United States

CogSci 2025

Manipulating Predictive Focus Improves the Taste Appreciation of Coffee

cognitive neuropsychology

predictive processing

psychology

perception

Welcome to the **largest national, multi-specialty research** event featuring research from nearly 700 medical students, residents, fellows, and international medical graduates.

Use the buttons below or navigation menu to access the event.
 


[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/3e33a8c754cc49610b30950617d813e7.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/sessions?searchGroup=all)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/551404d429c4e274f9a54cbdd7081918.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/posters?searchGroup=all)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/677d92f566b880cebd36905fc738fc10.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/lounge)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/c7392833c7261c3874c5b43fa2f4df19.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/help-desk)
 

#### Event Details

The 2023 American Medical Association Research Challenge includes a poster symposium hall and a semifinals hall with the top scored research. **Log in at any time throughout the event to:**

* **View posters and presentations** on a variety of topics and specialties
* **Score posters in the semifinals** to help decide the top five finalists (AMA member exclusive opportunity)
* **Connect with participants** and provide feedback to help advance their research
* **Attend education sessions** with physician experts on key research topics

At the conclusion of this event, the AMA will announce the top five finalists who will advance to the AMA Research Challenge finals, present their research to an elite panel of judges, and compete to win a $10,000 grand prize sponsored by Laurel Road. 

### Grand Prize Sponsor

AMA would like to thank Laurel Road for sponsoring a $10,000 grand prize for the winner of the AMA Research Challenge. Laurel Road is not involved in the judging or scoring process to select the winner. The winner will be announced on February 4, 2024 during the AMA Research Challenge finals. Payment of the grand prize will be directly from Laurel Road. See the AMA Research Challenge Official Rules for terms and conditions.

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/611e331d4a0eba0920f240cfc04b4d77.png)

**There is no registration fee for this event! **

Register to explore research in a variety of topics. AMA members get exclusive access to score posters in the semifinals.

**Please use this link [here](https://www.ama-assn.org/about/events/ama-research-challenge) to register for free.**

Registration Is Required

AMA Research Challenge 2023

Join the AMA Research Challenge poster symposium and semifinals to explore top research posters, score posters in the semifinals (an AMA member exclusive opportunity) and attend education sessions with experienced physicians to learn tips to advance your research and career. 

poster

### 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** 
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. 
 
* **Conference Creation** 
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.
 
* **Journal Creation** 
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.
 

#### 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)**.

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!

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

The approximate number system (ANS) enables humans to rapidly estimate numerical quantities without relying on counting, yet the computational processes underlying the ANS remain mysterious. Here, we propose a mechanistic model for the ANS, built on the core idea that when presented with a stimulus array, observers first form a template representation through ensemble averaging and subsequently engage in a template-matching process, whereby each array item is compared to the template. With a limited set of plausible assumptions about the inherently noisy computational processes, our model naturally accounts for Weber’s law, the main hallmark of number psychophysics, systematic numerosity underestimation and the coherence illusion. We further test two novel predictions about stimulus factors that modulate the strength of the coherence illusion and demonstrate high fidelity between predicted and obtained data. This model offers new insight into the computational mechanisms by which ANS representations are derived from visual input.

Noisy template matching: A mechanistic model of approximate number perception

Research in experimental syntax typically assumes that the five-point Likert scale offers an ordinal probe that maps monotonically onto a latent degree of sentence acceptability. We challenge that assumption by showing that, when the stimulus space is densely populated, speakers repurpose the scale into an anchor-and-baseline device. Two large-N experiments (Russian and Serbo-Croatian; N=237; 120 permutational word-order variants per language) elicited over 28000 sentence acceptability ratings. Plotting Shannon entropy of the response distribution against the mean rating reveals a robust ’entropy arch’: uncertainty climbs to a sharp peak at the midpoint and collapses toward both ends. We interpret the arch as the quantitative fingerprint of constraint competition: the scale extremes serve as categorical anchors (’completely acceptable’ vs. ’completely unacceptable’), while the center functions as a floating baseline against which speakers register maximally uncertain, cue-balanced configurations for which grammatical, information-structural and frequency-based cues pull in opposite directions. Our findings reframe Likert data as the outcome of dynamic calibration rather than static preference strength and provide a simple diagnostic, entropy profiling, for locating linguistic ’tipping-point’ constructions. Beyond sentence acceptability, the approach offers a principled way to map regions of maximal competition in any domain where categorical anchors and graded uncertainty coexist.

