The theory of constructed emotions suggests that different psychological components, including core affect (mental and neural representations of bodily changes), and conceptualization (meaning-making based on prior experiences and semantic knowledge), are involved in the formation of emotions. However, little is known about their role in experiencing emotions. In the current study, we investigated how individual differences in interoceptive sensibility and emotional conceptualization (as potential correlates of these components) interact to moderate three important aspects of emotional experiences: emotional intensity (strength of emotion felt), arousal (degree of activation), and granularity (ability to differentiate emotions with precision). To this end, participants completed a series of questionnaires assessing interoceptive sensibility and emotional conceptualization and underwent two emotion experience tasks, which included standardized material (emotion differentiation task; ED task) and self-experienced episodes (day reconstruction method; DRM). Correlational analysis showed that individual differences in interoceptive sensibility and emotional conceptualization were related to each other. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed two independent factors that were referred to as sensibility and monitoring. The Sensibility factor, interpreted as beliefs about the accuracy of an individual in detecting internal physiological and emotional states, predicted higher granularity for negative words. The Monitoring factor, interpreted as the tendency to focus on the internal states of an individual, was negatively related to emotional granularity and intensity. Additionally, Sensibility scores were more strongly associated with greater well-being and adaptability measures than Monitoring scores. Our results indicate that independent processes underlying individual differences in interoceptive sensibility and emotional conceptualization contribute to emotion experiencing.

Infants show impressive speech decoding abilities and detect acoustic regularities that highlight the syntactic relations of a language, often coded via non-adjacent dependencies (NADs, e.g., is singing). It has been claimed that infants learn NADs implicitly and associatively through passive listening and that there is a shift from effortless associative learning to a more controlled learning of NADs after the age of 2 years, potentially driven by the maturation of the prefrontal cortex. To investigate if older children are able to learn NADs, Lammertink et al. (2019) recently developed a word-monitoring serial reaction time (SRT) task and could show that 6–11-year-old children learned the NADs, as their reaction times (RTs) increased then they were presented with violated NADs. In the current study we adapted their experimental paradigm and tested NAD learning in a younger group of 52 children between the age of 4–8 years in a remote, web-based, game-like setting (whack-a-mole). Children were exposed to Italian phrases containing NADs and had to monitor the occurrence of a target syllable, which was the second element of the NAD. After exposure, children did a “Stem Completion” task in which they were presented with the first element of the NAD and had to choose the second element of the NAD to complete the stimuli. Our findings show that, despite large variability in the data, children aged 4–8 years are sensitive to NADs; they show the expected differences in r RTs in the SRT task and could transfer the NAD-rule in the Stem Completion task. We discuss these results with respect to the development of NAD dependency learning in childhood and the practical impact and limitations of collecting these data in a web-based setting.

Background To improve propulsion during running, athletes often wear spike shoes designed for training and/or competition. Running with spike shoes may cause pain and/or injuries. To address this problem, a modified spike shoe was tested. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of running with dual-versus single-stiffness spike running shoes on running mechanics in long-distance runners with pronated feet. Methods Sixteen male elite (national competitive level) runners (5000 or 10,000 m) aged 28.2 ± 2.5 years with pronated feet volunteered to participate in this study. To be included, participants had to have achieved personal best race times over 5- and/or 10-km races under 17 or 34 min during official running competitions. All participants were heel strikers and had a history of 11.2 ± 4.2 years of training. For the assessment of running kinetics, a force plate was imbedded into a walkway. Running kinematics were recorded using a Vicon-motion-capture system. Nike Zoom Rival shoes (Nike, Nike Zoom Rival, USA) were selected and adapted according to spike softness and stiffness. Participants ran at a constant speed of ~4.0 m/s across the walkway with both shoe conditions in randomized order. Six trials were recorded per condition. The main outcomes included peak ground reaction forces and their time-to-peak, average and instantaneous vertical loading rates, free moments, and peak ankle eversion angles. Results Paired t-tests revealed significantly lower lateral (p = 0.021, d = 0.95) and vertical (p = 0.010, d = 1.40) forces at heel contact during running with dual-stiffness spike shoes. Running with dual-stiffness spike shoes resulted in a significantly longer time-to-peak vertical (p = 0.004, d = 1.40) force at heel contact. The analysis revealed significantly lower average (p = 0.005, d = 0.46) and instantaneous (p = 0.021, d = 0.49) loading rates and peak negative free moment amplitudes (p = 0.016, d = 0.81) when running with dual-stiffness spike shoes. Finally, significantly lower peak ankle eversion angles were observed with dual-stiffness spike shoes (p < 0.001, d = 1.29). Conclusions Running in dual- compared with single-stiffness spike distance running shoes resulted in lower loading rates, free moment amplitudes, and peak ankle eversion angles of long-distance runners with pronated feet.

Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258). Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021). Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.