Netherlands

This study examines individual differences in broadcasters’ use of multimodal (e.g., words; prosody; gestures) child-directed language. Particularly, we investigated the impact of individual styles on broadcasters’ multimodal adjustments in language production, and focused on the role of empathy and the Big Five personality traits. Forty-two female future broadcasters participated in the study, simulating live broadcasts for both adults and children. An analysis of participants’ multimodal production showed that there is a stable individual style across different contexts in prosody, linguistic features and gestures. However, not all participants adjusted the same way between programmes. Empathy and personality traits could predict multimodal adjustments, and they shape different degrees of adjustments between child-directed and adult-directed programmes. For example, higher-empathetic and more extrovert participants produced more salient referential gestures. In short, the results highlight the roles of individual differences in tailoring multimodal communicative strategies, with implications for broadcaster training.

**Authors:**

Yanran Zhang: Tilburg university; Yan Gu: University of Essex

CogSci 2024

Individual differences in multimodal child-directed language: Unraveling individual style, empathy and the Big Five personality traits

### Welcome to CogSci Conference 2025!

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was a hybrid meeting held in San Francisco. 

<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/amvr/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>

#### About

The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.

#### Our History 

* **Society Creation**<br>
The Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit professional organization in Massachusetts in 1979. The organizing committee included Roger Schank, Allan Collins, Donald Norman, and a number of other scholars from psychology, linguistics, computer science, and philosophy. 
<br><br>
* **Conference Creation**<br>
The first conference on cognitive science was held at La Jolla, California in August, 1979, and has occurred annually since then. The proceedings of each conference are published, and those from most years are available through Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The annual proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference represent a major source of information on new work and new ideas in the scientific study of thinking. In 1990, the Society, with help from an anonymous donor, established the David Marr Prize for the best student paper at each annual meeting.
<br><br>
* **Journal Creation**<br>
The Journal, Cognitive Science, began publication in 1976, and is now published by Wiley-Blackwell. The Executive Editor is currently Richard P. Cooper of Birkbeck, University of London, and there are 18 Associate Editors and a 30-member editorial board. It serves as the premier outlet for research reports that intersect two or more disciplines. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society. The Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society voted in late 2006 to found a new journal, Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS). The Editor in Chief is Wayne Gray, Cognitive Science Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The journal seeks to fill a niche not occupied by Cognitive Science Journal or other cognitive science journals. Membership in the Society includes a subscription to Cognitive Science and TopiCS. Copyrights for articles published in the journal are held by the Society.
<br><br>

#### Code of Conduct

By attending the CogSci 2025 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s **[Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ChPuihLy6jE_BWqfO7J2KKgX35JW2zsM/view?usp=sharing)**.
<br><br>


You need to log in with the email address you registered with. 

Login credentials were sent to you from Underline -  subject line "Welcome to the CogSci 2025 Conference". Please be sure to check your spam/promotional inbox  if you do not see an email confirmation right away.





Please log in to join this event.

To access the site, please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/).

If you are registered and feel like you are seeing this message by mistake, please make sure you are logged in with the same email that you registered with. 

Please register!

CogSci 2025

The 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

poster

The 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was an in-person meeting held in Rotterdam, The Netherlands at the Postillion Hotel & Conference Centre.

**ON-DEMAND PROGRAM ACCESS AFTER THE CONFERENCE**<br>
Recordings of the invited program are now available. You can access them by clicking on the 'Schedule' icon on the left. Select view by week and navigate to the day and time slot of the recording you wish to view. Click on the time slot to access the recording.

Recordings available (click on each recording to view):

**Thursday, July 25**<br>
0900: [Keynote Speaker Morgan Barense on Enhancing real-world event memory](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/17997/lecture/99084-dynamics-between-minds-and-the-environment)<br>
1000: [Gleitman Award Winner Isabelle Dautriche on Language Foundations: Insights from acquisition, communication, cognition, and more](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18000/lecture/99085-gleitman-talk)<br>
1415: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds and the environment](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18016&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1700: [Rumelhart Prize Presentation Speaker Alison Gopnik on Exploit, explore, empower: Three ages and three intelligences](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18028/lecture/99161-rp1-rumelhart-prize-presentation)<br>

**Friday, July 26**<br>
0900: [C.L. de Carvalho-Heineken Prize Keynote Speaker Kia Nobre on Focusing in memory](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18035/lecture/99162-hp1-c-l-de-carvalho-heineken-prize-keynote-address)<br>
1030: [Rumelhart Symposium: Childhood as exploration](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18038/lecture/100346-childhood-as-exploration)<br>
1415: [Elman Prize Symposium](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18053&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1600: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18065&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1745: [Keynote Speaker Andrea E. Martin on Neural dynamics encode the structure and statistics of language](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18077/lecture/99271-neural-dynamics-encode-the-structure-and-statistics-of-language)<br>

