Cognitive Psychology, A Students Handbook

“This edition of Eysenck and Keane has further enhanced the status of
Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, as a high benchmark that

other textbooks on this topic fail to achieve. It is informative and innova-
tive, without losing any of its hallmark coverage and readability.”
Professor Robert Logie, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language
Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
“The best student’s handbook on cognitive psychology – an indispensable

volume brought up-to-date in this latest edition. It explains everything from
low-level vision to high-level consciousness, and it can serve as an introduc-
tory text.”
Professor Philip Johnson-Laird, Stuart Professor of Psychology, Emeritus,
Princeton University, United States
“I first read Eysenck and Keane’s Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s

Handbook in its third edition, during my own undergraduate studies. Over
the course of its successive editions since then, the content – like the field of
cognition itself – has evolved and grown to encompass current trends, novel
approaches and supporting learning resources. It remains, in my opinion,
the gold standard for cognitive psychology textbooks.”
Dr Richard Roche, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Maynooth
University, Ireland
“Eysenck and Keane have once again done an excellent job, not only in
terms of keeping the textbook up-to-date with the latest studies, issues and
debates; but also by making the content even more accessible and clear
without compromising accuracy or underestimating the reader’s intelligence.
After all these years, this book remains an essential tool for students of cog-
nitive psychology, covering the topic in the appropriate breadth and depth.”
Dr Gerasimos Markopoulos, Senior Lecturer, School of Science, Bath Spa
University, United Kingdom
“Eysenck and Keane’s popular textbook offers comprehensive coverage of

what psychology students need to know about human cognition. The text-
book introduces the core topics of cognitive psychology that serve as the
fundamental building blocks to our understanding of human behaviour.
The authors integrate contemporary developments in the field and provide
an accessible entry to neighboring disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience
and neuropsychology.”
Dr Motonori Yamaguchi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology,
University of Essex, United Kingdom
9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 1 28/02/20 2:15 PM

“The eighth edition of Cognitive Psychology by Eysenck and Keane pro-
vides possibly the most comprehensive coverage of cognition currently
available. The text is clear and easy to read with clear links to theory across
the chapters. A real highlight is the creative use of up-to-date real-world
examples throughout the book.”
Associate Professor Rhonda Shaw, Head of the School of Psychology,
Charles Sturt University, Australia
“Unmatched in breadth and scope, it is the authoritative textbook on cog-

nitive psychology. It outlines the history and major developments within
the field, while discussing state-of-the-art experimental research in depth.
The integration of online resources keeps the material fresh and engaging.”
Associate Professor Søren Risløv Staugaard, Department of Psychology and
Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark
“Eysenck and Keane’s Cognitive Psychology provides comprehensive topic

coverage and up-to-date research. The writing style is concise and easy to
follow, which makes the book suitable for both undergraduate and gradu-
ate students. The authors use real-life examples that are easily relatable to
students, making the book very enjoyable to read.”
Associate Professor Lin Agler, School of Psychology, University of Southern
Mississippi Gulf Coast, United States

Cognitive Psychology
The fully updated eighth edition of Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s

Handbook provides comprehensive yet accessible coverage of all the key
areas in the field ranging from visual perception and attention through to
memory and language. Each chapter is complete with key definitions, prac-
tical real-life applications, chapter summaries and suggested further reading
to help students develop an understanding of this fascinating but complex
field.
The new edition includes:
● an increased emphasis on neuroscience

● updated references to reflect the latest research
● applied ‘in the real world’ case studies and examples.
Widely regarded as the leading undergraduate textbook in the field of

cognitive psychology, this new edition comes complete with an enhanced
accompanying companion website. The website includes a suite of learning
resources including simulation experiments, multiple-choice questions, and
access to Primal Pictures’ interactive 3D atlas of the brain. The companion
website can be accessed at: www.routledge.com/cw/eysenck.
Michael W. Eysenck is Professor Emeritus in Psychology at Royal

Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom. He is also Professorial
Fellow at Roehampton University, London. He is the best-selling author
of several textbooks including Fundamentals of Cognition (2018), Memory
(with Alan Baddeley and Michael Anderson, 2020) and Fundamentals of
Psychology (2009).
Mark T. Keane is Chair of Computer Science at University College Dublin,

Ireland.

Visit the Companion Website
to access a range of interactive
teaching and learning resources
Includes access to Primal Pictures’

interactive 3D brain
www.routledge.com/cw/eysenck
PRIMAL PICTURES
Revolutionizing medical education with anatomical solutions to fit every need
For over 27 years, Primal Pictures has led the way in offering premier 3D digital human anatomy solutions,
transforming how educators teach and students learn the complexities of human anatomy and medicine.
Our pioneering scientific approach puts quality, accuracy and detail at the heart of everything we do.
Primal’s experts have created the world’s most medically accurate and detailed 3D reconstruction of human
anatomy using real scan data from the NLM Visible Human Project®, as well as CT images and MRIs. With
advanced academic research and thousands of development hours underpinning its creation, our model
surpasses all other anatomical resources available.
To learn more about Primal’s cutting-edge solution for better learning outcomes and increased student
engagement visit www.primalpictures.com/students

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
A Student’s Handbook
Eighth Edition
MICHAEL W. EYSENCK
AND MARK T. KEANE

Eighth edition published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Michael W. Eysenck and Mark T. Keane
The right of Michael W. Eysenck and Mark T. Keane to be
identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1984
Seventh edition Published by Routledge 2015
Every effort has been made to contact copyright-holders.
Please advise the publisher of any errors or omissions, and
these will be corrected in subsequent editions.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-13848-221-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-13848-223-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-35105-851-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire
Visit the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/eysenck.

To Christine with love
(M.W.E.)
What moves science forward is argument, debate,

and the testing of alternative theories . . . A science without
controversy is a science without progress.
(Jerry Coyne)

Taylor& Francis
Taylor & Francis Group
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Contents
List of illustrations xiv

Preface xxix
Visual tour (how to use this book) xxxi
1 Approaches to human cognition 1

Introduction 1
Cognitive psychology 3
Cognitive neuropsychology 7
Cognitive neuroscience: the brain in action 12
Computational cognitive science 26
Comparisons of major approaches 33
Is there a replication crisis? 34
Outline of this book 36
Chapter summary 37
Further reading 39
PART I
Visual perception and attention 41
2 Basic processes in visual perception 43

Introduction 43
Vision and the brain 44
Two visual systems: perception-action model 55
Colour vision 64
Depth perception 71
Perception without awareness: subliminal perception 81
Chapter summary 90
Further reading 92
3 Object and face recognition 94

Introduction 94
Pattern recognition 95
Perceptual organisation 96

x Contents
Approaches to object recognition 103

Object recognition: top-down processes 111
Face recognition 116
Visual imagery 130
Chapter summary 137
Further reading 139
4 Motion perception and action 140

Introduction 140
Direct perception 141
Visually guided movement 145
Visually guided action: contemporary approaches 152
Perception of human motion 157
Change blindness 163
Chapter summary 175
Further reading 176
5 Attention and performance 178

Introduction 178
Focused auditory attention 179
Focused visual attention 183
Disorders of visual attention 196
Visual search 200
Cross-modal effects 208
Divided attention: dual-task performance 212
“Automatic” processing 226
Chapter summary 231
Further reading 233
PART II
Memory 237
6 Learning, memory and forgetting 239

Introduction 239
Short-term vs long-term memory 240
Working memory: Baddeley and Hitch 246
Working memory: individual differences and executive
functions 254
Levels of processing (and beyond) 262
Learning through retrieval 265
Implicit learning 269
Forgetting from long-term memory 278
Chapter summary 293
Further reading 295

Contents xi
7 Long-term memory systems 296

Introduction 296
Declarative memory 300
Episodic memory 305
Semantic memory 313
Non-declarative memory 325
Beyond memory systems and declarative vs non-declarative
memory 332
Chapter summary 340
Further reading 342
8 Everyday memory 344

Introduction 344
Autobiographical memory: introduction 346
Memories across the lifetime 351
Theoretical approaches to autobiographical memory 355
Eyewitness testimony 363
Enhancing eyewitness memory 372
Prospective memory 375
Theoretical perspectives on prospective memory 381
Chapter summary 389
Further reading 391
PART III
Language 393
9 Speech perception and reading 403

Introduction 403
Speech (and music) perception 404
Listening to speech 408
Context effects 412
Theories of speech perception 417
Cognitive neuropsychology 429
Reading: introduction 432
Word recognition 436
Reading aloud 442
Reading: eye-movement research 453
Chapter summary 457
Further reading 460
10 Language comprehension 461

Introduction 461
Parsing: overview 462
Theoretical approaches: parsing and prediction 464
Pragmatics 478

xii Contents
Individual differences: working memory capacity 487

Discourse processing: inferences 490
Discourse comprehension: theoretical approaches 498
Chapter summary 510
Further reading 512
11 Language production 514

Introduction 514
Basic aspects of speech production 516
Speech planning 519
Speech errors 521
Theories of speech production 525
Cognitive neuropsychology: speech production 536
Speech as communication 543
Writing: the main processes 549
Spelling 558
Chapter summary 564
Further reading 566
PART IV
Thinking and reasoning 569
12 Problem solving and expertise 573

Introduction 573
Problem solving: introduction 574
Gestalt approach and beyond: insight and role of experience 576
Problem-solving strategies 588
Analogical problem solving and reasoning 593
Expertise 600
Chess-playing expertise 601
Medical expertise 604
Brain plasticity 609
Deliberate practice and beyond 612
Chapter summary 619
Further reading 621
13 Judgement and decision-making 622

Introduction 622
Judgement research 623
Theories of judgement 633
Decision-making under risk 640
Decision-making: emotional and social factors 649
Applied and complex decision-making 654
Chapter summary 663
Further reading 665

Contents xiii
14 Reasoning and hypothesis testing 666

Introduction 666
Hypothesis testing 667
Deductive reasoning 672
Theories of “deductive” reasoning 680
Brain systems in reasoning 690
Informal reasoning 694
Are humans rational? 701
Chapter summary 708
Further reading 710
PART V
Broadening horizons 713
15 Cognition and emotion 715

Introduction 715
Appraisal theories 719
Emotion regulation 723
Affect and cognition: attention and memory 730
Affect and cognition: judgement and decision-making 738
Judgement and decision-making: theoretical approaches 750
Anxiety, depression and cognitive biases 753
Cognitive bias modification and beyond 761
Chapter summary 764
Further reading 766
16 Consciousness 767
Introduction 767
Functions of consciousness 768
Assessing consciousness and conscious experience 775
Global workspace and global neuronal workspace theories 783
Is consciousness unitary? 792
Chapter summary 798
Further reading 799
Glossary 801
References 824
Author index 915
Subject index 931

Illustrations
TABLES
1.1 Approaches to human cognition 3
1.2 Major techniques used to study the brain 16
1.3 Strengths and limitations of major approaches to human
cognition 35
11.1 Involvement of working memory components in various
writing processes 556
15.1 Effects of anxiety and depression on attentional bias
(engagement and disengagement) 757
PHOTOS
Chapter 1
• Max Coltheart 8
• The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner 18
• Transcranial magnetic stimulation coil 21
• The IBM Watson and two human contestants
(Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter) 27
Chapter 3
• Irving Biederman 107
• Heather Sellers 118
Chapter 6
• Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch 246
• Endel Tulving 287
Chapter 7
• Henry Molaison 297
Chapter 8
• Jill Price 348
• World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 349
• Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton 364

Illustrations xv
Chapter 11
• Iris Murdoch 550
Chapter 12
• Monty Hall 575
• Fernand Gobet 602
• Magnus Carlsen 613
Chapter 13
• Pat Croskerry 625
• Nik Wallenda 647
FIGURES
1.1 An early version of the information processing approach 4
1.2 Diagram to demonstrate top–down processing 4
1.3 Test yourself by naming the colours in each column 5
1.4 The four lobes, or divisions, of the cerebral cortex in the left
hemisphere 13
1.5 Brodmann brain areas on the lateral and medial surfaces 13
1.6 The brain network and cost efficiency 14
1.7 The organisation of the “rich club” 15
1.8 The spatial and temporal resolution of major techniques and
methods used to study brain functioning 17
1.9 Areas showing greater activation in a dead salmon when
presented with photographs of people than when at rest 25
1.10 The primitive mock neuroimaging device used by Ali et al.
(2014) 26
1.11 Architecture of a basic three-layer connectionist network 28
1.12 The main modules of the ACT-R cognitive architecture with
their locations within the brain 30
1.13 The basic structure of the standard model of the mind
involving five independent modules 31
2.1 Complex scene that requires prolonged perceptual processing
to understand fully 43
2.2 Route of visual signals 45
2.3 Simultaneous contrast involving lateral inhibition 46
2.4 Some distinctive features of the largest visual cortical areas 47
2.5 Connectivity within the ventral pathway on the lateral surface
of the macaque brain 48
2.6 (a) The single hierarchical model; (b) the parallel hierarchical
model; (c) the three parallel hierarchical feedforward systems
model 49
2.7 The percentage of cells in six different visual cortical areas
responding selectively to orientation, direction of motion,
disparity and colour 52
2.8 Visual motion inputs 53
2.9 Goodale and Milner’s (1992) perception-action model showing
the dorsal and ventral streams 56
2.10 Lesion overlap in patients with optic ataxia 57

xvi Illustrations
2.11 The Müller-Lyer illusion 58

2.12 The Ebbinghaus illusion 59
2.13 The hollow-face illusion. Left: normal and hollow faces with
small target magnets on the forehead and cheek of the normal
face; right: front view of the hollow mask that appears as an
illusory face projecting forwards 60
2.14 Disruption of size judgements when estimated perceptually
(estimation) or produced by grasping (grasping) in full or
restricted vision 61
2.15 Historical developments in theories linking perception and
action 63
2.16 Schematic diagram of the early stages of neural colour
processing 66
2.17 Photograph of a mug showing enormous variation in the
properties of the reflected light across the mug’s surface 67
2.18 “The Dress” made famous by its appearance on the internet 69
2.19 Observers’ perceptions of “The Dress” 69
2.20 An engraving by de Vries (1604/1970) in which linear
perspective creates an effective three-dimensional effect
when viewed from very close but not from further away 72
2.21 Examples of texture gradients that can be perceived as surfaces
receding into the distance 73
2.22 Kanizsa’s (1976) illusory square 73
2.23 Accuracy of size judgements as a function of object type 78
2.24 (a) A representation of the Ames room; (b) an actual Ames
room showing the effect achieved with two adults 79
2.25 Perceived distance. Top: stimuli presented to participants;
bottom: example of the stimulus display 81
2.26 The body size effect: what participants in the doll experiment
could see 81
2.27 Estimated contributions of conscious and subconscious
processing to GY’s performance in exclusion and inclusion
conditions in his normal and blind fields 84
2.28 The areas of most relevance to blindsight are the lateral
geniculate nucleus and middle temporal visual area 86
2.29 The relationship between response bias in reporting conscious
awareness and enhanced N200 on no-awareness correct trials
compared to no-awareness incorrect trials (UC) 89
3.1 The kind of stimulus used by Navon (1977) to demonstrate
the importance of global features in perception 95
3.2 The CAPTCHA used by Yahoo 97
3.3 The FBI’s mistaken identification of the Madrid bomber 98
3.4 Examples of the Gestalt laws of perceptual organisation:
(a) the law of proximity; (b) the law of similarity; (c) the law
of good continuation; and (d) the law of closure 99
3.5 An ambiguous drawing that can be seen as either two faces
or as a goblet 100
3.6 The tendency to perceive an array of empty circles as (A)
a rotated square or (B) a diamond 101
3.7 A task to decide which region in each stimulus is the figure 102

