Canada

The ability to infer general characteristics of populations from specific instances is critical for reasoning. While there is evidence of this capacity in infancy, prior work has not examined children’s ability to use these second-order inferences to make predictions about future outcomes. In the current study, 3-year-olds observed balls drawn at random from two containers. In one sample each ball was a different color. The other sample consisted of balls of only one (Experiment 1) or two (Experiment 2) colors. Children were asked which of the containers was more likely to contain a novel colored ball. A significant majority of children chose the more variable sample’s container. This suggests that 3-year-olds are not only able to make inferences about hidden populations from the variability of observed samples, but also use those inferences to reason beyond their direct experience.

CogSci 2022

Reasoning from Samples to Populations: Children Use Variability Information to Predict Novel Outcomes

### 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.

technical paper

Join us for CogSci2022! Our 44th Annual Conference will be centered around the theme of diversity, with an accompanying range of keynotes and invited speakers who themselves highlight the diversity of our field. Our three symposia are Cognition across Diverse Populations, Cognition within Diverse Societies, and Global Challenges for Cognitive Science. The conference is being offered in a fully hybrid environment for onsite and online attendees.
<br>
<br>[**The Program at a Glance can be found here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cogsci-2022-PAAG-Detailed-July-12final-1.pdf)
<br>[**The Detailed Program can be found here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/DeArmond-CogSci2022-program-v113-final.pdf)
<br>
<br>

This conference requires a registration to attend. Please use the link below to secure your ticket. The website will be available to all registered attendees on July 25th. 

[Register to Attend](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/registration/)

Registration Is Required

The 44th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society highlighted research on the theme Cognitive Diversity in addition to the full breadth and diversity of research topics offered by the society’s membership. 





The "myside bias'' in evaluating arguments is an empirically well-confirmed phenomenon that consists of overweighting arguments that endorse one's beliefs or attack alternative beliefs while underweighting arguments that attack one's beliefs or defend alternative beliefs. This paper makes two contributions: First, it proposes a probabilistic model that adequately captures three salient features of myside bias in argument evaluation. Second, it provides a Bayesian justification of this model, thus showing that myside bias has a rational Bayesian explanation under certain conditions.

The Myside Bias in Argument Evaluation: A Bayesian Model

Previous work has demonstrated that relational responding in the Relational Match-to-Sample (RMTS) task can be improved compared to baseline by providing people with the opportunity to consider individual problem elements in isolation prior to receiving the full problem. However, it remains unclear whether the benefits of this intervention persist in its absence, or can be observed when a prior strategy has already been established to complete the task. To this end, we deployed a 2x2 mixed design, where presentation type was the within-subjects factor and order of presentation type was the between-subjects factor. The aims of this work were to gain further insight into the utility of isolated-focus as a means of promoting relational responding, and better understanding how processing of problem elements changes as a consequence of isolated-focus. We discuss the implications for pedagogical practices and extensions of this work to other materials and tasks.

Examining Strategy Differences on the Relational Match-to-Sample Task (RMTS)

Several individual differences have been suggested to explain neutral or negative effects of feedback on learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Specifically, Fyfe and colleagues (2016) have found that feedback has been useful for students with low prior knowledge, but has mixed effects on students with high prior knowledge. In contrast to prior studies that measure prior knowledge, here we manipulate students' propensity to transfer from knowledge of a more familiar concept to a more difficult one using knowledge activation (Sidney, 2020). Undergraduates (N = 138) were randomly assigned in a 3 (delayed, immediate, or no feedback) x 2 (activate prior knowledge or not) between-subjects design. Both activating prior knowledge and providing immediate feedback enhanced performance during learning trials. On a no-feedback posttest, feedback effects were moderated by knowledge activation. Importantly, combining knowledge activation with immediate feedback had a large positive impact on performance.

Role of Prior Knowledge in Feedback Timing

Variation in second language acquisition is evident from earliest stages. This study examined effects of learning tasks (retrieval practice, comprehension, verbal repetition) on comprehension of Turkish as a new language. Undergraduates (N = 156) engaged with Turkish spoken dialogues in a computer-assisted language learning session via Zoom, with learning tasks manipulated between-subjects. Participants completed pre/posttests assessing comprehension of Turkish number and case marking, a vocabulary test, and open-response questions gauging explicit awareness. The retrieval-practice group showed highest performance overall, after controlling for significant effects of nonverbal ability and pretest. For comprehension of number/case marking, the comprehension group performed comparably to the retrieval-practice group. For vocabulary comprehension, the verbal-repetition group performed comparably to the retrieval-practice group. Differential performance associated with learning tasks indicates benefits of testing and production and aligns with transfer-appropriate processing. As predicted by the noticing hypothesis, explicit awareness of number and case marking correlated with comprehension accuracy.

Retrieval Practice Promotes Learning of Turkish as a Foreign Language: A Computer-Assisted Language Learning Study

A notional machine is an abstract representation of how a computer works. Prior research shows that students often form incomplete or inaccurate mental models of the notional machine, reflecting misunderstandings and causing programming errors. To date, however, there is very little work on how to help students acquire accurate models of the notional machine. To fill this gap, this research focuses on novice programmers and experimentally investigates the impact of direct instruction of the notional machine compared to standard instruction that does not include the notional machine. The instruction is embedded in an online computer tutor that we implemented and compared to a version of the tutor that does not refer to the notional machine but otherwise includes the same materials. In particular, both tutor versions include instructional videos followed by self-explanation prompts. We will present data from an evaluation of both tutor versions.

Self-Explaining the Notional Machine to Improve Novice Programmers’ Learning and Mental Models, Supported by a Computer Tutor System

The dual mechanisms of control framework describes two modes of goal-directed behavior: proactive control (goal maintenance) and reactive control (goal activation on task demands). Shifts between these modes may explain variations in user performance in computing tasks. Although these mechanisms are relevant to the design of interactive systems, and particularly educational systems, their relation to human-computer interaction (HCI) is under-researched. We propose a manipulation to induce proactive or reactive control in the context of mathematical problem solving on an online tutoring system. We present two experiments where students solved problems using either proactive or reactive control. Study 1 validates the manipulation by investigating behavioral measures that reflect usage of the intended strategy and assesses whether either cognitive control mode impacted learning. Study 2 investigates whether alternating between control modes during problem solving affects student performance.

Eliciting Proactive and Reactive Control during Use of an Interactive Learning Environment

Online data collection has become a prominent option due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is crucial to understand to what extent online studies can be compared with face-to-face studies, particularly in multimodal language research on which the modes of communication have a crucial effect. This study investigated multimodal communication across face-to-face and videoconferencing settings, focusing on gesture production and speech disfluency in a daily routine description task (N=64). Results suggested that overall disfluency rate was higher for those who communicated via videoconferencing than those who communicated face-to-face. The use of specific disfluency types also differed across the two settings, signaling an interplay between cognitive and communicative strategies. Overall gesture frequency and iconic gesture use were comparable across the two settings. Iconic gesture use negatively predicted the overall disfluency rate, regardless of the setting. Using different contexts is required to understand whether multimodal language differs between face-to-face and online communication.

Multimodal Communication in Virtual and Face-to-Face Settings: Gesture Production and Speech Disfluency

Gestures facilitate speech production by helping speakers reduce cognitive load. Studies on gesture-speech interaction mostly examined the effect of representational gestures on spatial contexts. However, abstract deictics (e.g., pointing at objects that are not visually present) might also have a role in facilitating cognitive processes. The present study investigated the effect of gestures on disfluency rates by presenting a narrative task in three conditions: spontaneous, restricted, and encouraged gesture use. We found that disfluency rates across three conditions did not significantly differ. The use of abstract deictics in the spontaneous gesture use condition was a significant predictor of disfluency rates in the gesture restricted condition. Results indicate that gestures’ facilitative roles might be manifested differently depending on the context. Abstract deictics might also benefit speakers, especially in a narrative context. Studying abstract deictics can provide new insights on gesture and speech production interaction.

Gesture and Speech Disfluency in Narrative Context: Disfluency Rates in Spontaneous, Restricted, and Encouraged Gesture Conditions

Myriad linguistic cues, subtle and otherwise, have been shown to shape thinking and reasoning. Such linguistic framing effects are attributed variously to irrational biases, affective processes, and analogy. Across two studies, we explored pragmatic reasoning (PR) as a potential unifying mechanism underlying disparate framing effects. In Study 1, we adapted a measure of PR used in attribute framing research, assessing the ability to infer information subtly communicated by a speaker’s choice of frame. Our measure captured individual differences in PR distinct from cognitive reflection and mentalizing ability. In Study 2, PR predicted the effect of identity labels on attitudes towards illegal immigration, but not other framing effects. Two such effects were driven, however, by participants’ explicit recognition of the influence of the framing language. These results suggest that framing effects may indeed be mediated by PR, but that our measure of PR does not fully capture its mediating role.

Exploring the Role of Pragmatic Reasoning in Linguistic Framing Effects

Accessibility plays a major role in speech production. Here we investigate and measure four factors that influence speakers to produce one word over another more optimal word form. Three experiments asked participants to label images of insects and instruments. Participants were incentivized to produce an accurate specific label (e.g., bee), over a more general label (e.g., insect), so that specific labels were more optimal. Each of three experiments manipulated a different factor that could influence accessibility – word frequency, priming, and interference – and all experiments additionally varied whether labels had to be produced under time pressure or not. Results showed that each variable significantly influenced the accessibility of labels: participants produced more specific labels when those labels were higher frequency, when they were primed, when a visually-similar label had not been primed, and when participants were unconstrained by time pressure. These findings demonstrate that multiple factors influence the accessibility of familiar words during production, regularly leading participants to rely on “good-enough” rather than optimal options to convey their message.

Premium content

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2022

The Myside Bias in Argument Evaluation: A Bayesian Model

Similar lecture

Relations between number-knowledge and causal reasoning about number in young children: A preliminary investigation