Netherlands

Language learners not only acquire novel words but also enhance their lexical knowledge by assimilating additional meanings to words already known. Studies on native speakers indicate that acquiring new meanings for known words temporarily hinders access to their original meanings, a phenomenon known as the perturbation effect, which in turn predicts long-term learning outcomes. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether comparable mechanisms operate in L2 acquisition. In this study, Chinese-English bilinguals learned new meanings for L2 words. We assessed the processing of both new and original meanings at three intervals: Days 1, 2, and 8. In contrast to findings in native speakers, learning new meanings actually facilitated, rather than impeded, access to the original meanings. Discrepancies in the patterns of L1 and L2 learning imply that the quality of lexical representations could modulate the perturbation effect.

**Authors:**

Yufan Zhang: Beijing Language and Culture University; Charles Perfetti: University of Pittsburgh; Xiaoping Fang: Beijing Language and Culture University

CogSci 2024

New-meaning learning of L2 words facilitates the access to original meanings

### Looking for Cogsci 2023? Please [click here](https://underline.io/events/405/reception) to switch to 2023 edition.


**Dear Colleagues,**

Welcome to the 43rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society! 

This year’s conference brings together the latest research from all Cognitive Science and also highlights this year’s theme **Comparative Cognition: Animal Minds.** 

The program features four plenary speakers: Friederike Range (University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna), Onur Güntürkün (Ruhr University Bochum), Julia Fischer (University of Göttingen), and Erich Jarvis (The Rockefeller University). The keynotes and invited symposia showcase the broad spectrum of ideas that encompass the conference theme of comparative cognition. 

Further, the program includes the Rumelhart Prize keynote presentation by Susan Goldin-Meadow (University of Chicago), and symposia to celebrate the winner of the Elman Prize: Wei Ji Ma (New York University), the Heineken Award winner Robert Zatorre (McGill University), and the Robert J. Glushko Dissertation Prizes session.

The program committee for CogSci 2021 received 1,025 submissions, including 710 full papers, 275 member abstracts, 8 publication-based talks, as well as 15 proposals for symposia, and 17 for workshops and tutorials. After a rigorous review process, the committee selected 152 papers for oral presentation and inclusion in the conference proceedings (14.8%), 332 papers for poster presentation and inclusion in the proceedings (32.4%), and 175 papers for poster presentation with inclusion of abstracts in the proceedings (17.1%) We also selected 275 submitted member abstracts. In addition, we accepted 6 publication-based talks, 12 symposia, and 9 workshops and tutorials to make for an exciting and inclusive program.

We hope that you enjoy the conference this year!<br><br>

**Your Program Chairs,**
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/99984908caba5e6453e5fc5ba34f3507.jpg)

**Learn more about the Vienna Cognitive Science Hub at the University of Vienna, hosts of CogSci 2021**

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/464h1m3iU68" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To review the proceedings for the conference or review the searchable program, please visit the [website](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/program/).


CogSci 2021

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.

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/). 

Please register!

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

Error-based learning may depend on having cognitive resources available to detect and correct the error. This study manipulated the order in which individuals encountered pairings that violated their initial expectations in a 2x2 cross-situational word learning. Individuals learned words that violated their expectations better when they occurred after an accurate pairing than when they occurred before an accurate pairing. When individuals have accurate knowledge about the referent corresponding to the word that occurs first, they can use this to bootstrap their learning of the second word, even when it violates their expectations. However, when the information that violates their expectations occurs first, learners are unable to determine the referent of that word during the first labelling event of the trial. The increased referential ambiguity within trials where the errors occur first, coupled with competing demands at the time of error correction may interfere with learning word-referent pairs that violate expectations.

**Authors:**

Katherine D Snelling: Queen's University; Stanka A. Fitneva: Queen's University

Context Affects Error Correction During Cross-Situational Word Learning

How are morphemes recognized and interpreted during incremental sentence comprehension? We investigated this question in a crossmodal primed lexical decision task employing words that contain semantically ambiguous roots (e.g., ‘bark’; with meanings related to both “dog” and “tree”) but which are disambiguated when affixed by “-ing” (e.g., ‘barking’; related to “dog” only). We aimed to understand whether access to the meaning of the root ‘bark’ would be constrained by lower-level morphological affixation. In our experiment, participants listened to sentences containing an affixed ambiguous root while concurrently performing lexical decisions to a visual target related to the root-only meaning, the affixed meaning, or matched controls. Targets were presented for 80 ms at the recognition point of bark or 500 ms post-recognition. We found that both meanings of the root were activated, despite affixation. Results suggest that a parsing system blind to semantics decomposes morphologically complex words into morphemes before recognition.

**Authors:**

Cedric Le Bouar: Concordia University; Roberto G. de Almeida: Concordia University

Accessing the meanings of ambiguous word roots in context: Evidence from crossmodal priming

Computational reinforcement learning models suggest that learning involves both model-free (MF) and model-based (MB) learning, observed in instrumental (Daw et al., 2011) and Pavlovian (Schad et al., 2020) behaviors. Pavlovian values impact instrumental responses during Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT). Single-lever PIT paradigms, often considered as MF, show correlations with reduced MB instrumental control (Garbusow et al., 2014; Review Cartoni et al., 2016; Sebold et al., 2016). To explore whether single-lever PIT effects are exclusively MF or also MB, we created a novel two-stage paradigm assessing MF and MB control trial by trial. Computational dual-control model simulations predicted a two-way interaction for MF PIT and a three-way interaction for MB PIT. Thus far, Bayesian sequential analysis using Savage-Dickey density ratios (N=22) suggests the existence of MF (BF=3.94) and MB (BF=1.26) influences on PIT, emphasizing the role of MB computations in single-lever PIT tasks.

**Authors:**

Laura Alexandra Wirth: Universität Potsdam; Daniel J. Schad: University of Potsdam

Assessing model-based and model-free Pavlovian-instrumental transfer using a novel two-stage paradigm

In two experiments, we experimentally manipulated people's subjective opinions about new wellness trends using positive clips from publicly available YouTube videos. Participants spontaneously judged novel statements that were consistent with their new opinion to be factual, despite the fact that they had encountered no evidence for any of the statements. Opinion change drove belief change, contradictory to the common assumption that facts determine opinions. Positive opinions also biased participants' curiosity such that they were highly motivated to learn more about opinion-congruent statements. In Study 2, participants reported false memories for the opinion-congruent statements within the video. These results illustrate the primary role of subjective opinions in belief formation about objective truths, and suggest that the eradication of misinformation is an incomplete solution for societal disagreements.

**Authors:**

Evan Orticio: University of California, Berkeley; Celeste Kidd: University of California, Berkeley

Shifting your opinion makes you change your factual beliefs without evidence

Observational learning has been studied using the serial reaction time task (SRTT) reporting inconsistent findings on its nature. When present, observational learning appears to be due to explicit learning, even for complex second-order sequences (SOC). In contrast, statistical learning has been studied using the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) reporting implicit observational learning of simple sequences. We combined elements of the SRTT and RSVP to investigate whether observational learning of SOC can occur. Two groups were exposed to either a repeated or a random sequence in RSVP. A completion and a recognition tasks were performed as a measure of explicit learning, and an SRTT as a measure of implicit learning. Although results showed no difference between groups in the SRTT, the early learning index predicted the recovery from interference exclusively in the experimental group, which also showed a greater awareness of the repetitiveness of the sequence.

**Authors:**

Mark G. Orr: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition; Christian Lebiere: Carnegie Mellong University; Peter Pirolli: Institute for human and machine cognition; Don Morrison: Carnegie Mellon University

A Comparison of Two Memory Models of Attitude Retrieval

What makes an explanation seem insightful? Prior work shows that including information from a lower level of explanation (reductive information) makes circular explanations appear more insightful. We suggest that this is in part because these circular explanations are pragmatically instructive: they suggest at what level of description the phenomenon should be explained. In Study 1, we show that even single sentence circular explanations appear more insightful with the inclusion of reductive information. In Study 2, we find that rating circular explanations with reductive information as insightful correlates with rating them as helpful with searching for explanatory information and with narrowing down which mechanisms an explanation should address. We also provide preliminary evidence that knowledge of the propositional content of the tautology is not the sole effect driving these perceptions.

