@article{LinBergerGrimmetal.2012,
  author    = {Lin, Yue and Berger, Uta and Grimm, Volker and Ji, Qian-Ru},
  title     = {Differences between symmetric and asymmetric facilitation matter - exploring the interplay between modes of positive and negative plant interactions},
  series = {The journal of ecology},
  volume    = {100},
  journal   = {The journal of ecology},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0022-0477},
  doi       = {10.1111/j.1365-2745.2012.02019.x},
  pages     = {1482 -- 1491},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Facilitation (positive interaction) has received increasing attention in plant ecology over the last decade. Just as for competition, distinguishing different modes of facilitation (mutualistic, commensal or even antagonistic) may be crucial. We therefore introduce the new concept of symmetric versus asymmetric facilitation and present a generic individual-based zone-of-influence model. The model simultaneously implements different modes of both facilitation and competition among individual plants via their overlapping zone of influence. Because we consider facilitation modes as a continuum related to environmental context, we integrated this concept with the stress-gradient hypothesis (SGH) by exploring differences in spatial pattern formation in self-thinning plants along a stress gradient in our model. The interplay among modes of interaction creates distinctly varied spatial patterns along stress gradients. When competition was symmetric, symmetric facilitation (mutualism) consistently led to plant aggregation along stress gradients. However, asymmetric facilitation (commensalism) produces plant aggregation only under more benign conditions but tends to intensify local competition and spatial segregation when conditions are harsh. When competition was completely asymmetric, different modes of facilitation contributed little to spatial aggregation. Symmetric facilitation significantly increased survival at the severe end of the stress gradient, which supports the claim of the SGH that facilitation should have generally positive net effects on plants under high stress levels. Asymmetric facilitation, however, was found to increase survival only under intermediate stress conditions, which contradicts the current predictions of the SGH. Synthesis. Our modelling study demonstrates that the interplay between modes of facilitation and competition affects different aspects of plant populations and communities, implying context-dependent outcomes and consequences. The explicit consideration of the modes and mechanisms of interactions (both facilitation and competition) and the nature of stress factors will help to extend the framework of the SGH and foster research on facilitation in plant ecology.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FelisattiAagtenMurphyLaubrocketal.2020,
  author    = {Felisatti, Arianna and Aagten-Murphy, David and Laubrock, Jochen and Shaki, Samuel and Fischer, Martin H.},
  title     = {The brain's asymmetric frequency tuning},
  series = {Symmetry / Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI)},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Symmetry / Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI)},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2073-8994},
  doi       = {10.3390/sym12122083},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {To construct a coherent multi-modal percept, vertebrate brains extract low-level features (such as spatial and temporal frequencies) from incoming sensory signals. However, because frequency processing is lateralized with the right hemisphere favouring low frequencies while the left favours higher frequencies, this introduces asymmetries between the hemispheres. Here, we describe how this lateralization shapes the development of several cognitive domains, ranging from visuo-spatial and numerical cognition to language, social cognition, and even aesthetic appreciation, and leads to the emergence of asymmetries in behaviour. We discuss the neuropsychological and educational implications of these emergent asymmetries and suggest future research approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BergerHoehle2012,
  author    = {Berger, Frauke and H{\"o}hle, Barbara},
  title     = {Restrictions on addition},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {509},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-41491},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-414911},
  pages     = {28},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Children up to school age have been reported to perform poorly when interpreting sentences containing restrictive and additive focus particles by treating sentences with a focus particle in the same way as sentences without it. Careful comparisons between results of previous studies indicate that this phenomenon is less pronounced for restrictive than for additive particles. We argue that this asymmetry is an effect of the presuppositional status of the proposition triggered by the additive particle. We tested this in two experiments with German-learning three-and four-year-olds using a method that made the exploitation of the information provided by the particles highly relevant for completing the task. Three-year-olds already performed remarkably well with sentences both with auch 'also' and with nur 'only'. Thus, children can consider the presuppositional contribution of the additive particle in their sentence interpretation and can exploit the restrictive particle as a marker of exhaustivity.},
  language  = {en}
}