**Saturday, July 27**<br>
0900: [Keynote Speaker Gregor Schöner on How higher cognition emerges from the dynamics of strongly interacting neural populations](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18083/lecture/99273-dynamics-within-the-mind)<br>
1000: [Glushko Talks](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18086&searchGroup=lecture)<br>
1500: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics within minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18100&searchGroup=lecture)<br>


#### **CogSci 2024 Program Book**
<div style="position:relative;padding-top:0;width:900px;height:500px;"><iframe style="position:absolute;border:none;width:100%;height:100%;left:0;top:0;" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/cble/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe></div>


**The Program Book can be downloaded [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yRVp1cBqRnAbdYi4GXWV_pZeyWNsRquv/view?usp=sharing).**

#### **Letter from the President**

Welcome to the 2024 Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Rotterdam! CogSci 2024 brings together a large community of cognitive scientists who have traveled here from around the world, as well as a smaller group of remote presenters. I would like to extend an especially warm welcome to our first-time CogSci meeting attendees, and hope that 
their experience inspires them to join our future meetings for many years to come.

I want to thank this year’s conference co-chairs, Larissa K Samuelson, Stefan Frank, Mariya Toneva, Allyson Mackey, and Eliot Hazeltine, for putting together an amazing series of invited talks and symposia around the theme of Dynamics of Cognition. The co-chairs also deserve credit for handling a record-breaking number of submissions and producing a truly exciting conference program 

Beyond the invited talks and symposia dedicated to this year’s conference theme, I would like to highlight the presentations and events honoring the 
Rumelhart, Elman, Gleitman and C .L . de Carvalho Heineken prize winners, including the Rumelhart reception on Thursday. As you may know, we are recording all of the invited talks and symposia, and all prize-winners’ talks, and will be making this content available after the conference. 

The Cognitive Science Society relies on the volunteer efforts of our Governing Board members who work on matters related to our membership; conference policies; diversity and inclusion, international, and outreach initiatives; prizes and much more. We welcome interest from Society members who would like to become more involved in what we do. The 
Society is deeply grateful to Rick Dale and Andrea Bender, who serve as editors of the two Society journals, Cognitive Science and Topics in Cognitive Science respectively. We especially acknowledge our editors’ generosity in donating their stipends each year to D&I and outreach efforts. 

This year’s Annual Meeting depends critically on the support of Marischal De Armond and his team at Podium Conference Specialists: Sharon Zwack, Cendrine De Vis, Sarah-Kate Burke, and Rachel Waller worked tirelessly to secure the venue and handled a multitude of logistical and organizational issues, from arranging coffee breaks and receptions to making sure that a huge number of posters fits comfortably into the available space. Finally, and importantly, I would like to acknowledge the Cognitive Science Society Executive Officer, Erica Wojcik, for managing the complex and ever expanding sphere of our Society’s activities.

I hope you enjoy this year’s meeting and the many different opportunities to engage with the vibrant community of cognitive scientists gathered here. I also hope you get a chance to explore the great city of Rotterdam with its many attractions, museums, restaurants and scenic views. If you’d like to talk more about our Society, or simply want to say hello, please stop by!

![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/3c66d0e21fff30e204df1138ffd15173.jpeg)

**Anna Papafragou**  
President, Cognitive Science 
Society 2023-2024

**CODE OF CONDUCT**<br>
By attending the CogSci 2024 Conference, you are required to adhere to the society’s [Code of Conduct](https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-6KkptF0Gn3ZYGJDlpqpwTdImw45Ng0/view?usp=drive_link).

**ABOUT THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE SOCIETY**<br>
The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education.

The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.
<br><br>

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

It looks like you are not registered for this event. 

To access the site please register [**here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/). 

The 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

Conformity refers to phenomena where people match their behaviors to those of others. Existing research has focused on cases where people can observe others in the same situation, saying little about its potential depth or generalizability. When conforming, do people revise behaviors only in that specific situation or update deeper so that they can produce consistent behaviors across similar situations? Through simulation, we first demonstrate that deep and shallow conformity shape contrasting dynamics in groups; only with deep conformity, groups can accumulate improvements longer than individual lifespans. We further conduct an experiment to examine the depths of conformity in humans. People did extend conformist influence to situations without direct reference to others, while those who were just averaging the answers with direct reference showed a notable failure in this generalization. Collectively, our research highlights the importance of distinguishing different depths in conformity when investigating social influence and resultant group outcomes.

