Netherlands

This study assessed the holistic and fragmented retention and forgetting of event models. We report four experiments that manipulated causality, co-reference, events versus objects, and description determinacy. While increased causal connections among events increased holistic remembering, there was no clear effect for manipulations of co-reference, events versus objects, or determinacy. Thus, our work suggests that there are limits to the extent to which different types of events are remembered and forgotten in a holistic or fragmented manner. That said, all of our events did show significantly greater than chance holistic remembering, suggesting that the very act of creating event models leads these memories to be remembered or forgotten as wholes to a greater extent.

**Authors:**

Daniela Parra: University of Notre Dame; Nicole Antes: Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien; Gabriel A. Radvansky: University of Notre Dame

CogSci 2024

Event Cognition and Holistic versus Fragmented Remembering and Forgetting

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** 
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** 
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) 
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) 
1415: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds and the environment](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18016&searchGroup=lecture) 
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) 

**Friday, July 26** 
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) 
1030: [Rumelhart Symposium: Childhood as exploration](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions/18038/lecture/100346-childhood-as-exploration) 
1415: [Elman Prize Symposium](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18053&searchGroup=lecture) 
1600: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics between minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18065&searchGroup=lecture) 
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) 

**Saturday, July 27** 
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) 
1000: [Glushko Talks](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18086&searchGroup=lecture) 
1500: [Invited Symposium: Dynamics within minds](https://underline.io/events/465/sessions?eventSessionId=18100&searchGroup=lecture) 


#### **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** 
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** 
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.

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.

poster

When people share information online, they do so with different intentions (connection, persuasion, etc). However, are these motives always apparent to others? To test this, we put participants (N = 319) in imaginary ingroup and outgroup online forums. In each, people were presented with different types of statements and asked why they thought the poster had shared them, whether they believed the poster was an ingroup or outgroup member, and how much they liked the poster. Although results showed a high degree of heterogeneity, some patterns were present. Preliminary analyses indicate that identity expression was the most common motive attributed to perceived-ingroup posters across statement types, whereas wanting to persuade or anger were also prevalent motives for perceived-outgroup posters. Notably, while wanting to anger was the main motive that made people dislike perceived-ingroup posters, all motives across all statement types resulted in a high proportion of dislike towards perceived-outgroup posters.

**Authors:**

Viola Pucci: The University of Melbourne; Andrew Perfors: University of Melbourne; Yoshihisa Kashima: University of Melbourne

Why are they saying this? The perceived motives behind online posting and their psychological consequences

The pretesting effect suggests that attempting and failing to guess unknown information can improve memory compared to errorless study. A key question is when it is the best moment to give feedback after testing. In this study, we explored two factors: (1) the timing of feedback after unsuccessful pretest, provided immediately or after 24 (Experiment 1) and 48 hours (Experiment 2); and (2) the timing of the final test after feedback, immediately or after 24 hours (Experiment 1). We assessed their impact on recall accuracy, comparing with an errorless (read-only) learning condition. Results showed superior accuracy for pretesting than read-only condition; for immediate feedback than delayed; and for immediate test than delayed. Furthermore, although smaller, there was still pretesting effect after 24 and 48 hours of feedback delay. This flexibility in timing could be particularly useful in educational settings where logistical constraints may force a delay in feedback or test.

**Authors:**

Yeray Mera: University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU; Nataliya Dianova: University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU; Eugenia Marin: University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU

The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing

Verbs in progressive aspect can be used for different motion states of people or objects. For example, “A leaf is falling” can describe either the beginning of, or on-going, or the ending of the falling motion of the leaf. Then do people spontaneously use different co-speech gestures according to different motion states when they use the same progressive verb in speech? This study investigated participants’ co-speech gestures used with a progressive verb, focusing on the paths of produced gestures. The paths were analyzed according to the direction (vertical or horizontal) or trajectory (arc or straight). The results showed that the participants’ use of co-speech gestures differed when they expressed different motion states (beginning or ending). In addition, associated agents (given by different phrase structures) of the motion were also described with different paths of gestures. The study suggests that gestures can compensate the motion states of agents that may not be described by language.

**Authors:**

Hina Kimura: Graduate School of Tokyo Denki University; Tetsuya Yasuda: University of Tokyo; Harumi Kobayashi: Tokyo Denki University

Co-speech gestures complement motion state information expressed by verbs

In two experiments (N = 179), we studied the effect of contextual similarity and training mode on new vocabulary learning. Adult participants were trained on blocks of items that were semantically similar, phonologically similar, or unrelated to one another. Each participant was trained through passive exposure, active comprehension, or active production of the new vocabulary. Exp 1 trained items in clusters of 9, whereas Exp 2 trained the same number of items in clusters of 3. Exp 2 also assessed delayed retention 48-72 hours after training. Results showed a robust and negative impact of semantic similarity and production mode on vocabulary learning. A detrimental effect of phonological similarity was only observed in the delayed test. These results suggest that adding the challenge of resolving similarity-induced competition and articulating the word-form negatively impacts the quick acquisition of new vocabulary.

**Authors:**

Megan Waller: Carnegie Mellon University; Dan Yurovsky: Carnegie Mellon University; Nazbanou Nozari: Indiana University

Effect of similarity and training experiences on new vocabulary learning

Co-speech gestures that teachers spontaneously produce during explanations benefit students’ learning by enhancing memory (Church et al., 2007). However, it remains unclear whether certain gestures are intrinsically more memorable, and if so, owing to what semantic and visual features. We created 360 10-second audiovisual stimuli by recording 20 actors producing natural unscripted explanations of Piagetian conservation problems. For each audiovisual stimulus, two trained experimenters extracted high-level semantic and low-level visual/acoustic features in speech and gesture. We then tested online participants’ memories using a between-subjects study-test paradigm in three different conditions: audiovisual (gesture+speech stimuli), visual-only (gesture-only version of the same stimuli), and audio-only (speech-only version of the same stimuli). We found that participants consistently remembered certain gesture, gesture+speech, and speech stimuli better than others. Focusing on the visual-only (gesture-only) condition, we discovered that both semantic (speech and gesture meaningfulness) and visual (number of hands used) features make co-speech gestures memorable.

**Authors:**

Xiaohan (Hannah) Guo: The University of Chicago; Wilma Bainbridge: University of Chicago; Susan Goldin-Meadow: University of Chicago

Semantic and Visual Features Drive the Intrinsic Memorability of Co-Speech Gestures

In social contexts, learners need to infer the knowledge and intentions of the information provider and vice-versa. In this study, we tested how well participants could infer the intentions of different information providers in the rectangle game, where a fictional information provider revealed clues about the structure of a rectangle that the learner (a participant) needed to guess. Participants received clues from either a helpful information provider, a provider who was randomly sampling clues, or one of two kinds of unhelpful providers (who could mislead but could not lie). We found that people learned efficiently and in line with the predictions of a Bayesian pedagogical model when the provider was helpful. However, although participants could identify that unhelpful providers were not being helpful, they struggled to learn the strategy those providers were using, even when they had the opportunity to practise being a deceptive information provider.

**Authors:**

Manikya Alister: The University of Melbourne; Keith James Ransom: University of Adelaide; Andrew Perfors: University of Melbourne

Practicing deception does not make you better at handling it

The ability to predict and understand other people's actions is critical for real-world social behavior. Here we hypothesized that representations of social roles (e.g., cashier, mechanic, doctor) enable people to build rapid expectations about what others know and how they might act. Using a self-paced reading paradigm, we show that role representations support real time expectations about how other people might act (Study 1) and the knowledge they might possess (Study 2). Moreover, people reported more surprisal when the events deviated from role expectations, and they were more likely to misremember what happened. Our results suggest that roles are a powerful route for social understanding that has been previously understudied in social cognition.

**Authors:**

Aaron Baker: Yale University; Yarrow Dunham: Yale University; Julian Jara-Ettinger: Yale University

Roles guide rapid inferences about agent knowledge and behavior

Collaboration takes place everywhere in everyday life, and exposure to the ideas of others is a core process in collaboration. In this study, we investigated whether exposure to other people's ideas facilitates idea generation: 123 participants were asked to list as many ideas as possible to increase turnout in one of three conditions: constant exposure, intermittent exposure, or no exposure. Participants in the no exposure condition generated ideas without exposure to other's ideas. In the constant exposure condition, one of the sets of ideas generated by participants in the no exposure condition was presented on every trial. In the intermittent exposure condition, ideas were only presented in trials 1, 4, and 7. As a result, there was no significant difference in the number of ideas generated between conditions. The conditions under which exposure to the ideas of others facilitates idea generation were discussed.

**Authors:**

Sachiko Kiyokawa: The University of Tokyo

Exposure to the ideas of others in idea generation

Facilitating and countering the spread of true and false health information, respectively, has become an important role for expert organisations on social media. However, it remains unclear the extent to which exposure to expert opinion can influence people’s belief in health claims relative to exposure to non-expert opinion. It is possible that people may make different assumptions about the dependence of shared opinions from expert versus non-expert sources, which differentially impacts the effect of increasing consensus quantity. To explore how people think about expertise and source dependency, we simulate a naïve learner who makes a simple assumption about the generative process behind the information they encounter: that expert sources draw upon a larger sample of evidence than non-expert sources to inform their public statements. We test the qualitative prediction of this simulation by presenting people with a series of short messages via a mock Twitter interface, and varying the number of sources and source expertise from trial to trial. Consistent with the simulation, we found tentative evidence that expert sources were more persuasive than non-expert sources but that the incremental effect of viewing messages from additional experts plateaued faster than non-experts. Implications for these findings include better understanding the role that consensus plays in shifting belief in health claims, and the role that experts can play in aiding online reasoning.

**Authors:**

Benjamin P Simmonds: The University of Adelaide; Keith James Ransom: University of Adelaide; Rachel Stephens: University of Adelaide 

Navigating Health Claims on Social Media: Reasoning from Consensus Quantity and Expertise

When people perform generous acts for each other, they can balance out relative benefits by alternating who is generous. When and why they do this? Prior research has considered three main motivations for generous acts: increasing one's own long-run benefit (e.g from reciprocation and reputation), increasing the recipient's benefit, and reducing inequality. Here we test the relative importance of a distinct motivation: to communicate about a desired social relationship. We find that people selectively expect alternating generous acts in equal relationships, use alternating actions to infer the presence of an equal relationship, and critically expect that people alternate generosity in order to communicate desire for a (more) equal relationship. In a formal planning model, increasing the value of communicating desired equality increases the likelihood of reciprocal generosity.

**Authors:**

Alicia M Chen: MIT; Rebecca Saxe: MIT

Premium content

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2024

Why are they saying this? The perceived motives behind online posting and their psychological consequences

Similar lecture

Causal coherence improves episodic memory of dynamic events