United States

Much research into persistence focuses on methods to increase trying without distinguishing whether persistence is rational. However, expectations of effort efficiency suggest that reducing effort in the face of repeated failure is logical. We performed archival behavioral coding to propose exploration as a rational means to extend persistence as new information is gained and the possibility of success is maintained. Infants were presented with an impossible task and exploratory behavior was classified. Infants decreased effort with increased experience failing, but persisted for longer when using several exploratory strategies and exploring for proportionally longer. These results confirm that infants are sensitive to the utility of their actions, and that exploration offers a means to persist even in the face of failure.

CogSci 2021

Try smarter, not harder: Exploration and strategy diversity are related to infant persistence

<center>Louis Stokes Regional Center of Excellence for the Study of STEM Interventions<center>

<CENTER>Translating Critical, Strengths-Based Conceptual Frameworks to STEM Programming Design & Dissemination<CENTER>


 **Sponsored in Partnership by:**
 National Science Foundation, Understanding Interventions, University of Michigan and University of Missouri
 
 
 		
	
Dear Colleagues,

Welcome to the inaugural Louis Stokes Regional Center of Excellence for the Study of STEM Interventions ‎‎(LSCRE ‎‎‎‎SOSI) Summer Institute. SOSI is an NSF funded initiative that reflects a collaboration of STEM and STEM Education Scholars ‎and Program Administrators from the University of Missouri-Columbia, Understanding ‎Interventions, Inc., and the University of Michigan.‎ We offer training and development for STEM program administrators, faculty, and other ‎stakeholders ‎in critical, strengths-based theories and evidence-based practices. Key to our work is providing the tools and avenues for our participants to inform their practice and contribute to the body of translational research that facilitate ‎underrepresented students’ success in STEM. Beyond the Summer Institutes, SOSI, through the Understanding Interventions Index, supports resources for access to the STEM research-to-practice translational literature, a database of journals that publish these works, relevant published measures, and the Understanding Interventions Journal as an outlet for dissemination. This work also extends to webinars and workshops held throughout the year as an integral part of the collaboration between SOSI and its partners. 

This 2021 Summer Institute is designed to address participant needs across a range of experience in our concurrent sessions. Concurrent Sessions 1 are tailored for those of us who have professional training outside the social and behavioral sciences but are looking to develop proficiency, scholarship, and utilize methodologies that test theories like Community Cultural Wealth (CCW), Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST) and Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). Concurrent Sessions 2 are tailored to those with some experience in these areas and are looking to engage more deeply. Some sessions like those that address measures, implementation, and outcomes will be joint. For the current topic sessions, participants will not be limited a specific concurrent session but will have the flexibility to attend the session that they feel most appropriate to their level of experience. 

We look forward to an exciting and productive institute as we all leverage our varied experiences, perspectives, and ideas to this growing community of practice. We would also like to extend our deep gratitude to the National Science Foundation for its generous support of this work.


Best,

SOSI Leadership Team

SOSI Virtual Summer Institute 2021

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! 

**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.

Recent studies have applied network-based approaches to analyze the organization and retrieval of specific semantic categories, with a focus on the animal category. The current study extended previous studies by using network science tools to quantitatively investigate the structural differences of noun and verb categories of various levels of specificity. Specific (animal and body movement) and general noun and verb networks were constructed from four verbal fluency tasks. Common network measures indicated that the two verb networks were more condensed and less modular than the noun networks, supporting that nouns are more well-organized in the mental lexicon than verbs. Comparing the specific and general networks within each lexical category also corroborated lexical semantic studies that nouns have a more clear hierarchical structure. The results of this paper, along with recent semantic network studies, provide converging evidence for the usefulness of network science in semantic memory research.

Structural Comparisons of Noun and Verb Networks in the Mental Lexicon

In a high-risk environment, such as during an epidemic, people are exposed to a large amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate. Following exposure, they typically discuss the information with each other in conversations. Here, we assessed the effects of such conversations on their beliefs. A sample of 126 M-Turk participants first rated the accuracy of a set of COVID-19 statements (pre-test). They were then paired and asked to discuss either any of these statements (low epistemic condition) or only the statements they thought were accurate (high epistemic condition). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the initial statements again (post-test). We did not find a difference of epistemic condition on belief change. However, we found that individuals were sensitive to their conversational partners and changed their beliefs according to their partners’ conveyed beliefs. This influence was strongest for initially moderately held beliefs.

The Effects of Dyadic Conversations on Coronavirus-Related Belief Change

Whether different formats of numbers are represented by one or more systems across development is a subject of long-standing interest in the field of numerical cognition, with seemingly contradictory results. Here we examined numerical comparison to test a developmental theory that can reconcile these discrepancies. In Experiment 1, we found numerical understanding progresses through three continuous phases of association between numerical symbols and approximate sense of numerosity. In the youngest age group (prefluent phase), comparing numerals were slower than comparing dot arrays, but became similar (fluent phase) then faster (overlearning phase) with age. Because this developmental change occurred in the order of numeric range 1-9, followed by 10-99 and 100-999, multiple phases co-existed during childhood. Furthermore, results from Experiment 2 indicated that comparing different formats of numbers was affected by ratio even at the highest levels of proficiency, suggesting that the approximate number system is never fully replaced.