**Authors:**

Ryutaro Mori: The University of Tokyo; Hidezo Suganuma: The University of Tokyo; Tatsuya Kameda: Meiji Gakuin University

Generalizability of Conformist Social Influence Beyond Direct Reference

People systematically deviate from the rational Bayesian updating of beliefs, as notably evidenced by conservatism and base-rate neglect. The primary cognitive models that explain these biases include simple heuristics (Woike et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101564) and stochastic sampling approximations of the Bayesian solution, like the Bayesian Sampler (Zhu et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000190). However, neither type of explanation appears entirely complete, as the data fall between the two; only about half of participants’ responses align with heuristics. Could these results be explained by a new class of models that blend heuristics with Bayesian models? We test both simple mixtures of heuristics and the Bayesian Sampler, as well as a hybrid model in which heuristics are used to set a prior that improves estimates based on stochastic samples. Our analysis indicates that neither heuristics nor the Bayesian Sampler alone are sufficient to explain the data.

**Authors:**

Yitong Lin: University of Warwick; Jian-Qiao Zhu: Princeton University; Adam Sanborn: University of Warwick

Bias in Belief Updating: Combining the Bayesian Sampler with Heuristics

In simple judgment tasks, it is generally assumed that thinking for longer leads to more accurate judgments, providing better benefits as suggested by the speed-accuracy tradeoff frame-work. However, human cognitive resources are limited, and longer thinking induces cognitive costs such as subjective workload. Therefore, a total benefit should be considered under the tradeoff between thinking benefits (i.e., improving accuracy) and thinking costs (i.e., increasing cognitive load) as suggested by the resource rationality framework. We examined this issue using computer simulations and behavioral experiments. Our simulations showed that, if a thinking cost was introduced based on resource-rational approaches, there was an optimal length of time for maximizing a total benefit and the total benefit gradually decreased there. In addition, our experiments demonstrated that judgment accuracy did not always improve even if participants were provided a longer thinking time; conversely, longer thinking time was likely to increase their subjective workload. These results are consistent with resource rationality rather than speed-accuracy tradeoff. The importance of considering cognitive load is suggested to further understand human intelligence in the context of a speed-accuracy tradeoff.

**Authors:**

Masaru Shirasuna: Otemon Gakuin University; Rina Kagawa: University of Tsukuba; Hidehito Honda: Otemon Gakuin University

Cognitive Load In Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence Based on Resource-Rational Analyses

Decision-making often involves a trade-off between risks and rewards, for which humans are susceptible to biases. Cognitive training could facilitate these processes, but, for applicability outside the lab, it needs to persist over time. In this double-blind study, participants were split into treatment and control groups to complete a decision-making task involving monetary gambles. All participants completed pre-training (Day 1), training (Day 2-7), and several post-training sessions (up to 6 months). During training, one group was given feedback to promote risk-neutral choice (treatment), whereas the other merely practiced the task (control). Following training, choices in the treatment group were significantly more risk-neutral than in the control group (with no improvements), and this pattern was replicated up to 6 months without any top-up training. Computational modeling revealed a complex pattern of change in the feedback group – whereby participants' initial risk preferences partially determined the effect of training on their post-training preferences.

**Authors:**

Anna Ubiali: City, University of London; Andreas Jarvstad: City, University of London

The Long-Term Impact of Cognitive Training on Risk-Reward Trade-Offs

Exploration and exploitation decision-making are crucial cognitive processes, often guided by an individual’s knowledge state. The knowledge gap theory posits that lesser knowledge enhances exploration, yet the differential impacts of factual versus perceived knowledge on exploration preferences are not thoroughly understood. This research aims to bridge this gap by independently manipulating actual and perceived knowledge to assess their separate effects on exploration behaviors. Through three studies, we discovered that individuals with less factual knowledge explored more intensely and for longer durations, but only when they were explicitly aware of their knowledge gaps. Furthermore, our findings reveal that the perception of insufficient knowledge can trigger increased exploration, independent of the actual knowledge possessed. Our studies illuminate the significant impact of metacognitive states on exploration preferences, advancing our understanding of how people decide whether to explore or exploit.

**Authors:**

Yijin Fang: Tsinghua University; Huiying Yang: Tsinghua University; Stella Christie: Tsinghua University

The Effect of Perceived vs. Actual Knowledge on Exploration

Experimentally manipulating alcohol value reliably influences alcohol choice and consumption; however, the cognitive mechanisms that underpin these relationships are not well-understood. Here, we explore whether computational parameters of value-based decision-making (VBDM) change when people experience heightened craving to consume alcohol, and whether parameters of VBDM are predictive of actual drinking behaviour. Prior to completing a novel VBDM task, participants recalled either a positive drinking memory while being exposed to an alcoholic cue (alcohol craving), or a positive alcohol-unrelated memory while being exposed to a soft-drink cue (control). A drift-diffusion model (DDM) was fitted to reaction time and choice data to estimate evidence accumulation (EA) processes and response thresholds during the different blocks in each experimental condition. Subsequently, ad libitum alcohol consumption (disguised as a taste test) was measured. Using computational modelling techniques to quantify the internal processes of decision-making could potentially contribute to identifying innovative targets for treatment interventions.

**Authors:**

Amber Copeland: University of Sheffield; Tom Stafford: University of Sheffield; Matt Field: University of Sheffield

The influence of alcohol-specific episodic memory and cue exposure on value-based decision-making and its role in ad libitum drinking

Goal-directed behavior requires a dynamic balance between cognitive stability and flexibility. This balance can be modulated by performance-contingent reward. Converging evidence suggests that such rewards promote stability by increasing cue maintenance for response preparation in tasks like the AX continuous performance task. However, task switching studies showed oppositional effects of performance-contingent reward depending on the immediate reward history: Only remaining high reward prospect increases stability, whereas increasing reward prospect increases flexibility. The present study tests whether the flexibility-enhancing effect of increasing reward prospect generalizes beyond task switching scenarios. In a novel cued global-local task, the cue-validity effect served to indicate cognitive flexibility versus stability. Evidence from two experiments shows that increasing reward prospect reduces the cue-validity effects but only in error rates. This suggests more flexibility in terms of increased reactive control compared to remaining high reward prospect, which could be functionally adaptive to prevent extreme stability.

**Authors:**

Kerstin Fröber: University of Cologne

Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility: Further evidence from a cued global-local task

The scientific potential of digital game studies in psychology is limited by the observational nature of the data that they investigate. However, digital environments present us with a perfect opportunity to incorporate experimental paradigms in complex interactive and multivariate worlds where each decision made by participants can be tracked and recorded. In this study, we demonstrate an industry-academic research collaboration that offers a proof-of-the-concept on how minor modifications of the game settings could be used to test psychological research questions. We modify the settings of the Zool platform game, where players allocated to the experimental group are provided with more information when in danger of dying in the game. Results of the study show that manipulation does not influence behaviour in the game, such as achieved score or number of deaths, but it changes the overall motivation of whether players will continue playing the game after the disappointing event of losing all their lives, game-over event.

**Authors:**

Nemanja Vaci: University of Sheffield; Tom Stafford: University of Sheffield; Ying Ren: University of Sheffield; Jacob Habgood: SUMO Digital

Experiments in games: modding the Zool Redimensioned warning system to support players’ skill acquisition and attrition rate

Intellectual Humility (IH) is the ability to understand the limits of one’s knowledge. It is important to maximize the benefits and mitigate the threats of IH. We explored the impact of perspective taking (PT) on IH and its connection to confirmation bias (CB). In a mixed pretest-posttest experiment with 174 participants randomly assigned to self- or other-perspective, IH was higher in the other-perspective (vs self-perspective). Also, exposure to other-perspective boosted IH (vs baseline) and exposure to self-perspective inhibited IH (vs baseline). Interestingly, IH was not correlated with CB, challenging the notion that IH is a protective factor against CB. The study illustrates a clear distinction between other- and self-perspective and their impact on IH. Practicing other-perspective, allows to transcend from one’s egocentric views, fostering IH. While self-perspective, reinforces egocentric views, leading to intellectual arrogance. Lastly, both intellectually humble and arrogant are susceptible to CB, emphasizing the need for more research.

**Authors:**

Foivos Kotsogiannis: The American College of Greece, Deree; Ioanna Spentza: The American College of Greece; Chrysanthi Nega: The American College of Greece

The Effects of Perspective Taking on Intellectual Humility and its Relationship to Confirmation Bias

How do people perform general-purpose physical reasoning across a variety of scenarios in everyday life? Across two studies with seven different physical scenarios, we asked participants to predict whether or where two objects will make contact. People achieved high accuracy and were highly consistent with each other in their predictions. We hypothesize that this robust generalization is a consequence of being able to run noisy physics mental simulations. We designed an “intuitive physics engine'' model to capture this generalizable simulation. We find that this model generalized in human-like ways to unseen stimuli and to a different query of predictions. We further evaluated several state-of-the-art deep learning models on the same task and found that they could not explain human predictions as well. This study provides evidence that human's robust generalization in physics predictions are supported by a probabilistic simulation model, and suggests the need for structure in learned dynamics models.

**Authors:**

Haoliang Wang: University of California, San Diego; Khaled Jedoui: Stanford University; Rahul Venkatesh: Stanford University; Felix Jedidja Binder: UC San Diego; Josh Tenenbaum: MIT; Judith E. Fan: Stanford University; Daniel Yamins: Stanford University; Kevin A Smith: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Premium content

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2024

Generalizability of Conformist Social Influence Beyond Direct Reference

Similar lecture

The effect of gender on multimodal child-directed language: Evidence from analyses of broadcast programmes