}, volume = {49}, journal = {Developmental psychology}, number = {9}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0012-1649}, doi = {10.1037/a0030883}, pages = {1683 -- 1696}, year = {2013}, abstract = {We tested the limits of working-memory capacity (WMC) of young adults, old adults, and children with a memory-updating task. The task consisted of mentally shifting spatial positions within a grid according to arrows, their color signaling either only go (control) or go/no-go conditions. The interference model (IM) of Oberauer and Kliegl (2006) was simultaneously fitted to the data of all groups. In addition to the 3 main model parameters (feature overlap, noise, and processing rate), we estimated the time for switching between go and no-go steps as a new model parameter. In this study, we examined the IM parameters across the life span. The IM parameter estimates show that (a) conditions were not different in interference by feature overlap and interference by confusion; (b) switching costs time; (c) young adults and children were less susceptible than old adults to interference due to feature overlap; (d) noise was highest for children, followed by old and young adults; (e) old adults differed from children and young adults in lower processing rate; and (f) children and old adults had a larger switch cost between go steps and no-go steps. Thus, the results of this study indicated that across age, the IM parameters contribute distinctively for explaining the limits of WMC.}, language = {en} }