Toward a Comprehensive Developmental Theory for Symbolic Magnitude Understanding

Analogical reasoning is at the core of human cognition, but is it universal? Do people from different cultures reason analogically in the same way? Despite the prevalence of analogical research, to date, there is almost no cross-cultural work investigating analogical reasoning in adults from non-WEIRD cultures. Here we fill this important gap by revisiting a long-standing cross-cultural difference—the holistic-analytic difference among Easterners and Westerners (Nisbett, 2001)—to ask whether this difference is also evident in analogical reasoning. Decades of cross-cultural research showed that Easterners are more attentive to contextual relations than Westerners, giving way to an untested presumption that Easterners are more relational, more analogical than Westerners. We tested this assumption using the classic holistic-analytic task and scene analogy mapping task with US and Chinese participants. While we replicated the holistic-analytic (East-West) difference, US and Chinese participants did not differ in the analogy task.

East-West Revisited: Is Holistic Thinking Relational Thinking?

People often think about counterfactual possibilities to an event and imagine how it could have been otherwise. The study of how this occurs is central to many areas of cognitive science, including decision making, social cognition, and causal judgment; however, modeling the memory processes at play in naturalistic counterfactual retrieval has been difficult. We use established memory models to evaluate and compare multiple mechanisms that could be involved in counterfactual retrieval. Our models are able to capture nuanced dynamics of retrieval (e.g. how retrieved counterfactuals cue subsequent counterfactuals), and can predict the effects of retrieval on evaluations and decisions. In doing so, we show how existing theories of counterfactual thinking can be combined with quantitative models of memory search to provide new insights about the formation and consequences of counterfactual thought.

Dynamics of Counterfactual Retrieval

Competence and morality are two of the most important dimensions in social evaluation. Recent studies have suggested the primacy of morality, showing that information about immorality of an ordinary target person decreases evaluation of their competence. We examined the effect of moral taint on multiple non-moral judgments: ratings of the competence, accomplishment, and contribution of fictitious professionals who were described as highly successful in various fields. Moral taint significantly decreased participants’ non-moral social evaluations of professionals regardless of their field. Mediation analyses showed that the negative impact of immoral character on competence judgments is more strongly mediated by the decrease in participants’ psychological involvement with the target, rather than a decrease in perceived social intelligence of the target. These findings suggest that motivation to distance oneself from immoral others plays a critical role in the revision of social evaluations.

Disgraced Professionals: Revelation of Immorality Decreases Evaluations of Professionals’ Competence and Contribution

Across 3 studies, we investigated children's ability to consider hypothetical interventions to complex and dynamic causal systems. Five- to 7-year-olds learned about novel food chains and were asked about the effects of the removal of one species on others in the food chain. In Studies 1 (n = 72) and 2 (n = 72), 6- and 7-year-olds made correct inferences about the effects on remaining species, but performed better when reasoning about direct predators or prey than indirectly-connected species. Five-year-olds' performance was at chance across all question types. In Study 3 (n = 65, target n = 72), we are currently investigating whether 5-7-year-old children’s performance improves when given more background information on the causal dynamics of the food chains. The results indicate that hypothetical thinking about dynamic causal systems develops between 5 and 7 years. This ability may be leveraged for teaching science concepts.

Children’s reasoning about hypothetical interventions to complex and dynamic causal systems

Congenital amusia of pitch (tone-deafness), which affects ~1.5% of the population, involves a deficit in pitch processing affecting the perception of musical melody and some speech contrasts. Lay-knowledge of tone-deafness considers the phenomenon to be categorical, as does prior work contrasting ‘amusics’ to ‘controls’, designated as such by thresholds on diagnostic tests. Is amusia a qualitative break from normal pitch discrimination, or does it represent the extreme end of a distributed skill? Large-scale datasets, combined with theoretically motivated tools for extracting latent measures of ability, can answer this question. We studied individual differences in pitch discrimination in 700,000 people using Bayesian hierarachical diffusion models. We found no evidence for a categorical deficit: pitch perception ability was normally and continuously distributed. We additionally report preliminary findings on pitch perception ability as a function of age, gender, native language, musical experience, and self-assessments of tone-deafness.

Am I tone-deaf? Assessing pitch discrimination in 700,000 people

The study analyzed the effect of 2-year systematic chess training on the IQ of schoolchildren. A pretest–posttest with control group design was used with randomly selected children studying in four city schools (grades 3–9), of both genders. The experimental group (N = 80) underwent weekly chess training for 2 years, while the control group (N = 77) was involved in extracurricular activities offered in school such as cricket, football, and hockey. Both the groups were involved in these activities after school hours. Intelligence was measured by Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV INDIA). Assessment was carried out prior to the chess training, after 1 and 2 years of training. ANCOVA revealed significant increase in both first- and second-year scores by about 12 points across both the years. When systematic in-school chess training program is offered, one could expect a significant increase in IQ.

MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE THROUGH CHESS TRAINING-A TWO YEAR EMPIRICAL STUDY

A deep understanding of any phenomenon requires knowing how its causal elements are related to one another. Here, we examine whether children recognize similar causal structures across superficially distinct events. We presented 4- to 7-year-olds with three-variable narratives in which story events unfold according to a causal chain or a common effect structure. We then asked children to make judgments about which stories are the most similar. Results indicate that the ability to recognize and use abstract causal structure as a metric of similarity develops gradually between the ages of 4 and 7: While we find no evidence that 4-year-olds recognize the common causal structure between events, 7-year-olds have a relatively mature understanding of causal system categories when making similarity judgements. Five- and 6-year-olds show mixed success. We discuss these findings in light of children’s developing causal and abstract reasoning and propose directions for future work.

Try smarter, not harder: Exploration and strategy diversity are related to infant persistence

Downloads

Next from CogSci 2021

Structural Comparisons of Noun and Verb Networks in the Mental Lexicon

Similar lecture

How We (STEM Programs) Got Here

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES