Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Keywords
- EEG (1)
- Mu power (1)
- action events (1)
- action processing (1)
- attention (1)
- childhood (1)
- conduct-problem symptoms (1)
- event-related potentials (ERPs) (1)
- executive functions (1)
- eye movements (1)
Institute
Corona. Schon mal gehört? Noch Weihnachten 2019 hätten viele ahnungslos geantwortet: „Nö.“ Besser Informierte hätten zurückgefragt: „Meinst du die Korona – den Hof um die Sonne?“ Und ganz Schlaue hätten gesagt: „Klar, trink ich gern.“ Doch spätestens seit Februar beherrscht das Virus die Nachrichten, seit März auch unser Leben. Nach und nach mussten wir alle lernen, uns (wieder) richtig die Hände zu waschen und die „Niesetikette“ zu befolgen, Abstand zu halten, zu Hause zu arbeiten oder zu lernen, Masken zu tragen oder gar zu nähen – und überhaupt: uns mit dem Ausnahmezustand, der zum Dauerzustand zu werden droht, zu arrangieren. Aber wie macht das eine ganze Universität – mit 21.000 Studierenden, mehr als 4.500 Beschäftigten, Tausenden Kursen, Praktika, Prüfungen und Forschungsprojekten? Wie hält man einen Tanker an – in voller Fahrt – und rüstet ihn um für einen pandemiesicheren Betrieb? Die zurückliegenden Wochen haben gezeigt: Es geht. Inzwischen läuft mit dem Sommersemester 2020 das erste Online-Semester der Hochschulgeschichte. Auch das hätte Ende 2019 niemand für möglich gehalten, schon gar nicht so bald.
Das Referat für Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit musste wie alle Unibereiche lernen, mit den ungewöhnlichen Umständen umzugehen, die mal bedrohlich, mal lästig, mal ermüdend und mal eben einfach nur umständlich wirkten. Wir haben uns bemüht, so gut es ging, zu informieren – darüber was sich tat, was getan werden musste und konnte. Und was kommt. Doch wir wollten noch mehr wissen: Was sagen die Potsdamer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler zur Corona- Pandemie, ihren Auswirkungen und Folgen, aber auch dazu, was sich dagegen tun lässt? Wie genau funktioniert eine Universität unter den besonderen Umständen? Wie wird gearbeitet, studiert, geforscht? Wie verlagert man ein ganzes Semester in den Online-Betrieb? Auf der Suche nach Antworten auf diese und viele weitere Fragen ist eine Vielzahl von Texten entstanden, die wir nach und nach auf der Webseite der UP veröffentlicht haben als „Beiträge aus der Universität Potsdam zur Corona-Pandemie“.* Eine gekürzte Auswahl dieser Texte haben wir für diese „Portal Spezial“ zusammengestellt. Nicht, weil wir über nichts anderes als den Corona-Virus mehr reden wollen, sondern weil wir dokumentieren wollen, dass die Universität Potsdam durch die Pandemie keineswegs in einen Dornröschenschlaf versetzt wurde. Vielmehr entstanden durch das Engagement vieler Forschender, Studierender und Beschäftigter zahlreiche Initiativen, Ideen, Projekte, Strukturen und Neuerungen, die zeigen: Die Universität Potsdam lässt sich nicht unterkriegen! Deshalb hoffen wir, dass die Lektüre des Heftes Ihnen trotz der weiterhin herausfordernden Umstände Freude und Mut macht. (Die Texte entstanden alle im März/April 2020, als viele Entwicklungen noch am Anfang standen und ihr Verlauf nicht absehbar war. Wir haben sie dennoch unverändert aufgenommen, um diese Phase und die Reaktion der Wissenschaft darauf zu dokumentieren.)