**Authors:**

Monia D'Angiò: Sapienza University of Rome; Salvatore Gaetano Chiarella: International School for Advanced Studies, SISSA; Luca Simione: Università degli Studi Internazionali; Chiara Saracini: Universidad Católica del Maule; Antonino Raffone: Sapienza University of Rome; Enrico Di Pace: Sapienza University of Rome

How to measure observational implicit learning of complex sequences: a novel paradigm involving rapid visual presentation and serial reaction time task

Belief polarization represents a puzzling and important dynamic in belief updating. There is growing awareness that belief polarization can be Bayesian. We provide pre-registered experimental evidence that beliefs can polarize when people receive conflicting testimony from two groups of sources if they have different beliefs about which group’s members have greater independence in terms of the factors which affect their testimony. We show this is predicted by a Bayesian Network model of belief updating.

**Authors:**

Martin Meyer: Yale University; Frank Keil: Yale University

Circular but Suggestive: Pragmatic Insights from Reductive Tautologies

After studying a list of items, recognition memory is usually tested with a single item, half from the list (targets, or OLD) and half not from the list (foils, or NEW). Models of
recognition have been applied to such data with great success. We ask whether the processes assumed in these models are used when two items are presented simultaneously, both studied, one studied, or neither studied, and participants are asked to choose the one more likely studied (2AFC), or asked to judge whether the two are both studied, one studied (and which), or neither studied (4AFC). Study lists contained 12 words, 24 words, 12 pictures, 24 pictures, or lists of 12 words randomly mixed with 12 pictures. Each of 83 participants gave responses in all these conditions. The choice probabilities were predicted well by the Retrieving Effectively from Memory model (REM) of Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) using the 1997 parameter values (values that were used to generate predictions for single item tests) The results give strong support to the hypothesis that the primary basis for recognition judgments are the odds that an item is old, as specified by the derivations of REM.

**Authors:**

David J. Young: University of Cambridge; Lee H de-Wit: University of Camrbridge; Jens Koed Madsen: London School of Economics

Bayesian Belief Polarization due to Differential Perceptions of Source Independence

A detailed model of the outside world is an essential ingredient of human cognition, enabling us to navigate, form goals, execute plans, and avoid danger. Critically, these world models are flexible—they can arbitrarily expand to introduce previously-undetected objects when new information suggests their presence. Although the number of possible undetected objects is theoretically infinite, people rapidly and accurately infer unseen objects in everyday situations. How? Here we investigate one approach to characterizing this behavior—as nonparametric clustering over low-level cues—and report preliminary results comparing a computational model to human physical inferences from real-world video.

**Authors:**

Zainab Mohamed: Indiana University Bloomington; Constantin G. Meyer-Grant: University of Freiburg; Richard Shiffrin: Indiana University

REM (1997) Predicts Old-New, 2AFC, and 4AFC Recognition

How does the visual system adapt to reduced contrast? Participants read a row of white numbers against a static background that changed from black to white, from left to right. There was pervasive binocular disparity between the fixation points of the left and right eye as legibility decreased. Overall, the lines of sight crossed more frequently in front of the stimulus plane (“crossed fixation disparities”) than behind (“uncrossed fixation disparities”). The proportion of crossed fixation disparities increased systematically with reading difficulty. Absolute size of fixation disparity changed differentially in the two disparity types when contrast reduced, implicating different subsystems. We claim that hemisphericity provides the most insightful understanding of these behaviours. The viewer has flexible control of (a) advantaged contralateral projections from retina to cortex, (b) the size of the perceptual window, and (c) binocular fusion. Thus, an apparent failure of the eyes to fixate precisely conjointly is revealed as an adaptation of embodied cognition.

**Authors:**

Pat Little: New York University; Todd M Gureckis: New York University

Premium content

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2024

Context Affects Error Correction During Cross-Situational Word Learning

Similar lecture

How do the Concepts of Native Language Influence Second Language Learning? : Evidence from the Reconstruction of Word Semantic Domain