Illustrations xvii
3.8 High and low spatial frequency versions of a place

(a building) 104
3.9 Image of Mona Lisa revealing very low spatial frequencies
(left), low spatial frequencies (centre) and high spatial
frequencies (right) 105
3.10 An outline of Biederman’s recognition-by-components theory 107
3.11 Ambiguous figures 112
3.12 A brick wall that can be seen as something else 114
3.13 Object recognition involving two different routes: (1) a top-
down route in which information proceeds rapidly to the
orbitofrontal cortex; (2) a bottom-up route using the slower
ventral visual stream 115
3.14 Interactive-iterative framework for object recognition 115
3.15 Recognising an elephant when a key feature (its trunk) is
partially hidden 116
3.16 Accuracy and speed of object recognition for birds, boats,
cars, chairs and faces by patient GG and healthy controls 120
3.17 Face-selective areas in the right hemisphere 121
3.18 An array of 40 faces to be matched for identity 124
3.19 The model of face recognition put forward by Bruce and
Young (1986) 126
3.20 Damage to regions of the inferior occipito-temporal cortex,
the anterior inferior temporal cortex and the anterior
temporal pole 127
3.21 The approximate locations of the visual buffer in BA17 and
BA18, of long-term memories of shapes in the inferior
temporal lobe, and of spatial representations in the posterior
parietal cortex 132
3.22 Dwell time for the four quadrants of a picture during
perception and imagery 133
3.23 Slezak’s (1991, 1995) investigations into the effects of rotation
on object recognition 134
3.24 The extent to which perceived or imagined objects could be
classified accurately on the basis of brain activity in the early
visual cortex and object-selective cortex 135
3.25 Connectivity during perception and imagery involving
(a) bottom-up processing; and (b) top-down processing 135
4.1 The optic-flow field as a pilot comes in to land, with the focus
of expansion in the middle 142
4.2 Graspable and non-graspable objects having similar
asymmetrical features 143
4.3 The visual features of a road viewed in perspective 147
4.4 The far road “triangle” in (A) a left turn and (B) a right
turn 148
4.5 Errors in time-to-contact judgements for the smaller and the
larger object as a function of whether they were presented in
their standard size, the reverse size (off-size) or lacking texture
(no-texture) 150
4.6 The dorso-dorsal and ventro-dorsal streams showing their
brain locations and forms of processing 156

xviii Illustrations
4.7 Point-light sequences (a) with the walker visible and (b) with
the walker not visible 157
4.8 Human detection and discrimination efficiency for human
walkers presented in contour, point lights, silhouette and
skeleton 158
4.9 Brain areas involved in biological motion processing 159
4.10 The main brain areas associated with the mirror neuron
system plus their interconnections 161
4.11 The unicycling clown who cycled close to students walking
across a large square 164
4.12 The sequence of events in the disappearing lighter trick 166
4.13 Participants’ fixation points at the time of dropping the
lighter 166
4.14 Change blindness: an example 168
4.15 (a) Percentage of correct change detection as a function of
form of change and time of fixation; also false alarm rate when
there was no change. (b) Mean percentage correct change
detection as a function of the number of fixations between
target fixation and change of target and form of change 169
4.16 (a) Change-detection accuracy as a function of task difficulty
and visual eccentricity. (b) The eccentricity at which change-
detection accuracy was 85% correct as a function of task
difficulty 170
4.17 An example of inattentional blindness: a woman in a gorilla
suit in the middle of a game of passing the ball 172
4.18 An example of inattentional blindness: the sequence of events
on the initial baseline trials and the critical trial 174
5.1 A comparison of Broadbent’s theory, Treisman’s theory, and
Deutsch and Deutsch’s theory 181
5.2 Split attention. (a) Shaded areas indicate the cued locations;
the near and far locations are not cued. (b) Probability of
target detection at valid (left or right) and invalid (near or
far) locations 185
5.3 A comparison of object-based and space-based attention 187
5.4 Object-based and space-based attention. (a) Possible target
locations for a given cue. (b) Performance accuracy at the
various target locations 188
5.5 Sample displays for three low perceptual load conditions
in which the task required deciding whether a target X or N
was presented 190
5.6 The brain areas associated with the dorsal or goal-directed
attention network and the ventral or stimulus-driven network 193
5.7 A theoretical approach based on several functional networks
of relevance to attention: fronto-parietal; default mode;
cingulo-opercular; and ventral attention 195
5.8 An example of object-centred or allocentric neglect 197
5.9 Illegal and dangerous items captured by an airport security
screener 201
5.10 Frequency of selection and identification errors when targets
were present at trials 201

Illustrations xix
5.11 Performance speed on a detection task as a function of target

definition (conjunctive vs single feature) and display size 203
5.12 Eye fixations made by observers searching for pedestrians 204
5.13 A two-pathway model of visual search 205
5.14 An example of a visual search task when considering feature
integration theory 208
5.15 An example of temporal ventriloquism in which the apparent
time of onset of a flash is shifted towards that of a sound
presented at a slightly different timing from the flash 210
5.16 Wickens’s four-dimensional multiple-resource model 216
5.17 Threaded cognition theory 218
5.18 Patterns of brain activation: (a) underadditive activation;
(b) additive activation; (c) overadditive activation 220
5.19 Effects of an audio distraction task on brain activity associated
with a straight driving task 221
5.20 Dual-task (auditory and visual tasks) and single-task (auditory
or visual task) conditions: reaction times for correct responses
only over eight experimental sessions 224
5.21 Response times on a decision task as a function of
memory-set size, display-set size and consistent vs
varied mapping 227
5.22 Factors that are hypothesised to influence representational
quality within Moors’ (2016) theoretical approach 229
6.1 The multi-store model of memory as proposed by Atkinson
and Shiffrin (1968) 240
6.2 Short-term memory performance in conditions designed to
create interference (repeated condition) or minimise
interference (unique condition) 243
6.3 The working memory model showing the connections among
its four components and their relationship to long-term
memory 246
6.4 Phonological loop system as envisaged by Baddeley (1990) 248
6.5 Sites where direct electrical stimulation disrupted digit-span
performance 249
6.6 Amount of interference on a spatial task and a visual task
as a function of a secondary task (spatial: movement vs visual:
colour discrimination) 250
6.7 Screen displays for the digit 6 253
6.8 Mean reaction times quintile-by-quintile on the anti-saccade
task by groups high and low in working memory capacity 256
6.9 Schematic representation of the unity and diversity of three
executive functions 259
6.10 Activated brain regions across all executive functions in a
meta-analysis of 193 studies 260
6.11 Recognition memory performance as a function of processing
depth (shallow vs deep) for three types of stimuli: doors,
clocks, and menus 263
6.12 Distinctiveness. Percentage recall of the critical item
(e.g., kiwi) and of the preceding and following items in the
encoding, retrieval and control conditions 264

xx Illustrations
6.13 (a) Restudy causes strengthening of the memory trace formed

after initial study; (b) testing with feedback causes strengthening
of the memory trace; and (c) the formation of a second
memory trace 266
6.14 (a) Final recall for restudy-only and test-restudy group
participants; (b) recall performance in the CMR group as a
function of whether the mediators were or were not
retrieved 267
6.15 Mean recall percentage in Session 2 on Test 1 and Test 2 as
function of retrieval practice or restudy practice in Session 1 268
6.16 Schematic representation of a traditional keyboard 270
6.17 Mean number of completions in inclusion and exclusion
conditions as a function of number of trials 273
6.18 Response times for participants showing a sudden drop
in reaction times or not showing such a drop 273
6.19 The striatum is of central importance in implicit learning 274
6.20 A model of motor sequence learning 275
6.21 Sequential motor skill learning dependencies 276
6.22 Skilled typists’ performance when tested on a traditional
keyboard 277
6.23 Forgetting over time as indexed by reduced savings 279
6.24 Methods of testing for proactive and retroactive interference 281
6.25 Percentage of items recalled over time for the conditions:
no proactive interference, remember and forget 282
6.26 Percentage of words correctly recalled across 32 articles
in the respond, baseline and suppress conditions 286
6.27 Proportion of words recalled in high- and low-overload
conditions with intra-list cues, strong extra-list cues and weak
extra-list cues 289
7.1 Damage to brain areas within and close to the medial
temporal lobes producing amnesia 298
7.2 The standard account based on dividing long-term memory
into two broad classes: declarative and non-declarative 300
7.3 Interactions between episodic memories, semantic memories
and gist memories 305
7.4 (a) Locations of the hippocampus, the perirhinal cortex and
the parahippocampal cortex; (b) the binding-of-item-and-
context model 307
7.5 (A) Left lateral, (B), medial and (C) anterior views of
prefrontal areas having greater activation to familiarity-based
than recollection-based processes and areas showing the
opposite pattern 309
7.6 Sample pictures on the recognition-memory test 309
7.7 (A) Areas activated for both episodic simulation and episodic
memory; (B) areas more activated for episodic simulation than
episodic memory 312
7.8 Accuracy of (a) object categorisation and (b) speed of
categorisation at the superordinate, basic and subordinate
levels 315
7.9 The hub-and-spoke model 319

Illustrations xxi
7.10 Performance accuracy on tool function and tool manipulation

tasks with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the
anterior temporal lobe or to the inferior parietal lobule and in
a control condition 321
7.11 Categorisation performance for pictures and words by
healthy controls and patients with semantic dementia 324
7.12 Percentages of priming effect and recognition-memory
performance of healthy controls and patients 326
7.13 Brain regions showing repetition suppression or response
enhancement in a meta-analysis 328
7.14 Mean reaction times on the serial reaction time task by
Parkinson’s disease patients and healthy controls 330
7.15 A processing-based memory model 334
7.16 Recognition memory for faces presented and tested in a
fixed or variable viewpoint 335
7.17 Brain areas whose activity during episodic learning predicted
increased recognition-memory performance (task-positive) or
decreased performance (task-negative) 337
7.18 A three-dimensional model of memory: (1) conceptually
or perceptually driven; (2) relational or item stimulus
representation; (3) controlled or automatic/involuntary
intention 339
7.19 Process-specific alliances including the left angular gyrus are
involved in recollection of episodic memories and semantic
processing 339
8.1 Brain regions activated by autobiographical, episodic retrieval
and mentalising tasks including regions of overlap 347
8.2 Number of internal details specific to an autobiographical
event recalled at various time delays (by controls and
individuals with highly superior autobiographical memory) 348
8.3 Childhood amnesia based on data reported by Rubin and
Schulkind (1997) 352
8.4 Temporal distribution of autobiographical memories across
the lifespan 354
8.5 The knowledge structures within autobiographical memory,
as proposed by Conway (2005) 357
8.6 The mean number of events participants could remember from
the past 5 days and those they imagined were likely over the
next 5 days 358
8.7 A model of the bidirectional relationships between neural
networks involved in the construction and/or elaboration of
autobiographical memories 360
8.8 Life structure scores (proportion negative,
compartmentalisation, positive redundancy, negative
redundancy) for patients with major depressive disorder,
patients in remission from major depressive disorder
and healthy controls 361
8.9 Four cognitive biases related to autobiographical memory
recall that maintain depression and increase the risk of
recurrence following remission 362

xxii Illustrations
8.10 Examples of Egyptian and UK face-matching arrays 366

8.11 Size of the misinformation effect as a function of detail
memorability in the neutral condition 367
8.12 Extent of misinformation effects as a function of condition
for the original memory and endorsement of the
misinformation presented previously 371
8.13 Eyewitness identification: test of face-recognition
performance 371
8.14 A model of the component processes involved in prospective
memory 378
8.15 Mean failures to resume an interrupted task and mean
resumption times for the conditions: no-interruption,
blank-screen interruption and secondary air traffic control
task interruption 379
8.16 Self-reported memory vividness, memory details and
confidence in memory for individuals with good and poor
inhibitory control before and after repeated checking 381
8.17 The dual-pathways model of prospective memory (based
on the multi-process framework) for non-focal and focal tasks
separately 383
8.18 Example 1: top-down monitoring processes operating in
isolation. Example 2: bottom-up spontaneous retrieval processes
operating in isolation. Example 3: dual processes operating
dynamically 383
8.19 (a) Sustained and (b) transient activity in the (c) left anterior
prefrontal cortex for non-focal and focal prospective memory
tasks 385
8.20 Frequency of cue-driven monitoring following the presentation
of semantically related or unrelated cues 386
8.21 Different ways the instruction to press Q for fruit words was
encoded 388
9.1 (a) Areas activated during passive music listening and passive
speech listening; (b) areas activated more by listening to music
than speech or the opposite 406
9.2 The main processes involved in speech perception and
comprehension 407
9.3 A hierarchical approach to speech segmentation involving
three levels or tiers 410
9.4 A model of spoken-word comprehension 412
9.5 Gaze probability for critical objects over the first 1,000 ms
since target word onset for target neutral, competitor
neutral, competitor constraining and unrelated neutral
conditions 414
9.6 Mean target duration required for target recognition for words
and sounds presented in isolation or within a general sentence
context 420
9.7 The basic TRACE model, showing how activation between the
three levels (word, phoneme and feature) is influenced by
bottom-up and top-down processing. 421

