Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (65) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2006 (65) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (61)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (65)
Keywords
- capacity (1)
- conditionals (1)
- interference (1)
- mathematical model (1)
- multinomial models (1)
- non-linear mixed effects (1)
- reasoning (1)
- working memory (1)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (65) (remove)
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.
Adipositas
(2006)
Two experiments investigated the acceptability of multiple questions. As expected, sentences violating the Superiority Condition were accepted less often than sentences obeying it. The status of the Superiority violations was not improved by the addition of a third wh, regardless of whether the third wh was an adjunct or an argument, though it was improved by the addition of a second question (e.g., and when). Further, in a small pilot study directly comparing a sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases that may induce a stress clash (I'd like to know who hid it where when) with a sentence violating Superiority but avoiding the final adjacent wh-phrases (I'd like to know where who hid it when), half the participants indicated that the Superiority violation sentence sounded better. This suggests that the status of some additional-wh sentences may appear to improve simply because the comparison sentence with adjacent final wh-phrases is degraded. Overall, the results of the studies suggest that there is no need to complicate syntactic theory to account for the additional-wh effect, because there is no general additional-wh effect
Anpassung der Psychotherapie-Richtlinien zur Zulassung psychotherapeutischer Verfahren und Methoden
(2006)
What makes computer users spend their free time working with the computer? Are there different types of users and, if so, in what ways do they differ? N = 271 subjects took part in an online survey concerning the incentives for computer use in free time. Selected mailing lists were used to identify highly committed users (A4 3.9 hours of free time a day spent working with computers). The following incentive factors were found for these users: community/ affiliation; sense of competence; flexibility/utility; avoidance of boredom; rebellious tendency to illegality. Depending on their favorite use of the computer, three types of users were found: Purposeful users (58%), hackers (entering other networks without intention to cause damage) (22%), and crackers (entering other networks with intention to cause damage) (20%). There are significant differences in the incentive profiles of these types of users. Hacking and cracking, but not purposeful use, are correlated with flow experience and positive activation. These findings are not representative for all leisure time computer users. They refer to a sample of highly committed users who can be reached in special associations (e.g., relevant student networks, the Chaos Computer Club)
Between reasoning
(2006)
In two experiments we investigated three-term reasoning with spatial relational assertions using the preposition between as compared to projective prepositions (such as to the left of). For each kind of assertion we distinguish the referent expression (i.e., the grammatical subject) from the relatum expression (i.e., the internal argument of the preposition; e.g., [The hedgehog](referent)_(expression) is to the left of [the frog](relatum)_(expression); [the snake](referent)_(expression) is between [the donkey and the deer](relatum)_(expression)). Previous research has shown that integrating premises with projective prepositions is easier (a) when the relatum expression of the second premise denotes an element already given by the first premise (relatum = given), and (b) when the term denoting a given element precedes the term denoting a new element (given - new). Experiment 1 extended this finding to second premises with the preposition between. In Experiment 2, between figured in the first premise. In this case, participants built an initial preferred model already from the first premise, although such a premise is indeterminate with respect to the array that it describes. Since there is no need left for integrating the second premise, this premise is instead used to verify the initial model and to modify it when necessary. A further investigation of conclusion evaluation times showed that conclusions were evaluated faster when they first mentioned the element that was included most recently into the mental model of the premises. The use of premises with between permitted the separation of recency of model inclusion from recency of appearance of an element in a premise.
Bewältigungsmuster im Lehramtsstudium : eine Untersuchung an der Universität Münster und Potsdam
(2006)
Bezugsnorm-Orientierung
(2006)
Bezugsnormorientierung
(2006)