Behavioral research has shown that infants use both behavioral cues and verbal cues when processing the goals of others' actions. For instance, 18-month-olds selectively imitate an observed goal-directed action depending on its (in)congruence with a model's previous verbal announcement of a desired action goal. This EEG-study analyzed the electrophysiological underpinnings of these behavioral findings on the two functional levels of conceptual action processing and motor activation. Mid-latency mean negative ERP amplitude and mu-frequency band power were analyzed while 18-month-olds (N = 38) watched videos of an adult who performed one out of two potential actions on a novel object. In a within-subjects design, the action demonstration was preceded by either a congruent or an incongruent verbally announced action goal (e.g., "up" or "down" and upward movement). Overall, ERP negativity did not differ between conditions, but a closer inspection revealed that in two subgroups, about half of the infants showed a broadly distributed increased mid-latency ERP negativity (indicating enhanced conceptual action processing) for either the congruent or the incongruent stimuli, respectively. As expected, mu power at sensorimotor sites was reduced (indicating enhanced motor activation) for congruent relative to incongruent stimuli in the entire sample. Both EEG correlates were related to infants' language skills. Hence, 18-month-olds integrate action-goal-related verbal cues into their processing of others' actions, at the functional levels of both conceptual processing and motor activation. Further, cue integration when inferring others' action goals is related to infants' language proficiency.
Looking times and gaze behavior indicate that infants can predict the goal state of an observed simple action event (e.g., object-directed grasping) already in the first year of life. The present paper mainly focuses on infants' predictive gaze-shifts toward the goal of an ongoing action. For this, infants need to generate a forward model of the to-be-obtained goal state and to disengage their gaze from the moving agent at a time when information about the action event is still incomplete. By about 6 months of age, infants show goal-predictive gaze-shifts, but mainly for familiar actions that they can perform themselves (e.g., grasping) and for familiar agents (e.g., a human hand). Therefore, some theoretical models have highlighted close relations between infants' ability for action-goal prediction and their motor development and/or emerging action experience. Recent research indicates that infants can also predict action goals of familiar simple actions performed by non-human agents (e.g., object-directed grasping by a mechanical claw) when these agents display agency cues, such as self-propelled movement, equifinality of goal approach, or production of a salient action effect. This paper provides a review on relevant findings and theoretical models, and proposes that the impacts of action experience and of agency cues can be explained from an action-event perspective. In particular, infants' goal-predictive gaze-shifts are seen as resulting from an interplay between bottom-up processing of perceptual information and top-down influences exerted by event schemata that store information about previously executed or observed actions.
Studies show relations between executive function (EF), Theory of Mind (ToM), and conduct-problem (CP) symptoms. However, many studies have involved cross-sectional data, small clinical samples, pre-school children, and/or did not consider potential mediation effects. The present study examined the longitudinal relations between EF, ToM abilities, and CP symptoms in a population-based sample of 1,657 children between 6 and 11 years (T1: M = 8.3 years, T2: M = 9.1 years; 51.9% girls). We assessed EF skills and ToM abilities via computerized tasks at first measurement (T1), CP symptoms were rated via parent questionnaires at T1 and approximately 1 year later (T2). Structural-equation models showed a negative relation between T1 EF and T2 CP symptoms even when controlling for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and other variables. This relation was fully mediated by T1 ToM abilities. The study shows how children's abilities to control their thoughts and behaviors and to understand others' mental states interact in the development of CP symptoms.
When infants observe a human grasping action, experience-based accounts predict that all infants familiar with grasping actions should be able to predict the goal regardless of additional agency cues such as an action effect. Cue-based accounts, however, suggest that infants use agency cues to identify and predict action goals when the action or the agent is not familiar. From these accounts, we hypothesized that younger infants would need additional agency cues such as a salient action effect to predict the goal of a human grasping action, whereas older infants should be able to predict the goal regardless of agency cues. In three experiments, we presented 6-, 7-, and 11-month-olds with videos of a manual grasping action presented either with or without an additional salient action effect (Exp. 1 and 2), or we presented 7-month-olds with videos of a mechanical claw performing a grasping action presented with a salient action effect (Exp. 3). The 6-month-olds showed tracking gaze behavior, and the 11-month-olds showed predictive gaze behavior, regardless of the action effect. However, the 7-month-olds showed predictive gaze behavior in the action-effect condition, but tracking gaze behavior in the no-action-effect condition and in the action-effect condition with a mechanical claw. The results therefore support the idea that salient action effects are especially important for infants' goal predictions from 7 months on, and that this facilitating influence of action effects is selective for the observation of human hands.