Illustrations xxiii
9.8 (a) Actual eye fixations on the object corresponding to a

spoken word or related to it; (b) predicted eye fixations from
the TRACE model 422
9.9 Mean reaction times for recognition of /t/ and /k/ phonemes
in words and non-words 423
9.10 Fixation proportions to high-frequency target words during
the first 1,000 ms after target onset 428
9.11 A sample display showing two nouns (“bench” and “rug”)
and two verbs (“pray” and “run”). 428
9.12 Processing and repetition of spoken words according to the
three-route framework 430
9.13 A general framework of the processes and structures involved
in reading comprehension 433
9.14 Estimated reading ability over a 30-month period with initial
testing at a mean age of 66 months for English, Spanish and
Czech children 434
9.15 McClelland and Rumelhart’s (1981) interactive activation
model of visual word recognition 437
9.16 The time course of inhibitory and facilitatory effects of
priming 440
9.17 Basic architecture of the dual-route cascaded model 443
9.18 The three components of the triangle model and their
associated neural regions: orthography, phonology
and semantics 448
9.19 Mean naming latencies for high-frequency and
low-frequency words that were irregular or regular
and inconsistent 451
9.20 Key assumptions of the E-Z Reader model 455
10.1 Total sentence processing time as a function of sentence
type 471
10.2 A model of language processing involving heuristic and
algorithmic routes 473
10.3 Sentence reading times as a function of the way in which
comprehension was assessed: detailed questions; superficial
questions on all trials; or occasional superficial questions 474
10.4 The N400 responses to a critical word in correct and
incorrect sentences 476
10.5 Response times for literally false, scrambled metaphor, and
metaphor sentences in (a) written and (b) spoken conditions) 480
10.6 Mean reaction times to verify metaphor-relevant and
metaphor-irrelevant properties 482
10.7 Mean proportion of statements rated comprehensible with a
response deadline of 500 or 1600 ms: literal, forward
metaphors, reversed metaphors and scrambled metaphors 483
10.8 Sample displays seen from the listener’s perspective 485
10.9 Proportion of fixation on four objects over time 486
10.10 A theoretical framework for reading comprehension
involving interacting passive and reader-initiated
processes 492

xxiv Illustrations
10.11 Reaction times to name colours when the word presented in

colour was predictable from the preceding text compared to a
control condition 496
10.12 The construction–integration model 502
10.13 Forgetting functions for situation, proposition and surface
information over a 4-day period 503
10.14 The RI-Val model showing the effects on comprehension of
resonance, integration and validation over time 506
11.1 Brain areas activated during speech comprehension and
production 517
11.2 Correlations between aphasic patients’ speech-production
abilities and their ability to detect their own speech-production
errors 524
11.3 Speech-production processes for picture naming, with
median peak activation times 532
11.4 Speech-production processes: the timing of activation
associated with different cognitive functions 534
11.5 Language-related regions and their connections in the left
hemisphere 536
11.6 Semantic and syntactic errors made by: healthy controls and
patients with no damage to the dorsal or ventral pathway,
damage to the ventral pathway only, damage to the dorsal
pathway only and damage to both pathways 540
11.7 A sample array with six different garments coloured blue
or green 544
11.8 Architecture of the forward modelling approach to explaining
audience design effects 546
11.9 Hayes’ (2012) writing model: (1) control level; (2) writing
process level; and (3) resource level 552
11.10 The frequency of three major writing processes (planning,
translating and revising) across the three phases of writing 553
11.11 Kellogg’s three-stage theory of the development of
writing skill 554
11.12 Brain areas activated during handwriting tasks 559
11.13 The cognitive architectures for (a) reading and (b) spelling 560
11.14 Brain areas in the left hemisphere associated with reading,
letter perception and writing 563
12.1 Explanation of the solution to the Monty Hall problem 575
12.2 Brain areas involved in (a) mathematical problem solving; (b)
verbal problem solving; (c) visuo-spatial problem solving; and
(d) areas common to all three problem types (conjunction) 577
12.3 The mutilated draughtboard problem 577
12.4 Flow chart of insight problem solving 580
12.5 (a) The nine-dot problem and (b) its solution 580
12.6 Two of the matchstick problems used by Knoblich et al. (1999)
with cumulative solution rates 581
12.7 The multiplying billiard balls trick 582
12.8 The two-string problem 583
12.9 Some of the materials for participants instructed to mount a
candle on a vertical wall in Duncker’s (1945) study 585

Illustrations xxv
12.10 Mean percentages of correct solutions as a function of

problem type and working memory capacity 587
12.11 The initial state of the five-disc version of the Tower of Hanoi
problem 588
12.12 Tower of London task (two-move and five-move problems) 590
12.13 A problem resembling those used on the Raven’s Progressive
Matrices 594
12.14 Relational reasoning: the probabilities of successful encoding,
inferring, mapping and applying for lower and high
performers 597
12.15 Major processes involved in performance of numerous
cognitive tasks 598
12.16 Summary of key brain regions and their associated functions
in relational reasoning based on patient and neuroimaging
studies 599
12.17 Mean strength of the first-mentioned chess move and the
move chosen as a function of problem difficulty by experts
and by tournament players 603
12.18 A theoretical framework of the main cognitive processes and
potential errors in medical decision-making 605
12.19 Eye fixations of a pathologist given the same biopsy
whole-slide image (a) starting in year 1 and (d) ending
in year 4 606
12.20 Brain activation while diagnosing lesions in X-rays, naming
animals and naming letters 608
12.21 Brain image showing areas in the primary motor cortex with
differences in relative voxel size between trained children and
non-trained controls: (a) changes in relative voxel size over time;
(b) correlation between improvement in motor-test performance
and change in relative voxel size 611
12.22 Brain image showing areas in the primary auditory area with
differences in relative voxel size between trained children and
non-trained controls: (a) changes in relative voxel size over time;
(b) correlation between improvement in a melody-rhythm test
and change in relative voxel size 612
12.23 Mean chess ratings of candidates, non-candidate grandmasters
and all non-grandmasters as a function of number of games
played 616
12.24 The main factors (genetic and environmental) influencing the
development of expertise 617
13.1 Percentages of correct responses and various incorrect
responses with the false-positive and benign cyst scenarios 627
13.2 Percentage of correct predictions of the judged frequencies of
different causes of death based on the affect heuristic (overall
dread score), affect heuristic and availability 628
13.3 Percentage of correct inferences on four tasks 632
13.4 A hypothetical value function 642
13.5 Ratings of competence satisfaction for the sunk-cost option
and the alternative option for those selecting each option 644

xxvi Illustrations
13.6 Risk aversion for gains and risk seeking for losses on a
money-based task by financial professionals and students 645
13.7 Percentages of participants adhering to cumulative prospect
theory, the minimax rule, or unclassified with affect-poor and
affect-rich problems (a) with or (b) without numerical
information concerning willingness to pay for
medication 650
13.8 Proportion of politicians and population samples in Belgium,
Canada and Israel voting to extend a loan programme 654
13.9 A model of selective exposure: defence motivation and
accuracy motivation 659
13.10 The five phases of decision-making according to Galotti’s
theory 660
13.11 Klein’s recognition-primed decision model 661
14.1 Mean number of modus ponens inferences accepted as a
function of relative strength of the evidence and strategy 676
14.2 The Wason selection task 676
14.3 Percentage acceptance of conclusions as a function of
perceived base rate (low vs high), believability of conclusions
and validity of conclusions 679
14.4 Three models of the relationship between the intuitive and
deliberate systems: (a) serial model; (b) parallel model;
and (c) logical intuition model 685
14.5 Proportion correct on incongruent syllogisms as a function of
instructions and cognitive ability 687
14.6 The approximate time courses of reasoning and meta-
reasoning processes during reasoning and problem solving 689
14.7 Brain regions most consistently activated across 28 studies of
deductive reasoning 690
14.8 Relationships between reasoning task performance (accuracy)
and inferior frontal cortex activity in the left hemisphere and
the right hemisphere in (a) the low-load condition and (b) the
high-load condition 692
14.9 Mean responses to the question, “How much risk do you
believe climate change poses to human health, safety or
prosperity?” 696
14.10 Effects of trustworthiness and others’ opinions on
convincingness ratings 700
14.11 Mean-rated argument strength as a function of the probability
of the outcome and how negative the outcome would be 701
14.12 Stanovich’s tripartite model of reasoning 706
15.1 The two-dimensional framework for emotion showing the two
dimensions of pleasure–misery and arousal–sleep and the two
dimensions of positive affect and negative affect 716
15.2 Brain areas activated by positive, negative and neutral stimuli 717
15.3 Brain areas showing greater activity for top-down than for
bottom-up processing and those showing greater activity for
bottom-up than for top-down processes 718
15.4 Multiple appraisal mechanisms used in emotion generation 720

Illustrations xxvii
15.5 Changes in self-reported horror and distress and in galvanic

skin response between pre-training and post-training (for the
watch condition and the appraisal condition) 721
15.6 A process model of emotion regulation based on five major
types of strategy (situation selection, situation modification,
attention deployment, cognitive change and response
modulation) 725
15.7 Mean level of depression as a function of stress severity and
cognitive reappraisal ability 727
15.8 A three-stage neural network model of emotion regulation 728
15.9 The incompatibility flanker effect (incompatible trials –
compatible trials) on reaction times as a function of mood
(happy or sad) and whether a global, local or mixed focus
had been primed on a previous task 733
15.10 Two main brain mechanisms involved in the memory-
enhancing effects of emotion: (1) the medial temporal
lobes; (2) the medial, dorsolateral and ventrolateral
prefrontal cortex 735
15.11 (a) Free and (b) cued recall as a function of mood state
(happy or sad) at learning and at recall 737
15.12 Two well-known moral dilemma problems: (a) the trolley
problem; and (b) the footbridge problem 738
15.13 The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, located approximately in
Brodmann areas 9 and 46 and the ventromedial prefrontal
cortex located approximately in Brodmann areas 10 and 11 739
15.14 Sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms and
preference for inaction vs action as a function of psychopathy
(low vs high) 741
15.15 Driverless cars: moral decisions 742
15.16 Effects of mood manipulation (anxiety, sadness or neutral)
on percentages of people choosing a high-risk job option 745
15.17 Mean buying price for a water bottle as a function of mood
(neutral vs sad) and self-focus (low vs high) 746
15.18 The positive emotion “family tree” with the trunk representing
the neural reward system and the branches representing nine
semi-distinct positive emotions 748
15.19 Probability of selecting a candy bar by participants in a happy
or sad mood as a function of implicit attitudes on the Implicit
Association Test 750
15.20 Effects of mood states on judgement and decision-making. 750
15.21 The emotion-imbued choice model 752
15.22 The dot-probe task 756
15.23 The emotional Stroop task 756
15.24 The impaired cognitive control account put forward by
Joormann et al. (2007) 761
16.1 Mean scores for error detection on a proofreading task
comparing unconscious goal vs no-goal control and low vs.
high goal importance 770
16.2 Awareness as a social perceptual model of attention 771

xxviii Illustrations
16.3 (a) Region in left fronto-polar cortex for which decoding of

upcoming motor decisions was possible. (b) Decoding
accuracy of these decisions 774
16.4 Undistorted and distorted photographs of the Brunnen der
Lebensfreude in Rostock, Germany 777
16.5 Modulation of the appropriate frequency bands of the EEG
signal associated with motor imagery in one healthy control
and three patients 779
16.6 Activation patterns on a binocular-rivalry task when observers
(A) reported what they perceived or (B) passively experienced
rivalry 781
16.7 Three successive stages of visual processing following
stimulus presentation 782
16.8 Percentage of trials on which participants reported
awareness of the content of photographs under masked
and unmasked conditions for animal and non-animal
photographs 783
16.9 Five hypotheses about the relationship between
attention and conscious awareness identified by Webb
and Graziano 785
16.10 Event-related potential waveforms in the aware-correct,
unaware-correct and unaware-incorrect conditions 786
16.11 Synchronisation of neural activity across cortical areas for
consciously perceived words (visible condition) and non-
perceived words (invisible condition) during different time
periods 787
16.12 Integrated brain activity: (a) overall information sharing or
integration across the brain for vegetative state, minimally
conscious and conscious brain-damaged patients and healthy
controls); (b) information sharing (integration) across short,
medium and long distances within the brain for the four
groups 788
16.13 Event-related potentials in the left and right hemispheres
to the first of two stimuli by AC (a patient with
severe corpus callosum damage) 796
16.14 Detection and localisation of circles presented to the left
or right visual fields by two patients responding verbally,
with the left or right hand 797

Preface
Producing regular editions of this textbook gives us a front-row seat from

which to observe all the exciting developments in our understanding of
human cognition. What are the main reasons for the rapid rate of progress
within cognitive psychology since the seventh edition of this textbook?
Below we identify two factors that have been especially important.
First, the overarching assumption that the optimal way to enhance our
understanding of cognition is by combining data and insights from several
different approaches remains exceptionally fruitful. These approaches
include traditional cognitive psychology; cognitive neuropsychology (study
of brain-damaged patients); computational cognitive science (development
of computational models of human cognition); and cognitive neuroscience
(combining information from behaviour and from brain activity). Note
that we use the term “cognitive psychology” in a broad or general sense to
cover all these approaches.
The above approaches all continue to make extremely valuable con-
tributions. However, cognitive neuroscience deserves to be singled out –
it has increasingly been used with great success to resolve theoretical
controversies and to provide novel empirical data that foster theoretical
developments.
Second, there has been a steady increase in cognitive research of
direct relevance to real life. This is reflected in a substantial increase in
the number of boxes labelled “in the real world” in this edition com-
pared to the previous one. Examples include eyewitness confidence, mis-
hearing of song lyrics, multi-tasking, airport security checks and causes of
plane crashes. What is noteworthy is the increased quality of real-world
research (e.g., more sophisticated experimental designs; enhanced theoret-
ical relevance).
With every successive edition of this textbook, the authors have had
to work harder and harder to keep with huge increase in the number of
research publications in cognitive psychology. For example, the first author
wrote parts of the book in far-flung places including Botswana, New
Zealand, Malaysia and Cambodia. His only regret is that book writing has
sometimes had to take precedence over sightseeing!
We would both like to thank the very friendly and efficient staff at
Psychology Press including Sadé Lee and Ceri McLardy.

xxx Preface
We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers, that commented

on various chapters. Their comments were very useful when we embarked
on the task of revising the first draft of the manuscript. Of course, we are
responsible for any errors and/or misunderstandings that remain.
Michael Eysenck and Mark Keane

Visual tour
(how to use this book)
TEXTBOOK FEATURES
Listed below are the various pedagogical features that can be found both in
the margins and within the main text, with visual examples of the boxes to
look out for, and descriptions of what you can expect them to contain.
Key terms
Throughout the book, key terms are highlighted in the text and defined in
boxes in the margins, helping you to get to grips with the vocabulary funda-
mental to the subject being covered.
In the real world

Each chapter contains boxes within the main text that explore “real world”
examples, providing context and demonstrating how some of the theories
and concepts covered in the chapter work in practice.
Chapter summary
Each chapter concludes with a brief summary of each section of the chapter,
helping you to consolidate your learning by making sure you have taken in
all of the concepts covered.
Further reading
Also at the end of each chapter is an annotated list of key scholarly books,
book chapters, and journal articles that it is recommended you explore
through independent study to expand upon the knowledge you have gained
from the chapter and plan for your assignments.

xxxii Visual tour (how to use this book)
Links to companion website features

Whenever you see this symbol, look out for related supplementary material
amongst the resources for that chapter on the companion website at www.
routledge.com/cw/eysenck.
Glossary
An extensive glossary appears at the end of the book, offering a compre-
hensive list that includes all the key terms boxes in the main text.

Chapter
Approaches to
human cognition 1
INTRODUCTION
We are now well into the third millennium and there is ever-increasing
interest in unravelling the mysteries of the human brain and mind. This
interest is reflected in the substantial upsurge of scientific research within
cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In addition, the cognitive
approach has become increasingly influential within clinical psychology.
In that area, it is recognised that cognitive processes (especially cognitive
biases) play a major role in the development (and successful treatment) of
mental disorders (see Chapter 15).
In similar fashion, social psychologists increasingly focus on social
cognition. This focuses on the role of cognitive processes in influencing
individuals’ behaviour in social situations. For example, suppose other
people respond with laughter when you tell them a joke. This laughter
is often ambiguous – they may be laughing with you or at you (Walsh
et al., 2015). Your subsequent behaviour is likely to be influenced by your
cognitive interpretation of their laughter.
What is cognitive psychology? It is concerned with the internal pro-
cesses involved in making sense of the environment and deciding on KEY TERMS
appropriate action. These processes include attention, perception, learn- Social cognition
An approach within social
ing, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning and thinking. We can psychology in which
define cognitive psychology as aiming to understand human cognition the emphasis is on the
by observing the behaviour of people performing various cognitive tasks. cognitive processing
However, the term “cognitive psychology” can also be used more broadly of information about
to include brain activity and structure as relevant information for under- other people and social
situations.
standing human cognition. It is in this broader sense that it is used in the
title of this book. Cognitive psychology
Here is a simple example of cognitive psychology in action. Frederick An approach that aims
to understand human
(2005) developed a test (the Cognitive Reflection Test) that included the cognition by the study
following item: of behaviour; a broader
definition also includes
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the the study of brain activity
ball. How much does the ball cost? ___ cents and structure.