Dense Sentence Sets Induce an Anchor-and-Baseline Strategy in Likert Scale Acceptability Judgments

It has been argued that when scientists employ algorithmic tools to assist in problem-solving, epistemic monocultures may emerge in which research tools, topics, findings, etc. are homogenized. As a result, fertile areas of research might be left unexplored, impeding scientific progress. To explore the nature of these epistemic monocultures, we develop an agent-based model where agents have the ability to query an AI system to assist in their search of an epistemic (NK) landscape. In general, we find that AI use negatively affects the community of researchers by reducing heterogeneity, but both the rate of AI queries and how AI is used impact the ultimate success of the community. We then implement a potential solution suggested in the literature, AI personalization, and find somewhat mixed results on its potential for mitigating homogenization in research communities.

Epistemic Monocultures and the Effect of AI Personalization

Do children believe AI deserves to be treated morally as humans, and if so, why? In this study, eighty children aged four to eight were randomly assigned to interact with a human or AI partner in a naturalistic storytelling activity, after which their moral considerations and rationale were elicited. The results indicated that although children believed they should treat both AI and humans morally, the motives behind their beliefs differed. Children's moral considerations for humans were driven by empathy for others' needs and feelings, whereas their considerations for AI were motivated by the desire to preserve its functional utility. These motives were corroborated by children's denial of AI’s capacity to have feelings or basic physical needs. This study contributes to the literature on children's moral development by demonstrating that while their moral reasoning extends to non-human entities, their justifications reflect a distinct, domain-specific understanding rather than an anthropocentric confusion.

Empathy or Utility: Children's Reasoning for Moral Consideration of AI

Literature indicates that lingua franca use in clinical settings impacts bilinguals communicating in their second language (L2)—but what drives these changes? This study examined how language, proficiency, and cognitive load influence emotionality during traumatic autobiographical memory (AM) retrieval. Building on evidence that L2 use diminishes emotional resonance, we hypothesized that proficiency would moderate this effect. Additionally, we expected lower emotionality in first-language (L1) recall under cognitively demanding conditions, mirroring second-language effects. Greek native speakers (N=107) recalled a traumatic AM in L1, L2 (English), or L1 under cognitive load (visuospatial working memory task) while undergoing physiological EDA assessment. Self-reported arousal, distress, and traumatic symptoms were measured. Notably, L2 alone did not lower emotional intensity—only lower L2 proficiency did, highlighting its key moderating role. Cognitive load during L1 retrieval significantly decreased emotionality, supporting resource-dependent emotional processing models. These findings reveal proficiency and cognitive demands’ interplay in shaping bilingual emotional processing.

Same memory, different words: The Role of Language, Proficiency and Cognitive Load in Traumatic Autobiographical Memory Recall

Stimulating language learners’ engagement is essential to successful second language acquisition, but it can be hard to translate this intuition into effective learning resources. In the first large scale investigation into the linguistic and pragmatic features that make an educational conversation interesting, we collected interest ratings for 64 conversations between teachers and second language learners of English. We provide proof of concept that - despite the high degree of subjectivity involved in perceptions of interest - it is possible to extract features that make a conversation interesting for the average learner. Specifically, concreteness, comprehensibility, and uptake (i.e., the degree to which a teacher and a student’s turn build on one another) all had unique relations to interest in our data. These findings lay the foundations for future work on the optimization of AI tutors for more engaging language learning interactions.

What makes a conversation interesting? Linguistic features predictive of interest in educational conversations between teachers and learners of English

The current study examines 120 5 to 10-year-old children’s beliefs about adults’ abilities to use and fix tablet technology when those adults belong to varying gender (man, woman) and age (young, old) categories. The results indicate that, overall, children appear to prioritize age over gender when judging adults’ technological knowledge, with children choosing younger adults as more competent at using and fixing tablets than older adults. In addition, when evaluating adults of the same age category (e.g., a young man and a young woman), children show in-group gender-based preferences where girls choose women and boys choose men. This in-group preference is more pronounced in children’s selections of adults when determining who would be better at fixing tablets than who would be better at using these devices. Implications for children’s developing ability to consider intersectional identities based on gender and age, and for their STEM learning, are discussed.

Children Prioritize Age over Gender when Evaluating Adults’ Technological Knowledge

The low prevalence effect (LPE), a decrease in target detection performance as target prevalence decreases, is a concern in real-world visual search tasks, such as baggage screening. Unfortunately, much of the research into the LPE and its potential countermeasures may not represent the challenges of other real-world search tasks, such as sonar and security monitoring, in which objects in the search environment exhibit movement. Additionally, target (e.g., submarine) and non-target (e.g., merchant ship) movement may interact with target prevalence to further decrease target detection performance, but these factors have not been systematically manipulated to determine their effects. In Experiment 1, high and low prevalence targets occurred in search conditions with static or randomly-moving objects. Although there was no significant interaction effect detected between target prevalence and motion, these conditions independently contributed to significantly lower hit rates. In Experiment 2, a higher prevalence target was included as an attempted LPE countermeasure. Observers searched for a relatively high and a low prevalence target in the moving search task. The addition of a higher prevalence target improved target detection overall in a search environment with moving objects, serving as a possible countermeasure to the LPE.

The Low Prevalence Effect with Random Motion Stimuli in a Visual Search Task

Visual working memory (VWM) plays a fundamental role in cognitive processes, such as perception, attention, and reasoning. However, existing approaches to modelling VWM are not integrated into cognitive architectures and lack interpretability with respect to their parameters. To address this limitation, we propose a novel VWM model based on the well-established Semantic Pointer Architecture (SPA). In contrast to previous works, our model is the first to integrate a VWM model with a cognitive attention model. It only requires three interpretable hyper-parameters: spatial capacity, feature certainty, and memory decay. We experimentally show that our base model without memory decay replicates the set-size effect and swap errors of human data on a continuous reproduction task. More importantly, we show that by introducing a memory decay, we can achieve a statistically significant (p ≪ 0.001) improvement in model fit, suggesting a potentially important role of memory decay in VWM. Further, our VWM model can be easily extended to model pre- and post-cue conditions, consistently achieving KL divergence between modelled and human performance of less than 0.05.

A Cognitively Plausible Visual Working Memory Model

This is a first exploration into a newly identified reasoning error. We explore normative (derived from Bayes’ rule) and naïve (empirical data) evaluations of how order of reliability within chains of evidence (e.g., hearsay testimony) impacts overall evidential value. In a novel paradigm, we swap the position of two witnesses within the chain to determine the effect of order, when these witnesses differ in their reliability. First, a probabilistic (Bayesian) assessment is provided, including both quantitative and qualitative explanations. Second, lay reasoner qualitative intuitions are measured, using Bayesian predictions as a benchmark for accuracy. Lay reasoners significantly deviate from Bayesian predictions. Three quarters (75.41%) made an error when evaluating order effects in hearsay testimony, with 49.18% wrongly concluding that order has no impact. Only 24.59% correctly judged that the preferential order had greatest evidential value. We illustrate how hearsay testimony is inherently complex and an optimal evaluation is nonintuitive.

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2025

Noisy template matching: A mechanistic model of approximate number perception

Similar lecture

Meta-Analyses of Prospective Studies on Cancer Incidence and Caffeinated or Decaffeinated Coffee

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES