United States

This study investigated processing/strategy complexity to activate magnitude representation for common fractions (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4), and the precision of their magnitude representations on the mental number line. We compared the magnitude comparison performance for pairs involving any one of common fractions and pairs of two uncommon fractions. We hypothesized the mean reaction time to be shorter for pairs involving a common fraction with a simple processing/strategy to activate the magnitude representation, and the magnitude distance effect to be smaller for pairs involving common fractions with precise magnitude representation. Bayesian mixed-effect regression analysis found a shorter mean reaction time for pairs involving common fractions except 1/4. Comparisons involving common fractions did not show a smaller magnitude distance effect. Thus, processing to activate magnitude representation is simpler for common (except 1/4) than for uncommon fractions, although common fractions do not have more precise magnitude representation than uncommon fractions.

CogSci 2021

Complexity of processing to activate magnitude representation for common fractions and precision of their magnitude representations in fraction magnitude comparison

### 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

### 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/).


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.

In a memory task, focusing on to-be-remembered information while concurrently engaging in a secondary task may result in impaired memory, possibly due to limited cognitive resources. However, previous research has demonstrated circumstances where interleaving a secondary task can impair immediate recall but enhance long-term retention. This suggests that the type and difficulty of the secondary task also affected memory. The present study explores the effect of processing a secondary task on recall. In Experiment 1, increasing complexity of the secondary task resulted in a detrimental effect on delayed free recall. Experiment 2 and 3 examine the effect of increasing cognitive load with faster stimuli presentation on delayed free recall and serial recall. These findings have implications for theories advocating the domain-general nature of cognitive resources.

Impact of Performing A Secondary Task on Recall

The mental representation of relation-based concepts is different from that of feature-based concepts. In the present experiment, participants learned to categorize two fictional diseases that were defined either by a feature (e.g., short cells) or an ordinal relation (e.g., diseased cells being shorter than healthy cells). After the participants learned the categorization task to criterion, their strategies were probed in transfer task in which features and relations were pitted against one another. Finally, participants engaged in a stimulus reconstruction task. The results supported the prediction that participants who had adopted a feature-based strategy on a stimulus dimension, as identified by transfer data, tended to reconstruct values close to the means presented during training. By contrast, participants who had adopted a relation-based strategy tended to exaggerate that dimension away from the mean of the training examples and in the direction of the category-defining comparative relation. These data add to the growing literature suggesting that, unlike featural categories, relational categories are not represented in terms of the category’s central tendency.

Probing the Mental Representation of Relation-Defined Categories

The law of least mental effort suggests that humans seek to minimize cognitive effort exertion. It is thought that we do so because effort is inherently aversive, playing the cost function in a cost-benefit analysis. However, this is not always the case: Some human activities are valued precisely because they are effortful. This dual nature of effort as valued and costly is known as the Effort Paradox. The question is therefore: what features differentiate an aversively effortful task from a valued one? In the current study, we explore how perceived progress might be one of these features. Across two experiments, we demonstrate that people willfully choose to engage in more demanding cognitive tasks when doing so yields telegraphed progress information. These results suggest that perceived progress may play a moderating role in cognitive effort aversion and hints at the possibility that progress itself may be an inherently valuable stimulus.

Making Progress on the Effort Paradox: Progress Information Moderates Cognitive Demand Avoidance

Current theories of procrastination argue that people put things off into the future with the expectation that they will be better able to do them later. In this paper, we rationalize such expectations within the framework of evidence accumulation models of the choice process. Specifically, we show that it is rational for observers to adopt lower decision thresholds for choices with weak evidence for any alternative, and that observers learning to estimate optimal decision thresholds for tasks that involve decisions will find it reasonable to put the tasks off until the threshold has been sufficiently lowered by time-varying urgency. We designed a computational model and an experiment to differentiate our theory from more general expectancy based temporal motivation accounts. Both simulation and experimental results support our proposal, indicating a large role for choice difficulty in people's self-assessed estimates for how likely they are to procrastinate any given task.

Modeling procrastination as rational metareasoning about task effort

Are mental additions of single-digit numbers solved through direct retrieval from long-term memory or through persistent use of an automatized counting procedure along a mental line? In this paper, we present an experiment based on small additions along an artificial mental line, which tends to show that for very small addends (+2 to +4), counting may still be used at the end of a 3-week training. To investigate this issue, we developed the AutoCoP computational model, which describes how small additions could be solved, based on attention, working memory and experience. The simulations of AutoCoP based on this experiment showed that the effects detected at the behavioral level are reproduced and consistent with the theory, which assumes the use of a counting procedure in experts.

A computational model of counting along a mental line

Our decisions are informed by a variety of sources of information including prior knowledge and contextual cues. Previous research has shown that explicit and implicit cues influence our decisions differently. Using a choice reaction time task, we aimed to explore this differential influence through a Bayesian drift diffusion model of decision making. We contrasted the effect of two types of instructions — one presented in hypnosis and followed by a posthypnotic amnesia suggestion and the other in normal waking state — on drift rate (v), threshold (a), and non-decision time (t). And, we compared this effect between participants who reported involuntariness or amnesia and those who did not. Results suggest involuntary responses to implicit cues may require less evidence to be executed as it was characterized by a lower threshold and a higher drift rate, which should be tested by confirmatory research.

The differential effect of explicit and implicit instructions on response execution: a hypnosis study

This study examined the influence of metacognition on declarative and reinforcement learning (RL) mechanisms. We collected data from 218 undergraduates using a within-subjects metacognitive manipulation of a stimulus-response (S-R) learning task created by Collins (2018). Contributions of declarative and RL mechanisms are assessed by differences in learning rate for blocks of 3 items versus 6 items, and by the rate of forgetting with an incidental post-test. If metacognition differentially affects declarative and RL, we expect a three-way interaction between the task phase (learning/post-test), block type (long/short), and metacognition (before/during). Our results showed significant main effects of phase (F(1,217) =143.18, p=9.18e-32), length (F(1,217)=541.11, p=2.06e-104) and metacognition (F(1,217) = 19.78, p = 9.22e-06), with better performance during the learning phase, short blocks, and metacognitive manipulation. A significant phase by metacognition interaction (F(1,217) =8.11, 4.45e-03) suggested that metacognition monitoring improved test performance while having little effect on learning performance.

Investigating the Impact of Metacognition on Working Memory and Procedural Learning Mechanisms

The use of algorithmic decision-making is steadily increasing, but people may have misgivings about machines making moral decisions. In two experiments (N = 551), we examined whether people expect machines to weigh information differently than humans in making moral decisions. We found that people expected that a computer judge would be more likely to convict than a human judge, and that both judge types would be more likely to convict based on individuating information than on base-rate information. While our main hypotheses were not supported, these findings suggest that people might anticipate machines will commit to decisions based on less evidence than a human would require, providing a possible explanation for why people are averse to machines making moral decisions.

The computer judge: Expectations about algorithmic decision-making

We study active human visuo-locomotive experience in everyday navigation from the viewpoints of environmental familiarity, embodied reorientation, and (sensorimotor) spatial update. Following a naturalistic, in situ, embodied multimodal behaviour analysis method, we conclude that familiar users rely on environmental cues as a navigation-aid and exhibit proactive decision-making, whereas unfamiliar users rely on manifest cues, are late in decision-making, and show no sign of sensorimotor spatial update. Qualitative analysis reveals that both groups are able to sketch-map their route and consider path integration: i.e., conscious spatial representation updating was possible but not preferred during active navigation. Overall, the experimental task did not trigger automatic or reflexlike spatial updating, as subjects preferred strategies involving memory of perceptual cues and available manifest cues instead of relying on motor simulation and continuous spatial update. Rooted in the behavioural outcomes, we also position applications in computational modelling of navigation within cognitive technologies for architectural design synthesis.

Visuo-Locomotive Update in the Wild: The Role of (Un)Familiarity in Choice of Navigation Strategy, and its Application in Computational Spatial Design

The distinctly human ability to both represent number exactly and develop symbolic number systems has raised the question of whether such number concepts are culturally constructed through symbolic systems. Although previous work with innumerate and semi-numerate groups has provided some evidence that understanding exact equality is related to numeracy, it is possible that previous failures were driven by pragmatic factors, rather than the absence of conceptual knowledge. Here, we test whether such factors affect performance on a test of exact equality in 3- to 5-year-old children by modifying previous methods to draw children’s attention to number. We find no effect of highlighting exact equality, either through framing the task as a “Number” game or as a “Sharing” game. Instead, we replicate previous findings showing a link between numeracy and an understanding of exact equality, strengthening the proposal that exact number concepts are facilitated by the acquisition of symbolic number systems.

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2021

Impact of Performing A Secondary Task on Recall

Similar lecture

Same, but Different: Sequential and Simultaneous Fraction Comparison Tasks Elicit Different Distance and Congruency Effects