2 Approaches to human cognition
KEY TERM What do you think is the correct answer? Braňas-Garza et al. (2015)
found in a review of findings from 41,004 individuals that 68% produced
Cognitive neuroscience
An approach that aims the wrong answer (typically 10 cents) and only 32% gave the right answer
to understand human (5 cents). Even providing financial incentives to produce the correct answer
cognition by combining failed to improve performance.
information from The above findings suggest most people will rapidly produce an incor-
behaviour and the brain.
rect answer (i.e., 10 cents) that is easily accessible and are unwilling to
devote extra time to checking that they have the right answer. However,
Gangemi et al. (2015) found many individuals producing the wrong
answer had a feeling of error suggesting they experienced cognitive uneas-
iness about their answer. In sum, the intriguing findings on the Cognitive
Reflection Test indicate that we can fail to think effectively even on rela-
tively simple problems. Subsequent research has clarified the reasons for
these deficiencies in our thinking (see Chapter 12).
The aims of cognitive neuroscientists overlap with those of cognitive
psychologists. However, there is one major difference between cognitive
neuroscience and cognitive psychology in the narrow sense. Cognitive neu-
roscientists argue convincingly we need to study the brain as well as behav-
iour while people engage in cognitive tasks. After all, the internal processes
involved in human cognition occur in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience
uses information about behaviour and the brain to understand human cog-
nition. Thus, the distinction between cognitive neuroscience and cognitive
psychology in the broader sense is blurred.
Cognitive neuroscientists explore human cognition in several ways.
First, there are brain-imaging techniques of which functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) is probably the best-known. Second, there are
electrophysiological techniques involving the recording of electrical signals
generated by the brain. Third, many cognitive neuroscientists study the
effects of brain damage on cognition. It is assumed the patterns of cog-
nitive impairment shown by brain-damaged patients can inform us about
normal cognitive functioning and the brain areas responsible for various
cognitive processes.
The huge increase in scientific interest in the workings of the brain
is mirrored in the popular media – numerous books, films and television
programmes communicate the more accessible and dramatic aspects of
cognitive neuroscience. Increasingly, media coverage includes coloured pic-
tures of the brain indicating the areas most activated when people perform
various tasks.
Four main approaches

We can identify four main approaches to human cognition (see Table 1.1).
Note, however, there has been a substantial increase in research combin-
ing two (or even more) of these approaches. We will shortly discuss each
approach in turn and you will probably find it useful to refer back to
this chapter when reading the rest of the book. Hopefully, you will find
Table 1.3 (towards the end of this chapter) especially useful because it sum-
marises the strengths and limitation of all four approaches.

Approaches to human cognition 3
TABLE 1.1 APPROACHES TO HUMAN COGNITION KEY TERM

1. Cognitive psychology: this approach involves using behavioural evidence to Algorithm
enhance our understanding of human cognition. Since behavioural data are also A computational
of great importance within cognitive neuroscience and cognitive neuropsychology, procedure providing a
cognitive psychology’s influence is enormous. specified set of steps to
problem solution; see
2. Cognitive neuropsychology: this approach involves studying brain-damaged heuristic.
patients to understand normal human cognition. It was originally closely linked
to cognitive psychology but has recently also become linked to cognitive
neuroscience.
3. Cognitive neuroscience: this approach involves using evidence from behaviour and
the brain to understand human cognition.
4. Computational cognitive science: this approach involves developing computational
models to further our understanding of human cognition; such models increasingly
incorporate knowledge of behaviour and the brain. A computational model takes
the form of an algorithm, which consists of a precise and detailed specification of
the steps involved in performing a task. Computational models are designed to
simulate or imitate human processing on a given task.
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
We can obtain some perspective on the contribution of cognitive psychology
by considering what preceded it. Behaviourism was the dominant approach to
psychology throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The American
psychologist John Watson (1878–1958) is often regarded as the founder of
behaviourism. He argued that psychologists should focus on stimuli (aspects
of the immediate situation) and responses (behaviour produced by the par-
ticipants in an experiment). This approach appears “scientific” because it
focuses on stimuli and responses, both of which are observable.
Behaviourists argued that internal mental processes (e.g., attention)
cannot be verified by reference to observable behaviour and so should be
ignored. According to Watson (1913, p. 165), behaviourism should “never
use the terms consciousness, mental states, mind, content, introspectively
verifiable and the like”. In stark contrast, as we have already seen, cogni-
tive psychologists argue it is of crucial importance to study such internal
mental processes. Hopefully, you will be convinced that cognitive psycholo-
gists are correct when you read how the concepts of attention (Chapter 5)
and consciousness (Chapter 16) have been used fruitfully to enhance our
understanding of human cognition.
It is often claimed that behaviourism was overthrown by the “cog-
nitive revolution”. However, the reality was less dramatic (Hobbs &
Burman, 2009). For example, Tolman (1948) was a behaviourist but he did
not believe internal processes should be ignored. He carried out studies in
which rats learned to run through a maze to a goal box containing food.
When Tolman blocked off the path the rats had learned to use, they rapidly
learned to follow other paths leading in the right general direction. Tolman
concluded the rats had acquired an internal cognitive map indicating the
maze’s approximate layout.
It is almost as pointless to ask “When did cognitive psychology start?”,
as to enquire “How long is a piece of string?”. However, 1956 was crucially

KEY TERMS important. At a meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Noam Chomsky presented his theory of language, George Miller discussed
Bottom-up processing
Processing directly the magic number seven in short-term memory (Miller, 1956) and Alan
influenced by Newell and Herbert Simon discussed the General Problem Solver (see
environmental stimuli; see Gobet and Lane, 2015). In addition, there was the first systematic attempt
top-down processing. to study concept formation from the cognitive perspective (Bruner et al.,
Serial processing 1956). The history of cognitive psychology from the perspective of its
Processing in which one classic studies is discussed in Eysenck and Groome (2015a).
process is completed Several decades ago, most cognitive psychologists subscribed to the
before the next one starts;
information-processing approach based loosely on an analogy between
see parallel processing.
the mind and the computer (see Figure 1.1). A stimulus (e.g., a problem
Top-down processing or task) is presented, which causes various internal processes to occur,
Stimulus processing that
leading eventually to the desired response or answer. Processing directly
is influenced by factors
such as the individual’s affected by the stimulus input is often described as bottom-up processing.
past experience and It was typically assumed only one process occurs at a time: this is serial
expectations. processing, meaning the current process is completed before the onset of
the next one.
The above approach is drastically over-
simplified. Task processing typically also
involves top-down processing, which is pro-
cessing influenced by the individual’s expec-
tations and knowledge rather than simply by
the stimulus itself. Read what it says in the
triangle (Figure 1.2). Unless you know the
trick, you probably read it as “Paris in the
spring”. If so, look again: the word “the”
is repeated. Your expectation it was a well-
known phrase (i.e., top-down processing)
dominated the information available from the
stimulus (i.e., bottom-up processing).
The traditional approach was also over-
simplified in assuming processing is typically
serial. In fact, more than one process typi-
cally occurs at the same time – this is parallel
processing. We are much more likely to use
parallel processing when performing a highly
Figure 1.1 practised task than a new one (see Chapter
An early version of the information processing approach. 5). For example, someone taking their first
driving lesson finds it very hard to control the
car’s speed, steer accurately and pay attention
to other road users at the same time. In con-
trast, an experienced driver finds it easy.
There is also cascade processing: a
form of parallel processing involving an
overlap of different processing stages when
someone performs a task. More specifically,
later stages of processing are initiated before
one or more earlier stages have finished. For
Figure 1.2 example, suppose you are trying to work out
Diagram to demonstrate top–down processing. the meaning of a visually presented word.

The most thorough approach would involve identifying all the letters in the KEY TERMS
word followed by matching the resultant letter string against words you
Parallel processing
have stored in long-term memory. In fact, people often engage in cascade Processing in which two or
processing – they form hypotheses as to the word that has been presented more cognitive processes
before identifying all the letters (McClelland, 1979). occur at the same time.
An important issue for cognitive psychologists is the task-impurity Cascade processing
problem – most cognitive tasks require several processes thus making it Later processing stages
hard to interpret the findings. One approach to this problem is to con- start before earlier
sider various tasks all requiring the same process. For example, Miyake processing stages have
been completed when
et al. (2000) used three tasks requiring deliberate inhibition of a dominant
performing a task.
response:
(1) The Stroop task: name the colour in which colour words are pre-
sented (e.g., RED printed in green) and avoid saying the colour word
(which has to be inhibited). You can see for yourself how hard this
task is by naming the colours of the words shown in Figure 1.3.
(2) The anti-cascade task: inhibit the natural tendency to look at a visual
cue and instead look in the opposite direction. People typically take
longer to perform this task than the control task of simply looking at
the visual cue.
(3) The stop-signal task: respond rapidly to indicate whether each of
a series of words is an animal or non-animal; on key trials, there
was a computer-emitted tone indicating that the response should be
inhibited.
Miyake et al. (2000) found all three tasks involved similar processes. They
used complex statistical techniques (latent variable analysis) to extract what
Figure 1.3
Test yourself by naming the colours in each column. You should name the colours rapidly
in the first three columns because there is no colour-word conflict. In contrast, colour
naming should be slower (and more prone to error) when naming colours in the fourth
and fifth columns.

KEY TERMS was common across the three tasks. This was assumed to represent a rel-
atively pure measure of the inhibitory process. Throughout this book, we
Ecological validity
The applicability (or will discuss many ingenious strategies used by cognitive psychologists to
otherwise) of the findings identify the processes used in numerous tasks.
of laboratory studies to
everyday settings.
Strengths
Implacable experimenter
The situation in Cognitive psychology was for many years the engine room of progress in
experimental research in understanding human cognition and the other three approaches listed in
which the experimenter’s
Table 1.1 have benefitted from it. For example, cognitive neuropsychology
behaviour is uninfluenced
by the participant’s became important 25 years after cognitive psychology. It was only when
behaviour. cognitive psychologists had developed reasonable accounts of healthy
human cognition that the performance of brain-damaged patients could
be understood fully. Before that, it was hard to decide which patterns of
cognitive impairment were theoretically important.
In a similar fashion, the computational modelling activities of com-
putational cognitive scientists are typically heavily influenced by pre-
computational psychological theories. Finally, the great majority of
theories driving research in cognitive neuroscience originated within
cognitive psychology.
Cognitive psychology has not only had a massive influence on theoris-
ing across all four major approaches to human cognition. It has also had a
predominant influence on the development of cognitive tasks and on task
analysis (how a task is accomplished).
Limitations
In spite of cognitive psychology’s enormous contributions, it has several
limitations. First, our behaviour in the laboratory may differ from our
behaviour in everyday life. Thus, laboratory research sometimes lacks
ecological validity – the extent to which laboratory findings are applicable
to everyday life. For example, our everyday behaviour is often designed
to change a situation or to influence others’ behaviour. In contrast, the
sequence of events in most laboratory research is based on the experiment-
er’s predetermined plan and is uninfluenced by participants’ behaviour.
Wachtel (1973) used the term implacable experimenter to describe this
state of affairs.
We must not exaggerate problems associated with lack of ecological
validity. As we will see in this book, there has been a dramatic increase
in applied cognitive psychology in which the emphasis is on investigat-
ing topics of general importance. Such research often has good ecological
validity. Note that it is far better to carry out well-controlled experiments
under laboratory conditions than poorly controlled experiments under
naturalistic conditions. It is precisely because it is considerably easier for
researchers to exercise experimental control in the laboratory that so much
research is laboratory-based.
Second, theories in cognitive psychology are often expressed only in
verbal terms (although this is becoming less common). Such theories are
vague, making it hard to know precisely what predictions follow from
them and thus to falsify them. These limitations can largely be overcome by

computational cognitive scientists developing cognitive models specifying KEY TERMS

precisely any given theory’s assumptions.
Paradigm specificity
Third, difficulties in falsifying theories have led to a proliferation of The findings with a
different theories on any given topic. For example, there are at least 12 given experimental task
different theories of working memory (see Chapter 6). Another reason for or paradigm are not
the proliferation of rather similar theories is the “toothbrush problem” replicated even when
apparently very similar
(Mischel, 2008): no self-respecting cognitive psychologist wants to use
tasks or paradigms are
anyone else’s theory. used.
Fourth, the findings obtained using any given task or paradigm are
lesion
sometimes specific to that paradigm and do not generalise to other (appar-
Damage within the brain
ently similar) tasks. This is paradigm specificity. It means some findings resulting from injury or
are narrow in scope and applicability (Meiser, 2011). This problem can be disease; it typically affects
minimised by developing theories accounting for performance across several a restricted area.
tasks or paradigms. For example, Anderson et al. (2004; discussed later in
this chapter) developed a comprehensive theoretical architecture or frame-
work known as the Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) model.
Fifth, cognitive psychologists typically obtain measures of performance
speed and accuracy. These measures are very useful but provide only indi-
rect evidence about internal cognitive processes. Most tasks are “impure” in
that they involve several processes, and it is hard to identify the number and
nature of processes involved on the basis of speed and accuracy measures.
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Cognitive neuropsychology focuses on the patterns of cognitive perfor-
mance (intact and impaired) of brain-damaged patients having a lesion
(structural damage to the brain caused by injury or disease). According to
cognitive neuropsychologists, studying brain-damaged patients can tell us
much about cognition in healthy individuals.
The above idea does not sound very promising, does it? In fact,
however, cognitive neuropsychology has contributed substantially to our
understanding of healthy human cognition. For example, in the 1960s,
most memory researchers thought the storage of information in long-
term memory depended on previous processing in short-term memory (see
Chapter 6). However, Shallice and Warrington (1970) reported the case of
a brain-damaged man, KF. His short-term memory was severely impaired
but his long-term memory was intact. These findings played an important
role in changing theories of healthy human memory.
Since cognitive neuropsychologists study brain-damaged patients,
we might imagine they would be interested in the workings of the brain.
In fact, many cognitive neuropsychologists pay little attention to the
brain itself. According to Coltheart (2015, p. 198), for example, “Even
though cognitive neuropsychologists typically study people with brain
damage, . . . cognitive neuropsychology is not about the brain: it is about
information-processing models of cognition.”
An increasing number of cognitive neuropsychologists disagree with
Coltheart. They believe we should consider the brain, using techniques
such as magnetic resonance imaging to identify the brain areas damaged in
any given patient. They are also increasingly willing to study the impact of
brain damage on brain processes using various neuroimaging techniques.

Theoretical assumptions
Coltheart (2001) provided a very clear
account of the major assumptions of cogni-
tive neuropsychology. Here we will discuss
these assumptions and briefly consider rele-
vant evidence.
One key assumption is modularity,
meaning the cognitive system consists of
numerous modules or processors operating
fairly independently or separately of each
other. It is assumed these modules exhibit
domain specificity (they respond to only
one given class of stimuli). For example,
there may be a face-recognition module that
responds only when a face is presented.
Modular systems typically involve
serial processing with processing within one
module being completed before processing
starts in the next module. As a result, there
is very limited interaction among modules.
There is some support for modularity from
the evolutionary approach. Species with
larger brains generally have more special-
ised brain regions that could be involved in
modular processing. However, the notion
that human cognition is heavily modular
is hard to reconcile with neuroimaging evi-
Max Coltheart. dence. The human brain possesses a moder-
Courtesy of Max Coltheart. ately high level of connectivity (Bullmore &
Sporns, 2012; see p. 14), suggesting there is more parallel processing than
assumed by most cognitive neuropsychologists.
The second major assumption is that of anatomical modularity.
According to this assumption, each module is located in a specific brain
area. Why is this assumption important? Cognitive neuropsychologists
are most likely to make progress when studying brain patients with brain
damage limited to a single module. Such patients may not exist if there is
no anatomical modularity. Suppose all modules were distributed across
large brain areas. If so, the great majority of brain-damaged patients
would suffer damage to most modules, making it impossible to work out
the number and nature of their modules.
There is evidence of anatomical modularity in the visual processing
KEY TERM system (see Chapter 2). However, there is less support for anatomical
Modularity modularity with most complex tasks. For example, consider the findings of
The assumption that Yarkoni et al. (2011). Across over 3,000 neuroimaging studies, some brain
the cognitive system
consists of many fairly
areas (e.g., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; anterior cingulate cortex) were
independent or separate activated in 20% of them despite the great diversity of tasks involved.
modules or processors, The third major assumption (the “universality assumption”) is that
each specialised for a “Individuals . . . share a similar or an equivalent organisation of their cog-
given type of processing. nitive functions, and presumably have the same underlying brain anatomy”

(de Schotten and Shallice, 2017, p. 172). If this assumption (also common KEY TERM
within cognitive neuroscience) is false, we could not readily use the find-
Pure alexia
ings from individual patients to draw conclusions about the organisation Severe problems with
of other people’s cognitive systems or functional architecture. reading but not other
There is accumulating evidence against the universality assumption. language skills; caused
Tzourio-Mazoyer et al. (2004) discovered substantial differences between by damage to brain
areas involved in visual
individuals in the location of brain networks involved in speech and lan-
processing.
guage. Finn et al. (2015) found clear-cut differences between individuals in
functional connectivity across the brain, concluding that “An individual’s
functional brain connectivity profile is both unique and reliable, similarly
to a fingerprint” (p. 1669).
Duffau (2017) reviewed interesting research conducted on patients
during surgery for epilepsy or a tumour. Direct electrical stimulation,
which causes “a genuine virtual transient lesion” (p. 305) is applied inva-
sively to the cortex. The patient is awakened and given various cognitive
tasks while receiving stimulation. Impaired performance when direct elec-
trical stimulation is applied to a given area indicates that area is involved
in the cognitive functions assessed by the current task.
Findings obtained using direct electrical stimulation and other tech-
niques (e.g., fMRI) led Duffau (2017) to propose a two-level model. At
the cortical level, there is high variability across individuals in structure
and function of any given brain areas. At the subcortical level (e.g., in pre-
motor cortex), in contrast, there is very little variability across individuals.
The findings at the cortical level seem inconsistent with the universality
assumption.
The fourth assumption is subtractivity. The basic idea is that brain
damage impairs one or more processing modules but does not change
or add anything. The fifth assumption (related to subtractivity) is trans-
parency (Shallice, 2015). According to the transparency assumption, the
performance of a brain-damaged patient reflects the operation of a theory
designed to explain the performance of healthy individuals minus the
impact of their lesion.
Why are the subtractivity and transparency assumptions impor-
tant? Suppose they are incorrect and brain-damaged patients develop
new modules to compensate for their cognitive impairments. That would
greatly complicate the task of learning about the intact cognitive system
by studying brain-damaged patients. Consider pure alexia, a condition in
which brain-damaged patients have severe reading problems but otherwise
intact language abilities. These patients generally have a direct relationship
between word length and reading speed due to letter-by-letter processing
(Bormann et al., 2015). This indicates the use of a compensatory strategy
differing markedly from the reading processes used by healthy adults.
Research in cognitive neuropsychology

How do cognitive neuropsychologists set about understanding the cognitive
system? Of major importance is the search for dissociations, which occur
when a patient has normal performance on one task (task X) but is impaired
on a second one (task Y). For example, amnesic patients perform almost
normally on short-term memory tasks but are greatly impaired on many

KEY TERMS long-term memory tasks (see Chapter 6). It is tempting (but dangerous!) to
conclude that the two tasks involve different processing modules and that
Double dissociation
The finding that some the module(s) needed on long-term memory tasks have been damaged by
brain-damaged individuals brain injury.
have intact performance Why must we avoid drawing sweeping conclusions from dissociations?
on one task but poor Patients may perform well on one task but poorly on a second one simply
performance on another
because the second task is more complex. Thus, dissociations may reflect
task whereas other
individuals exhibit the differences in task complexity rather than the use of different modules.
opposite pattern. One apparent solution to the above problem is to find double disso-
ciations. A double dissociation between two tasks (X and Y) is obtained
Association
The finding that when one patient performs normally on task X and is impaired on task Y
certain symptoms or but another patient shows the opposite pattern. We cannot explain double
performance impairments dissociations by arguing that one task is harder. For example, consider the
are consistently found double dissociation that amnesic patients have impaired long-term memory
together in numerous
but intact short-term memory whereas other patients (e.g., KF discussed
brain-damaged patients.
above) have the opposite pattern. This double dissociation strongly sug-
Syndrome gests there is an important distinction between short-term and long-term
The notion that symptoms
memory and that they involve different brain regions.
that often co-occur have a
common origin. The approach based on double dissociations has various limitations.
First, it is generally based on the assumption that separate modules exist
Case-series study
(which may be misguided). Second, double dissociations can often be
A study in which several
patients with similar explained in various ways and so provide only indirect evidence for sepa-
cognitive impairments rate modules underlying each task (Davies, 2010). For example, a double
are tested; this allows dissociation between tasks X and Y implies the cognitive system used on
consideration of individual X is not identical to the one used on Y. Strictly speaking, the most we
data and of variation
can generally conclude is that “Each of the two systems has at least one
across individuals.
sub-system that the other doesn’t have” (Bergeron, 2016, p. 818). Third,
it is hard to decide which of the very numerous double dissociations that
have been discovered are theoretically important.
Finally, we consider associations. An association occurs when a
patient is impaired on tasks X and Y. Associations are sometimes taken
as evidence for a syndrome (sets of symptoms or impairments often
found together). However, there is a serious flaw in the syndrome-based
approach. An association may be found between tasks X and Y because
the mechanisms on which they depend are adjacent anatomically in the
brain rather than because they depend on the same underlying mechanism.
Thus, the interpretation of associations is fraught with difficulty.
Single case studies vs case series

For many years after the rise of cognitive neuropsychology in the 1970s,
most cognitive neuropsychologists made extensive use of single-case
studies. There were two main reasons. First, researchers can often gain
access to only one patient having a given pattern of cognitive impair-
ment. Second, it was often assumed every patient has a somewhat different
pattern of cognitive impairment and so is unique. As a result, it would
be misleading and uninformative to average the performance of several
patients.
In recent years, there has been a move towards the case-series study.
Several patients with similar cognitive impairments are tested. After that,

the data of individual patients are compared and variation across patients KEY TERM
assessed.
Diaschisis
The case-series approach is generally preferable to the single-case The disruption to distant
approach for various reasons (Lambon Ralph et al., 2011; Bartolomeo brain areas caused by a
et al., 2017). First, it provides much richer data. With a case series, we localised brain injury or
can assess the extent of variation between patients rather than simply being lesion.
concerned about the impairment (as in the single-case approach). Second,
with a case series, we can identify (and then de-emphasise) the findings
from patients who are “outliers”. With the single-case approach, in con-
trast, we do not know whether the one and only patient is representative
of patients with that condition or is an outlier.
Strengths
Cognitive neuropsychology has several strengths. First, it has the advan-
tage that it allows us to draw causal inferences about the relationship
between brain areas and cognitive processes and behaviour. In other
words, we can conclude (with moderate but not total confidence) that a
given brain area is crucially involved in performing certain cognitive tasks
(Genon et al., 2018).
Second, as Shallice (2015, pp. 387–388) pointed out, “A key intel-
lectual strength of neuropsychology . . . is its ability to provide evidence
falsifying plausible cognitive theories.” Consider patients reading visually
presented words and non-words aloud. We might imagine patients with
damage to language areas would have problems in reading all words
and non-words. However, some patients perform reasonably well when
reading regular words (with predictable pronunciations) or non-words,
but poorly when reading irregular words (words with unpredictable pro-
nunciations). Other patients can read regular words but have problems
with unfamiliar words and non-words. These fascinating patterns of
impairment have transformed theories of reading (Coltheart, 2015; see
Chapter 9).
Third, cognitive neuropsychology “produces large-magnitude phenom-
ena which can be initially theoretically highly counterintuitive” (Shallice,
2015, p. 405). For example, amnesic patients typically have severely
impaired long-term memory for personal events and experiences but an
essentially intact ability to acquire and retain motor skills (Chapter 7).
These strong effects played a major role in memory researchers abandon-
ing the notion of a single long-term memory system and replacing it with
more complex theories.
Fourth, in recent years, cognitive neuropsychology has increasingly
been combined fruitfully with cognitive neuroscience. For example, cog-
nitive neuroscience has revealed that a given brain injury or lesion often
has widespread effects within the brain. This phenomenon is known as
diaschisis: “the distant neurophysiological changes directly caused by a
focal injury . . . these changes should correlate with behaviour” (Carrera
& Tononi, 2014, p. 2410). Discovering the true extent of the brain areas
adversely affected by a lesion facilitates the task of relating brain function-
ing to cognitive processing and task performance.

Limitations
What are the limitations of the cognitive neuropsychological approach?
First, the crucial assumption that the cognitive system is fundamentally
modular is reasonable but too strong. There is less evidence for modularity
among higher-level cognitive processes (e.g., consciousness; focused atten-
tion) than among lower-level processes (e.g., colour processing; motion
processing). If the modularity assumption is incorrect, this has implica-
tions for the whole enterprise of cognitive neuropsychology (Patterson &
Plaut, 2009).
Second, other theoretical assumptions also seem too extreme. For
example, evidence discussed earlier casts considerable doubts on the
assumption of anatomical modularity and the universality assumption.
Third, the common assumption that the task performance of patients
provides relatively direct evidence concerning the impact of brain damage
on previously intact cognitive systems is problematic. Brain-damaged
patients often make use of compensatory strategies to reduce or eliminate
the negative effects of brain damage on cognitive performance. We saw an
example of such compensatory strategies earlier – patients with pure alexia
manage to read words by using a letter-by-letter strategy rarely used by
healthy individuals.
Hartwigsen (2018) proposed a model to predict when compensatory
processes will and will not be successful. According to this model, general
processes (e.g., attention; cognitive control; error monitoring) can be used
to compensate for the disruption of specific processes (e.g., phonological
KEY TERMS processing) by brain injury. However, specific processes cannot be used to
Sulcus compensate for the disruption of general processes. Hartwigsen discussed
A groove or furrow in the evidence supporting his model.
surface of the brain. Fourth, lesions can alter the organisation of the brain in several ways.
Gyrus Dramatic evidence for brain plasticity is discussed in Chapter 16. Patients
Prominent elevated area whose entire left brain hemisphere was removed at an early age (known
or ridge on the brain’s as hemispherectomy) often develop good language skills even though lan-
surface; “gyri” is the
plural.
guage is typically centred in the left hemisphere (Blackmon, 2016).
There is the additional problem that a brain lesion can lead to changes
Dorsal in the functional connectivity between the area of the lesion and distant,
Towards the top.
intact brain areas (Bartolomeo et al., 2017). Thus, impaired cognitive per-
Ventral formance following brain damage may reflect widespread reduced brain
Towards the bottom. connectivity as well as direct damage to a specific brain area. This com-
Rostral plicates the task of interpreting the findings obtained from brain-damaged
Towards the front of the patients.
brain.
Posterior
Towards the back of the
COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE: THE BRAIN
brain. IN ACTION
Lateral Cognitive neuroscience involves the intensive study of brain activity as well
Situated at the side of the as behaviour. Alas, the brain is extremely complicated (to put it mildly!).
brain. It consists of 100 billion neurons connected in very complex ways. We
Medial must consider how the brain is organised and how the different areas are
Situated in the middle of described to understand research involving functional neuroimaging. Below
the brain. we discuss various ways of describing specific brain areas.

Figure 1.4
The four lobes, or divisions,
of the cerebral cortex in the
left hemisphere.
Interactive feature:
Primal Pictures’
3D atlas of the brain
First, the cerebral cortex is divided into

four main divisions or lobes (see Figure 1.4).
There are four lobes in each brain hemisphere:
frontal; parietal; temporal; and occipital. The
frontal lobes are divided from the parietal
lobes by the central sulcus (sulcus means
furrow or groove), and the lateral fissure sep-
arates the temporal lobes from the parietal
and frontal lobes. In addition, the parieto-
occipital sulcus and pre-occipital notch divide
the occipital lobes from the parietal and tem-
poral lobes. The main gyri (or ridges; gyrus
is the singular) within the cerebral cortex are
shown in Figure 1.4.
Researchers use various terms to describe
accurately the brain area(s) activated during
task performance:
● dorsal (or superior): towards the top

● ventral (or inferior): towards the bottom
● anterior (or rostral): towards the front
● posterior: towards the back
● lateral: situated at the side
● medial: situated in the middle.
The German neurologist Korbinian

Brodmann (1868–1918) produced a brain map Figure 1.5
based on differences in the distributions of cell Brodmann brain areas on the lateral (top figure) and medial
types across cortical layers (see Figure 1.5). (bottom figure) surfaces.

KEY TERM He identified 52 areas. We will often refer to areas, for example, as BA17,
which means Brodmann Area 17, rather than Brain Area 17!
Connectome
A comprehensive wiring Within cognitive neuroscience, brain areas are often described with ref-
diagram of neural erence to their main functions. For example, Brodmann Area 17 (BA17) is
connections within the commonly called the primary visual cortex because it is strongly associated
brain. with the early processing of visual stimuli.
Brain organisation
In recent years, there has been considerable progress in identifying the
connectome: this is a “wiring diagram” providing a complete map of the
brain’s neural connections. Why is it important to identify the connectome?
First, as we will see, it advances our understanding of how the brain is
organised. Second, identifying the brain’s structural connections facilitates
the task of understanding how it functions. More specifically, the brain’s
functioning is strongly constrained by its structural connections. Third,
as we will see, we can understand some individual differences in cognitive
functioning with reference to individual differences in the connectome.
Bullmore and Sporns (2012) used information about the connectome
to address issues about brain organisation. They argued two major prin-
ciples might determine its organisation. First, there is the principle of cost
control: costs (e.g., use of energy and space) would be minimised if the brain
consisted of limited, short-distance connections (see Figure 1.6). Second,
there is the principle of efficiency (efficiency is the ability to integrate infor-
mation across the brain). This can be achieved by having very numerous
connections, many of which are long-distance (see Figure 1.6). These two
principles are in conflict – you cannot have high efficiency at low cost.
You might imagine it would be best if our brains were organised pri-
marily on the basis of efficiency. However, this would be incredibly costly –
if all 100 billion brain neurons were interconnected, the brain would need
to be 12½ miles wide (Ward, 2015)! In fact, neurons mostly connect with
nearby neurons and no neuron is connected to more than about 10,000
other neurons. As a result, the human brain has a near-optimal trade-off
between cost and efficiency (see Figure 1.6). Thus, our brains are reasona-
bly efficient while incurring a manageable cost.
Figure 1.6
The left panel shows a
brain network low in cost
efficiency; the right panel
shows a brain network
high in cost efficiency; the
middle panel shows the
actual human brain in which
there is moderate efficiency
at moderate cost. Nodes
are shown as orange circles.
From Bullmore and Sporns
(2012). Reprinted with
permission of Nature Reviews.

Figure 1.7
The organisation of the
superior frontal “rich club”. It includes the
фnorm rich club
precuneus, the superior
1.15 non-rich club frontal cortex, insular
insula
rich club cortex, and superior
1.10
parietal cortex. The figure
feeder
1.05 also shows connections
local
between rich club nodes,
1.00 k connections between
>14 <6
non-rich club nodes
0.95
superior parietal (local connections), and
precuneus
connections between rich
club and non-rich club
nodes (feeder connections).
There is an important distinction between modules (small areas of

tightly clustered connections) and hubs (regions having large numbers
of connections to other regions). This is an efficient organisation as can
be seen by analogy to the world’s airports – the needs of passengers are
best met by having numerous local airports (modules) and relatively few
major hubs (e.g., Heathrow in London; Changi in Singapore; Los Angeles
International Airport).
Collin et al. (2014) argued the brain’s hubs are strongly interconnected
and used the term “rich club” to refer to this state of affairs. The organ-
isation of the rich club is shown in Figure 1.7: it includes the precuneus,
the superior frontal cortex, insular cortex and superior parietal cortex.
The figure also shows connections between rich club nodes, connections
between non-rich club nodes (local connections), and connections between
rich club and non-rich club nodes (feeder connections).
What light does a focus on brain network organisation shed on indi-
vidual differences in cognitive ability? Hilger et al. (2017) distinguished
between global efficiency (i.e., efficiency of the overall brain network) and
nodal efficiency (i.e., efficiency of specific hubs or nodes). Intelligence was
unrelated to global efficiency. However, it was positively associated with
the efficiency of two hubs or nodes: the anterior insula and dorsal anterior
cingulate cortex. The anterior insula is involved in the detection of task-
relevant stimuli whereas the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is involved in
performance monitoring.
Techniques for studying brain activity: introduction

Technological advances mean we have numerous exciting ways of obtaining
detailed information about the brain’s functioning and structure. In princi-
ple, we can work out where and when specific cognitive processes occur in
the brain. This allows us to determine the order in which different brain
areas become active when someone performs a task. It also allows us to dis-
cover the extent to which two tasks involve the same brain areas.
Information concerning the main techniques for studying brain activity
is contained in Table 1.2. Which technique is the best? There is no single
(or simple) answer. Each technique has its own strengths and limitations,

KEY TERMS TABLE 1.2 MAJOR TECHNIQUES USED TO STUDY THE BRAIN
Single-unit recording
• Single-unit recording: This technique (also known as single-cell recording) involves
An invasive technique for
inserting a micro-electrode 1/10,000th of a millimetre in diameter into the brain to
studying brain function,
study activity in single neurons. It is very sensitive: electrical charges of as little as
permitting the study of
one-millionth of a volt can be detected.
activity in single neurons.
• Event-related potentials (ERPs): The same stimulus (or very similar ones) are
Event-related potentials
presented repeatedly, and the pattern of electrical brain activity recorded by several
(ERPs)
scalp electrodes is averaged to produce a single waveform. This technique allows
The pattern of
us to work out the timing of various cognitive processes very precisely but its spatial
electroencephalograph
(EEG) activity obtained resolution is poor.
by averaging the brain • Positron emission tomography (PET): This technique involves the detection of
responses to the same positrons (atomic particles emitted from some radioactive substances). PET has
stimulus (or very similar reasonable spatial resolution but poor temporal resolution and measures neural
stimuli) presented activity only indirectly.
repeatedly.
• Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): This technique involves imaging
Positron emission blood oxygenation using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine (described
tomography (PET) on p. 19). fMRI has superior spatial and temporal resolution to PET, but also provides
A brain-scanning an indirect measure of neural activity.
technique based on the
• Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (efMRI): This “involves
detection of positrons;
separating the elements of an experiment into discrete points in time, so that the
it has reasonable spatial
resolution but poor cognitive processes (and associated brain responses) associated with each element
temporal resolution. can be analysed independently” (Huettel, 2012, p. 1152). Event-related fMRI is
generally very informative and has become more popular recently.
Functional magnetic
• Magneto-encephalography (MEG): This technique involves measuring the magnetic
resonance imaging
fields produced by electrical brain activity. It provides fairly detailed information at
(fMRI)
A technique based the millisecond level about the time course of cognitive processes, and its spatial
on imaging blood resolution is reasonably good.
oxygenation using an • Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): This is a technique in which a coil is
MRI machine; it provides placed close to the participant’s head and a very brief pulse of current is run through
information about the it. This produces a short-lived magnetic field that generally (but not always) inhibits
location and time course processing in the brain area affected. When the pulse is repeated several times in
of brain processes. rapid succession, we have repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS is
Event-related functional used very widely.
magnetic resonance It has often been argued that TMS or rTMS causes a very brief “lesion”. This
imaging (efMRI) technique has (jokingly!) been compared to hitting someone’s brain with a hammer.
This is a form of More accurately, TMS often causes interference because the brain area to which it is
functional magnetic applied is involved in task processing as well as the activity resulting from the TMS
resonance imaging in stimulation.
which patterns of brain
activity associated with • Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): A weak electric current is passed
specific events (e.g., through a given brain area for some time. The electric charge flows from a positive
correct vs incorrect site (an anode) to a negative one (a cathode). Anodal tDCS increases cortical
responses on a memory excitability and generally enhances performance. In contrast, cathodal tDCS
test) are compared. decreases cortical excitability and mostly impairs performance.
Magneto-
encephalography (MEG)
A non-invasive brain- and so experimenters match the technique to the research question. Of key
scanning technique importance, these techniques vary in the precision with which they identify
based on recording the the brain areas active when a task is performed (spatial resolution) and
magnetic fields generated
the time course of such activation (temporal resolution). Thus, they differ
by brain activity; it has
good spatial and temporal in their ability to provide precise information concerning where and when
resolution. brain activity occurs.

Figure 1.8
The spatial and temporal
resolution of major
techniques and methods
used to study brain
functioning.
From Ward (2006), adapted
from Churchland & Sejnowski
(1988).
KEY TERMS
Techniques for studying the brain: detailed analysis Transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS)
We have introduced the main techniques for studying the brain. In what A technique in which
follows, we consider them in more detail. magnetic pulses briefly
disrupt the functioning
of a given brain area.
Single-unit recording It is often claimed
that it creates a short-
The single-unit (or cell) recording technique is more fine-grain than any lived “lesion”. More
other technique (see Chapter 2). However, it is invasive and so rarely used accurately, TMS causes
with humans. An interesting exception is a study by Quiroga et al. (2005) on interference when the
epileptic patients with implanted electrodes to identify the focus of seizure brain area to which it is
onset (see Chapter 3). A neuron in the medial temporal lobe responded applied is involved in
task processing as well as
strongly to pictures of Jennifer Aniston (the actor from Friends) but not activity produced by the
to pictures of other famous people. We need to interpret this finding care- applied stimulation.
fully. Only a tiny fraction of the neurons in that brain area were studied Transcranial direct
and it is highly improbable that none of the others would have responded current stimulation
to Jennifer Aniston. (tDCS)
A technique in which
a very weak electrical
Event-related potentials current is passed through
an area of the brain (often
Electroencephalography (EEG) is based on recordings of electrical brain for several minutes);
activity measured at several locations on the surface of the scalp. Very anodal tDCS often
small changes in electrical activity within the brain are picked up by scalp enhances performance,
whereas cathodal tDCS
electrodes and can be seen on a computer screen. However, spontaneous or
often impairs it.
background brain activity can obscure the impact of stimulus processing on
Electroencephalography
the EEG recording. (EEG)
The answer to the above problem is to present the same stimulus (or Recording the brain’s
very similar stimuli) many times. After that, the segment of the EEG fol- electrical potentials
lowing each stimulus is extracted and lined up with respect to the time through a series of scalp
of stimulus onset. These EEG segments are then averaged together to electrodes.

produce a single waveform. This method produces event-related potentials

from EEG recordings and allows us to distinguish the genuine effects of
stimulation from background brain activity.
ERPs have excellent temporal resolution, often indicating when a
given process occurred to within a few milliseconds. The ERP waveform
consists of a series of positive (P) and negative (N) peaks, each described
with reference to the time in milliseconds after stimulus onset. Thus, for
example, N400 is a negative wave peaking at about 400 ms.
Behavioural measures (e.g., reaction times) typically provide only a
single measure of time on each trial, whereas ERPs provide a continuous
measure. However, ERPs do not indicate with precision which brain regions
are most involved in processing, in part because skull and brain tissue
distort the brain’s electrical fields. In addition, ERPs are mainly of value
when stimuli are simple and the task involves basic processes (e.g., target
detection) triggered by task stimuli. Finally, we cannot study the most
complex forms of cognition (e.g., problem solving) with ERPs because the
processes by participants would typically change with increased practice.
Positron emission tomography (PET)

Positron emission tomography (PET) is based on the detection of
positrons – atomic particles emitted by some radioactive substances.
Radioactively labelled water (the tracer) is injected into the body and
rapidly gathers in the brain’s blood vessels. When part of the cortex
becomes active, the labelled water moves there rapidly. A scanning device
measures the positrons emitted from the radioactive water which leads to
pictures of the activity levels in different brain regions.
PET has reasonable spatial resolution in that any active brain area
can be located to within 5–10 mm. However, it has very poor temporal
resolution – PET scans indicate the amount of activity in any given brain
region over approximately 30 seconds. As a consequence, PET has now
largely been superseded by fMRI (see p. 19).
The magnetic resonance

imaging (MRI) scanner
has proved an extremely
valuable source of data in
psychology.
Juice Images/Alamy Stock
Photo.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI and fMRI) KEY TERMS

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) involves using an MRI scanner con- BOLD
taining a very large magnet (weighing up to 11 tons). A strong magnetic Blood oxygen-level-
dependent contrast; this
field causes an alignment of protons (subatomic particles) in the brain. A is the signal measured by
brief radio-frequency pulse is applied, which causes the aligned protons to fMRI.
spin and then regain their original orientations giving up a small amount of
Neural decoding
energy as they do so. The brightest regions in the MRI are those emitting Using computer-based
the greatest energy. MRI scans can be obtained from numerous angles but analyses of patterns of
tell us only about brain structure rather than its functions. brain activity to work
Happily, MRI can also be used to provide functional information in the out which stimulus an
form of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Oxyhaemoglobin individual is processing.
is converted into deoxyhaemoglobin when neurons consume oxygen, and
deoxyhaemoglobin produces distortions in the local magnetic field (sorry
this is so complex!). This distortion is assessed by fMRI and provides a
measure of the concentration of deoxyhaemoglobin in the blood.
Technically, what is measured in fMRI is known as BOLD (blood
oxygen-level-dependent contrast). Changes in the BOLD signal produced
by increased neural activity take time, so the temporal resolution of fMRI
is 2 or 3 seconds. However, its spatial resolution is very good (approxi-
mately 1 mm). Thus, fMRI has superior temporal and spatial resolution
to PET.
Suppose we want to understand why people remember some items but
not others. We can use event-related fMRI (efMRI), in which we consider
CAN COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENTISTS READ OUR BRAINS/MINDS?

There is much current interest in neural decoding – “determining what stimuli or mental states
are represented by an observed pattern of neural activity” (Tong & Pratte, 2012, p. 483). This
decoding involves complex computer-based analysis of individuals’ patterns of brain activity and
has sometimes been described as “brain reading” or “mind reading”.
Kay et al. (2008) obtained impressive findings using neural decoding techniques. Two participants
viewed 1,750 natural images and brain-activation patterns were obtained using fMRI. Computer-
based approaches then analysed these patterns. After that, the participants were presented with
120 previously unseen natural images and fMRI data were collected. These fMRI data permitted
correct identification of the image being viewed on 92% of the trials for one participant and 72%
for the other. This is remarkable since chance performance was only 0.8%!
Huth et al. (2016) used more complex stimuli. They presented observers with clips taken from
several movies including Star Trek and Pink Panther 2 while using fMRI. Decoding accuracy was
reasonably successful in identifying general object categories (e.g., animal), specific object catego-
ries (e.g., canine) and various actions (e.g., talk; run) presented in the movie clips.
Research on neural decoding can enhance our understanding of human visual perception.
However, successful decoding of an object using the pattern of brain activation in a given brain
region does not necessarily mean that region is causally involved in observers’ identification of
that object. Several reasons why we need to be cautious when interpreting findings from neural
decoding studies are discussed by Popov et al. (2018). For example, some aspects of brain activ-
ity in response to visual stimuli are irrelevant to the observer’s perceptual representation. In an
experiment, computer analysis of brain activity in macaques successfully classified various stimuli
presented to them that the macaques themselves could not distinguish (Hung et al., 2005).

each participant’s patterns of brain activation for remembered and forgot-

ten items. Wagner et al. (1998) recorded fMRI while participants learned
a list of words. There was more brain activity during learning for words
subsequently recognised than those subsequently forgotten. These findings
suggest forgotten words were processed less thoroughly than remembered
words during learning.
Evaluation
fMRI is the dominant technique within cognitive neuroscience. Its value
has increased over the years with the introduction of more powerful
MRI scanners. Initially, most scanners had a field strength of 1.5 T but
recently scanners with field strengths of up to 7 T have become availa-
ble. As a result, submillimetre spatial resolution is now possible (Turner,
2016).
What are fMRI’s limitations? The main ones are as follows:
(1) It has relatively poor temporal resolution. As a result, it is unin-

formative about the order in which different brain regions (and cog-
nitive processes) are used during performance of a task. However,
other techniques within cognitive neuroscience can be used in con-
junction with fMRI in order to achieve good spatial and temporal
resolution.
(2) It provides an indirect measure of underlying neural activity. “The
BOLD signal primarily measures the input and processing of neural
information . . . but not the output signal transmitted to other brain
regions” (Shifferman, 2015, p. 60).
(3) Various complex processes are used by researchers to take account of
the fact that all brains differ. This involves researchers changing the
raw fMRI data and poses the danger that “BOLD-fMRI neuroimages
represent mathematical constructs rather than physiological reality”
(Shifferman, 2015).
(4) There are important constraints on the visual stimuli that can be
presented to participants when lying in the scanner and on the types
of responses they can make. There can be particular problems with
auditory stimuli because the scanner is noisy.
Magneto-encephalography
The electric currents that the brain generates are associated with a magnetic
field. This magnetic field is assessed by magneto-encephalography (MEG)
involving at least 200 devices on the scalp. This technique has very good
spatial and temporal resolution. However, it is extremely expensive and this
has limited its use.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a technique in which a coil
(often in the shape of a figure of eight) is placed close to the participant’s
head. A very brief (under 1 ms) but large magnetic pulse of current is run

through it. This creates a short-lived magnetic field

generally leading to inhibited processing in the directly
affected area (about 1 cc in extent). More specifically,
the magnetic field created leads to electrical stimula-
tion in the brain. In practice, several magnetic pulses
are typically given in rapid succession – this is repet-
itive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Most
research has used rTMS but we will often simply use
the more general term TMS.
What is an appropriate control condition against
which to compare the effects of TMS or rTMS? We
could compare task performance with and without Transcranial magnetic stimulation coil.
TMS. However, TMS creates a loud noise and muscle University of Durham/Simon Fraser/Science Photo
twitching at the side of the forehead and these effects Library.
might lead to impaired performance. Applying TMS
to a non-critical brain area (irrelevant for task perfor-
mance) often provides a suitable control condition. It is typically predicted
task performance will be worse when TMS is applied to a critical area
rather than a non-critical one because it produces a temporary “lesion” or
interference to the area targeted.
Evaluation
What are TMS’s strengths? First, it permits causal inferences – if TMS
applied to a particular brain area impairs task performance, we can infer
that brain area is necessary for task performance. Conversely, if TMS has
no effects on task performance, we can conclude the brain area affected by
it is irrelevant. In that respect, it resembles cognitive neuropsychology.
Second, TMS research is more flexible than cognitive neuropsychology.
For example, we can compare any given individual’s performance with and
without a “lesion” with TMS. This is rarely possible with brain-damaged
patients.
Third, TMS research is also more flexible than cognitive neuropsychol-
ogy because the researcher controls the brain area(s) affected. In addition,
the temporary “lesions” created by TMS typically cover a smaller brain
area than patients’ lesions. This is important because the smaller the brain
affected, the easier it generally is to interpret task-performance findings.
Fourth, with TMS research, we can ascertain when a brain area is
most activated. For example, the presentation of a visual stimulus leads
to processing proceeding rapidly to higher visual levels (feedforward pro-
cessing). According to Lamme (2010), conscious visual perception typically
requires subsequent recurrent processing proceeding in the opposite direc-
tion from higher levels to lower ones. Koivisto et al. (2011) used TMS to
disrupt recurrent processing. As predicted, this impaired conscious visual
perception.
What are the limitations of TMS research? First, the effects of TMS
are complex and not fully understood. When TMS was first introduced,
it was assumed it would disrupt performance. That is, the most common
finding. However, Luber and Lisanby (2014) reviewed 61 studies in which
performance speed and/or accuracy was enhanced!

How can TMS enhance performance? It sometimes increases neural

activity in areas adjacent to the one stimulated and so increases their pro-
cessing efficiency (Luber & Lisanby, 2014). There is also much evidence
for compensatory flexibility (Hartwigsen, 2018) – disruption to cognitive
processing within a given brain area caused by TMS is compensated for by
the recruitment of other brain areas.
Second, it is hard to establish the precise brain areas affected by TMS.
For example, adverse effects of TMS on performance might occur because
it interferes with communication between two brain areas at some dis-
tance from the stimulation point. This issue can be addressed by combin-
ing TMS with neuroimaging techniques to clarify its effects (Valero-Cabré
et al., 2017).
Third, TMS can only be applied to brain areas lying beneath the skull
but with overlying muscle. That limits its overall usefulness.
Fourth, there are safety issues with TMS. It has very occasionally
caused seizures in participants despite stringent rules designed to ensure
their safety.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

As mentioned earlier, anodal tDCS increases cortical excitability whereas
cathodal tDCS decreases cortical excitability. The temporal and spatial res-
olution of tDCS is less than TMS (Stagg & Nitsche, 2011). However, anodal
tDCS has a significant advantage over TMS in that it often facilitates or
enhances cognitive functioning. As a result, anodal tDCS is increasingly
used to reduce adverse effects of brain damage on cognitive functioning
(Stagg et al., 2018). Some of these beneficial effects on cognition are rela-
tively long-lasting. Another advantage of tDCS is that it typically causes
little or no discomfort.
Much progress has been made in understanding the complex mecha-
nisms associated with tDCS. However, “Knowledge about the physiologi-
cal effects of tDCS is still not complete” (Stagg et al., 2018, p. 144).
Overall strengths
Cognitive neuroscience has contributed substantially to our understand-
ing of human cognition. We discuss supporting evidence for that statement
throughout the book in areas that include perception, attention, learning,
memory, language comprehension, language production, problem solving,
reasoning, decision-making and consciousness. Here we identify its major
strengths.
First, cognitive neuroscience has helped to resolve theoretical con-
troversies and issues that had proved intractable with purely behavioural
studies (Mather et al., 2013). The main reason is that cognitive neuroscience
adds considerably to the information available to researchers (Poldrack &
Yarkoni, 2016). Below we briefly consider two examples:
(1) Listeners hearing degraded speech find it much more intelligible when
it is accompanied by visually presented words matching (rather than
not matching) the auditory input. There has been much theoretical

controversy concerning when this visually presented information influ- KEY TERM
ences speech perception (see Chapter 9). Does it occur early and so
Functional specialisation
directly influence basic auditory processes or does it occur late (after The assumption that
basic auditory processing has finished)? Wild et al. (2012) found there each brain area or
was more activity in brain areas involved in early auditory processing region is specialised for
when the visual input matched the auditory input. This strongly sug- a specific function (e.g.,
colour processing; face
gests visual information directly influences basic auditory processes.
processing).
(2) There has been much theoretical controversy as to whether visual
imagery resembles visual perception (see Chapter 3). Behavioural evi-
dence has proved inconclusive. However, neuroimaging has shown
two-thirds of the brain areas activated during visual perception are
also activated during visual imagery (Kosslyn, 2005). Even brain
areas involved in the early stages of visual perception are often acti-
vated during visual imagery tasks (Kosslyn & Thompson, 2003).
Thus, there are important similarities. Functional neuroimaging has
also revealed important differences between the processes involved in
visual perception and imagery (Dijkstra et al., 2017b).
Second, the incredible richness of neuroimaging data means cognitive neu-

roscientists can (at least in principle) construct theoretical models accurately
mimicking the complexities of brain functioning. In contrast, cognitive
neuropsychology, for example, is less flexible and more committed to the
notion of a modular brain organisation.
Third, over 10,000 fMRI studies within cognitive neuroscience have
been published. Many meta-analyses based on these studies have been
carried out to understand brain-cognition relationships (Poldrack &
Yarkoni, 2016). Such meta-analyses “provide highly robust estimates of the
neural correlates of relatively specific cognitive tasks” (p. 592). At present,
this approach is limited because we do not know the pattern of activation
associated with any given cognitive process – data are coded with respect
to particular tasks rather than underlying cognitive processes.
Fourth, neuroimaging data can often be re-analysed based on the-
oretical developments. For example, early neuroimaging research on
face processing suggested it occurs mostly within the fusiform face
area (see Chapter 3). However, the assumption that face processing
involves a network of brain regions provides a more accurate account
(Grill-Spector et al., 2017). Thus, cognitive neuroscience can be self-
correcting.
More generally, cognitive neuroscience has shown the assumption of
functional specialisation (each brain area is specialised for a different func-
tion) is oversimplified. We can contrast the notions of functional special-
isation and functional integration (positive correlations of various brain
areas within a network). For example, conscious perception depends on
coordinated activity across several brain regions and so involves functional
integration (see Chapter 16).
Overall limitations
We turn now to general issues raised by cognitive neuroscience. We empha-
sise fMRI research because that technique has been used most often.

KEY TERM First, many cognitive neuroscientists over-interpret their findings by assum-
ing one-to-one links between cognitive processes and brain areas. For
Reverse inference
As applied to functional example, activation in a particular small brain region (a “blob”) is inter-
neuroimaging, it involves preted as being the “love area” and another small region was interpreted as
arguing backwards from a being the “face processing area”. This approach has been described (unflat-
pattern of brain activation teringly) as “blobology”.
to the presence of a given
Blobology is in decline. However, there is still undue reliance on
cognitive process.
reverse inference – the involvement of a given cognitive process is inferred
from activation within a given brain region. For example, face recognition
is typically associated with activation within the fusiform face area, which
led many researchers to identify that area as specifically involved in face
processing. This is incorrect in two ways (see Chapter 3): (1) the fusiform
face area is activated in response to many different kinds of objects as well
as faces (Downing et al., 2006); and (2) several other brain areas (e.g.,
occipital face area) are also activated during face processing.
Second, cognitive neuroscience is rarely used to test cognitive theo-
ries. For example, Tressoldi et al. (2012) reviewed 199 studies published
in 8 journals. They found 89% of these studies focused on localising the
brain areas associated with brain processes and only 11% tested a theory
of cognition.
There is some validity to Tressoldi et al.’s (2012) argument. However,
it has become less persuasive because of the rapidly increasing emphasis
within cognitive neuroscience on theory testing.
Third, it is hard to bridge the divide between psychological processes
and concepts and patterns of brain activation. As Harley (2012) pointed
out, we may never find brain patterns corresponding closely to psycholog-
ical processes such as “attention” or “planning”. Harley (2012, p. 1372)
concluded as follows: “Our language and thought may not divide up in the
way in which the brain implements these processes.”
Fourth, it is sometimes hard to replicate findings within cognitive neu-
roscience. For example, Uttal (2012) compared the findings from different
brain-imaging meta-analyses on a given cognitive function. More specif-
ically, he identified the Brodmann areas associated with a given cogni-
tive function in two meta-analyses. Uttal then worked out the Brodmann
areas activated in both meta-analyses and divided this by the total number
of Brodmann areas identified in at least one meta-analysis. If the two
meta-analyses were in total agreement, the resultant figure would be 100%.
The actual figure varied between 14% and 51%!
Uttal’s (2012) findings seem devastating – after all, we might expect
meta-analyses based on numerous studies to provide very reliable evi-
dence. However, many apparent discrepancies occurred mainly because
one meta-analysis reported activation in fewer brain areas than the other.
This often happened because of stricter criteria for deciding a given brain
area was activated (Klein, 2014).
Fifth, false-positive findings (i.e., mistakenly concluding that random
activity in a given brain area is task-relevant) are common (Yarkoni et
al., 2010; see discussion later on p. 25). There are several reasons for this.
For example, researchers have numerous options when deciding precisely
how to analyse their fMRI data (Poldrack et al., 2017). In addition, most
neuroimaging studies produce huge amounts of data and researchers

sometimes fail to adjust required significance

levels appropriately.
Bennett et al. (2009) provided an example
of a false-positive finding. They asked their
participant to determine the emotions shown
in photographs. When they did not adjust
required significance levels, there was signif-
icant evidence of brain activation (see Figure
1.9). Amusingly, the participant was a dead
salmon so we can be certain the “finding”
was a false positive.
Sixth, most brain-imaging techniques
Figure 1.9
reveal only associations between patterns of Areas showing greater activation in a dead salmon when
brain activation and behaviour. Such asso- presented with photographs of people than when at rest.
ciations are purely correlational and do not From Bennett et al. (2009). With kind permission of the authors.
establish the brain regions activated are nec-
essary for task performance. For example,
brain activation might also be caused by participants engaging in unnec-
essary monitoring of their performance or attending to non-task stimuli.
Seventh, many cognitive neuroscientists previously assumed most
brain activity is driven by environmental or task demands. As a result, we
might expect relatively large increases in brain activity in response to such
demands. That is not the case. The increased brain activity when someone
performs a cognitive task typically adds less than 5% to resting brain activ-
ity. Surprisingly several brain areas exhibit decreased activity when a cog-
nitive task is performed. Of importance here is the default mode network
(Raichle, 2015). It consists of an interconnected set of brain regions (includ-
ing the ventral medial and dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, and the poste-
rior cingulate cortex) more active during rest than during performance of
a task. Its functions include mind wandering, worrying and daydreaming.
The key point is that patterns of brain activity in response to any given
cognitive task reflect increased activity associated with task processing and
decreased activity associated with reduced activity within the default mode
network. Such complexities complicate the interpretation of neuroimaging
data.
Eighth, cognitive neuroscience shares with cognitive psychology
problems of ecological validity (applicability to everyday life) and para-
digm specificity (findings not generalising across paradigms). Indeed, the
problem of ecological validity may be greater in cognitive neuroscience.
For example, participants in fMRI studies lie on their backs in claustro- KEY TERM
phobic and noisy conditions and have very restricted movement – not Default mode network
much like everyday life! Gutchess and Park (2006) found recognition A network of brain
memory was significantly worse in an MRI scanner than in an ordi- regions that is active
nary laboratory. Presumably the scanner provided a more distracting or “by default” when an
anxiety-creating environment. individual is not involved
in a current task; it is
Ninth, we must avoid what Ali et al. (2014) termed “neuroenchantment” – associated with internal
exaggerating the importance of neuroimaging to our understanding of cog- processes including mind
nition. Ali et al. provided a striking example of neuroenchantment. College wandering, remembering
students were exposed to a crudely built mock brain scanner (including a the past and imagining
discarded hair dryer!) (see Figure 1.10). They were asked to think about the future.

Figure 1.10
The primitive mock
neuroimaging device used
by Ali et al. (2014).
the answers to various questions (e.g., name a country). The mock neuro-
imaging device apparently “read their minds” and worked out exactly what
they were thinking. Amazingly, three-quarters of the student participants
believed this was genuine rather than being due to the researcher’s trickery?
COMPUTATIONAL COGNITIVE SCIENCE

There is an important distinction between computational modelling and
artificial intelligence. Computational modelling involves programming
computers to model or mimic human cognitive functioning. Thus, cogni-
tive modellers “have the goal of understanding the human mind through
computer simulation” (Taatgen et al., 2016, p. 1). In contrast, artificial
intelligence involves constructing computer systems producing intelligent
outcomes but typically in ways different from humans. Consider Deep Blue,
the IBM computer that defeated the world chess champion Garry Kasparov
on 11 May 1997. Deep Blue processed up to 200 million positions per
second, which is vastly more than human chess players (see Chapter 12).
KEY TERMS The IBM computer Watson also shows the power of artificial intel-
Computational ligence. This computer competed on the American quiz show Jeopardy
modelling against two of the most successful human contestants ever on that show:
This involves constructing
computer programs that
Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings. The competition took place between
simulate or mimic human 14 and 16 February 2011, and Watson won the $1 million first prize.
cognitive processes. Watson had the advantage over Rutter and Jennings of having access to
Artificial intelligence
10 million documents (200 million pages of content). However, Watson
This involves developing had the disadvantage of being less sensitive to subtleties contained in the
computer programs questions.
that produce intelligent In the past (and even nowadays), many experimental cognitive psycholo-
outcomes. gists expressed their theories in vague verbal statements (e.g., “Information

The IBM Watson and two

human contestants (Ken
Jennings and Brad Rutter).
Ben Hider/Getty Images.
from short-term memory is transferred to long-term memory”). This

made it hard to provide precise predictions from the theory and to decide
whether the evidence fitted the theory. As Murphy (2011) pointed out,
verbal theories provided theorists with undesirable “wiggle room”. In con-
trast, a computational model “requires the researchers to be explicit about
a theory in a way that a verbal theory does not” (Murphy, 2011, p. 300).
Implementing a theory as a program is a good way to check it contains no
hidden assumptions or imprecise terms. This often reveals that the theory
makes predictions the theorist had not realised!
There are issues concerning the relationship between the performance
of a computer program and human performance (Costello & Keane, 2000).
For example, a program’s speed doing a simulated task can be affected
by psychologically irrelevant features (e.g., the power of the computer).
Nevertheless, the various materials presented to the program should result
in differences in program operation time correlating closely with differences
in participants’ reaction times with the same materials.
Types of models
Most computational models focus on specific aspects of human cognition.
For example, there are successful computational models providing accounts
of reading words and non-words aloud (Coltheart et al., 2001; Perry et al.,
2007, 2014; Plaut et al., 1996) (see Chapter 9).
More ambitious computational models provide cognitive
architectures – “models of the fixed structure of the mind” (Rosenbloom KEY TERM
et al., 2017, p. 2). Approximately 300 cognitive architectures have been Cognitive architecture
proposed over the years (Kotseruba & Tsotsos, 2018). Comprehensive framework
Note that a cognitive architecture typically has to be supplemented with for understanding human
the knowledge required to perform a given task to produce a fully fledged cognition in the form of a
computational model (Byrne, 2012). Anderson et al. (2004) proposed an computer program.

KEY TERMS especially influential cognitive architecture in their Adaptive Control of

Thought-Rational (ACT-R) (discussed on p. 30).
Connectionist models
Models in computational
cognitive science
consisting of
Connectionism
interconnected networks Connectionist models (also called neural network models) typically
of simple units or
consist of interconnected networks of simple units (or nodes) that exhibit
nodes; the networks
exhibit learning through learning.
experience and specific Connectionist or neural network models use elementary units or nodes
items of knowledge connected together in structures or layers (see Figure 1.11). First, a layer
are distributed across of input nodes codes the input. Second, activation caused by input coding
numerous units.
spreads to a layer of hidden nodes. Third, activation spreads to a layer of
Neural network models output nodes.
Computational models Of major importance, the basic model shown in Figure 1.11 can learn
in which processing
simple additions. If input node 1 is active, output node 1 will also become
involves the simultaneous
activation of numerous active. If input nodes 1 and 2 are active, output node 3 will become active.
interconnected nodes If all input nodes are active, output node 10 will become active and so on.
(basic units). The model compares the actual output against the correct output. If there
Nodes is a discrepancy, the model learns to adjust the weights of the connections
The basic units within a between the nodes to produce the correct output. This is known as back-
neural network model. ward propagation of errors or back-propagation, and it allows the model
Back-propagation to learn the appropriate responses without being explicitly programmed to
A learning mechanism do so.
in connectionist models Numerous connectionist models have been constructed using the basic
based on comparing architecture shown in Figure 1.11. Recent connectionist models often have
actual responses to
several hidden layers (they are called deep neural networks). Connectionist
correct ones.
models involve distributed representations whereas other computational
models involve localist representations (Bowers, 2017a). In the former
case, each node or unit responds to multiple stimulus categories and so
a given word or object is represented by the pattern of activation across
many nodes or units.
In the latter case, each node or unit responds most actively to a single
meaningful stimulus category (e.g., a given word or object).
Interest in the connectionist approach was triggered initially by
Rumelhart et al. (1986) and McClelland et al. (1986) with their parallel
distributed processing models. These models (like most models based on
distributed representations) exhibit learning. Other influential connectionist
models are Plaut et al.’s (1996) reading model (Chapter 9) and McClelland
& Elma’s (1986) TRACE model of spoken word recognition (Chapter 9).
In contrast, computational models based
on localist representations often do not exhibit
learning because the representations contain
all the required information. Examples of
such models in this book include Coltheart
et al.’s (2001) reading model (Chapter 9) and
the speech production models of Dell (1986)
and Levelt et al. (1999; see Chapter 11).
It has often been assumed localist models
Figure 1.11 are biologically implausible because they seem
Architecture of a basic three-layer connectionist network. to imply a single neuron responds to stimuli

from a given category. However, many neurons show considerable selec- KEY TERMS
tivity because they respond to only a very small fraction of stimuli. For
Production systems
example, consider a study by Quiroga et al. (2005) mentioned earlier. They These consist of very
presented epileptic patients with 100 images including famous individuals large numbers of “IF . . .
and landmark buildings. On average, responsive neurons responded to THEN” production rules
only approximately 3% of the images. The issues are complex. However, it and a working memory
containing information.
is not clear localist models are less biologically plausible than distributed
models (Bowers, 2017b). Production rules
“IF . . . THEN” or
condition-action rules
Evaluation in which the action is
carried out whenever the
There are many successful connectionist or neural network models (some appropriate condition is
are mentioned above). Such models (discussed at various points in this present.
book) have provided valuable insights into human cognition and the models Working memory
have become increasingly sophisticated over time. A general strength of A limited-capacity system
neural networks is that they “exhibit robust flexibility in the face of the used in the processing
challenges posed by the real world” (Garson, 2016, p. 3). That is one reason and brief holding of
information.
why neural networks can perform numerous different kinds of cognitive
tasks. Finally, there are intriguing similarities between the brain, with its
numerous units (neurons) and synaptic connections, and neural networks,
with their units (nodes) and connections.
What are the limitations of connectionist models? First, there is an
issue with the common assumption that connectionist models are distrib-
uted. If two words are presented at the same time, this can lead to super-
imposing two patterns over the same units or nodes making it hard (or
impossible) to decide which activated units or nodes belong to which word.
This causes superposition catastrophe (Bowers, 2017a).
Second, there are many examples of neural networks that can make
associations and match patterns. However, it has proved much harder to
develop neural networks that can learn general rules (Garson, 2016).
Third, the analogy between neural networks and the brain is very
limited. In essence, the latter is hugely more complex than the former.
Fourth, back-propagation implies learning will be slow, whereas
humans sometimes exhibit one-trial learning (Garson, 2016). Furthermore,
there is little or no evidence of back-propagation in the human brain
(Mayor et al., 2014).
Production systems
Production systems consist of numerous “IF . . . THEN” production rules.
Production rules can take many forms. However, an everyday example is:
“If the green man is lit up, then cross the road.” There is also a working
memory (i.e., a system holding information currently being processed).
If information from the environment that “green man is lit up” reaches
working memory, it will match the IF part of the rule in long-term memory
and trigger the THEN part of the rule (i.e., cross the road).
Production systems vary but generally have the following characteristics:
● numerous IF . . . THEN rules;

● a working memory containing information;

● a production system that operates by matching the contents of working

memory against the IF parts of the rules and then executing the THEN
parts;
● if information in working memory matches the IF parts of two rules, a
conflict-resolution strategy selects one.
Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) and beyond

As mentioned earlier, Anderson et al. (2004) proposed ACT-R, which was
subsequently developed (e.g., Anderson et al., 2008). ACT-R assumes the
cognitive system consists of several modules (relatively independent subsys-
tems). It combines computational cognitive science with cognitive neuro-
science by identifying the brain regions associated with each module (see
Figure 1.12). Four modules are of special importance:
(1) Retrieval module: it maintains the retrieval cues needed to access

information; its proposed location is the inferior ventrolateral pre-
frontal cortex.
(2) Imaginal module: it transforms problem representations to assist in
problem solving; it is located in the posterior parietal cortex.
(3) Goal module: it keeps tracks of an individual’s intentions and con-
trols information processing; it is located in the anterior cingulate
cortex.
(4) Procedural module: it uses production (IF . . . THEN) rules to deter-
mine what action will be taken next; it is located at the head of the
caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia.
Each module has a buffer associated with it containing a limited amount of

important information. How is information from these buffers integrated?
According to Anderson et al. (2004, p. 1058): “A central production
system can detect patterns in these buffers and take co-ordinated action.”
Figure 1.12
The main modules of the
ACT-R (Adaptive Control of
Thought-Rational) cognitive
architecture with their
locations within the brain.
Reprinted from Anderson
et al. (2008). Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier.

If several productions could be triggered by the information contained

in the buffers, one is selected based on the value or gain associated with
each outcome plus the amount of time or cost incurred in achieving that
outcome.
ACT-R represents an impressive attempt to provide a theoretical
framework for understanding information processing and performance on
numerous cognitive tasks. It is also impressive in seeking to integrate com-
putational cognitive science with cognitive neuroscience.
What are ACT-R’s limitations? First, it is very hard to test such a
wide-ranging theory. Second, areas of prefrontal cortex (e.g., dorsolat-
eral prefrontal cortex) generally assumed to be of major importance in
cognition are de-emphasised. Third, as discussed earlier, research within
cognitive neuroscience increasingly reveals the importance to cognitive pro-
cessing of brain networks rather than specific regions. Fourth, in common
with most other cognitive architectures, ACT-R has a knowledge base that
is substantially smaller than that possessed by humans (Lieto et al., 2018).
This reduces the applicability of ACT-R to human cognitive performance.
Standard model of the mind

Dozens of cognitive architectures have been proposed and it is difficult to
compare them. Laird et al. (2017; see also Rosenbloom et al., 2017) recently
proposed a standard model emphasising commonalities among major cogni-
tive architectures including ACT-R (see Figure 1.13).
Figure 1.13 may look unimpressive because it represents the model at
a very general level. However, the model contains numerous additional
assumptions (Laird et al., 2017). First, procedural memory has special
importance because it has access to the whole of working memory; in con-
trast, the other modules have access only to specific aspects of working
memory.
Declarative
Long-term Memory
Procedural
Working Memory
Long-term Memory Figure 1.13
The basic structure of the
standard model involving
five independent modules.
Declarative memory (see
Perception Motor
Glossary) stores facts and
events whereas procedural
memory (see Glossary)
stores knowledge about
actions.

Second, the crucial assumption is that there is a cognitive cycle lasting

approximately 50 ms per cycle. What happens is that: “Procedural memory
induces the selection of a single deliberate act per cycle, which can modify
working memory, initiate the retrieval of knowledge from long-term declar-
ative memory, initiate motor actions . . ., and provide top-down influence
to perception” (Laird et al., 2017, p. 3). The cognitive cycle involves serial
processing but parallel processing can occur within any module as well as
between them.
The standard model is useful but incomplete. For example, it does not
distinguish between different types of declarative memory (e.g., episodic
and semantic memory; see Chapter 7). In addition, it does not account for
emotional influences on cognitive processing.
Links with other approaches

ACT-R represents an impressive attempt to apply computational models to
cognitive neuroscience. There has also been interest in applying such models
to data from brain-damaged patients. Typically, the starting point is to
develop a computational model accounting for the performance of healthy
individuals on some task. After that, aspects of the computational model
or program are altered to simulate “lesions”, and the effects on task perfor-
mance are assessed. Finally, the lesioned model’s performance is compared
against that of brain-damaged patients (Dell & Caramazza, 2008).
Overall strengths
Computational cognitive science has several strengths. First, the develop-
ment of cognitive architectures can provide an overarching framework for
understanding the cognitive system. This would be a valuable achievement
given that much research in cognitive psychology is limited in scope and
suffers from paradigm specificity. Laird et al.’s (2017) standard model rep-
resents an important step on the way to that achievement.
Second, the scope of computational cognitive science has increased.
Initially, it was applied mainly to behavioural data. More recently, however,
it has been applied to functional neuroimaging data (e.g., Anderson et al.,
2004) and EEG data (Anderson et al., 2016a). Why is this important? As
Taatgen et al. (2016, p. 3) pointed out: “The link to neuroimaging is critical
in establishing that the hypothesised processing steps in cognitive models
have plausibility in reality.”
Third, rigorous thinking is required to develop computational models
because computer programs must contain detailed information about the
processes involved in performing any given task. In contrast, many theo-
ries within traditional cognitive psychology are vaguely expressed and the
predictions following from their assumptions are unclear.
Fourth, progress is increasingly made by using nested incremental mod-
elling. In essence, a new model builds on the strengths of previous related
models while eliminating (or reducing) their weaknesses and accounting for
additional data. For example, Perry et al. (2007; Chapter 9) put forward a
connectionist dual-process model (CDP+) of reading aloud that improved
on the model on which it was based.

Overall limitations
What are the main limitations of the computational cognitive science
approach? First, there is Bonini’s paradox: as models become more accu-
rate and complete, they can become as hard to understand as the complex
phenomena they are designed to explain. Conversely, models easy to under-
stand are typically inaccurate and incomplete. Many computational mod-
ellers have responded to this paradox by focusing on the essence of the
phenomena and ignoring the minor details (Milkowski, 2016, p. 1459).
Second, many computational models are hard to falsify. The ingenuity
of computational modellers means many models can account for numerous
behavioural findings (Taatgen et al., 2016). This issue can be addressed by
requiring computational models to explain neuroimaging findings as well
as behavioural ones.
Third, some computational models are less successful than they appear.
One reason is overfitting in which a model accounts for noise in the data
as well as genuine effects (Ziegler et al., 2010). Overfitting often means a
model seems to account very well for a given data set but is poor at pre-
dicting new data (Yarkoni & Westfall, 2017).
Fourth, most computational models ignore motivational and emo-
tional factors. Norman (1980) distinguished between a cognitive system
(the Pure Cognitive System) and a biological system (the Regulatory
System). Computational cognitive science typically de-emphasises the
Regulatory System even though it often strongly influences the Pure
Cognitive System. This issue can be addressed by developing computa-
tional models indicating how emotions modulate cognitive processes
(Rodriguez et al., 2016).
Fifth, many computational models are very hard to understand
(Taatgen et al., 2016). Why is this so? Addyman and French (2012, p. 332)
identified several reasons:
Everyone still programs in [their] own favourite programming lan-

guage, source code is rarely made available, . . . even for other mod-
ellers, the profusion of source code in a multitude of programming
languages, writing without programming guidelines, makes it almost
impossible to access, check, explore, re-use or continue to develop
[models].
Computational modellers often fail to share their source codes and models
because they have perceived ownership over their own research and are
concerned about losing control over it (Fecher et al., 2015).
COMPARISONS OF MAJOR APPROACHES

We have discussed the major approaches to human cognition at length and
you may wonder which is the most useful and informative. However, that is
not the best way of thinking about the issues for various reasons:
(1) An increasing amount of research involves two or more different

approaches.

KEY TERMS (2) Each approach makes its own distinctive contribution and so all are
required. By analogy, it would be pointless asking whether a driver is
Converging operations
An approach in which more or less useful than a putter for a golfer – both are essential.
several methods with (3) Each approach has its own limitations as well as strengths (see Table
different strengths and 1.2). The optimal solution in such circumstances is to use converging
limitations are used to operations – several different research methods are used to address
address a given issue.
a given theoretical issue with the strengths of one method balancing
Replication out the limitations of other methods. If different methods produce the
The ability to repeat a same answer, that provides stronger evidence than could be obtained
previous experiment
using a single method. If different methods produce different answers,
and obtain the same (or
similar) findings. further research is required to clarify matters. Note that using conver-
gent operations is more difficult and demanding than using a single
approach (Brase, 2014).
In writing this book, our coverage of each topic emphasises research most
enhancing our understanding. As a result, any given approach (e.g., cogni-
tive neuroscience; cognitive neuropsychology) is strongly represented when
we discuss some topics but is much less well represented with other topics.
IS THERE A REPLICATION CRISIS?

Replication (the ability to repeat the findings of previous research using the
same or similar experimental methods) is of central importance to psychol-
ogy (including cognitive psychology). In recent years, however, there have
been concerns about the extent to which findings can be replicated, leading
Shrout and Rodgers (2018, p. 487) to refer to “the replication crisis” in
psychology.
An important trigger for these concerns was an influential article in
which the replicability of 100 studies published in leading psychology
journals was assessed (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Only 36% of
the findings reported in these studies were replicated. Within cognitive
psychology, only 21 out of 42 findings (50%) were replicated.
Only 50% of findings were reproduced! This is perhaps less problem-
atical than it sounds. The complexities of research mean individual studies
can provide only an estimate of the “true” state of affairs rather than
definitive evidence (Stanley & Spence, 2014).
Why are there problems with replicating findings in cognitive psychol-
ogy (and psychology generally)? A major reason is the sheer complexity of
human cognition – cognitive processing and performance are influenced by
numerous factors (many of which are not controlled or manipulated). As a
result, even replicated findings often differ considerably in terms of the size
of the effects obtained (Stanley et al., 2018).
Another reason is that experimenters sometimes use questionable
research practices exaggerating the true statistical significance of their data.
One example is p-hacking (selective reporting), in which “Researchers
conduct many analyses on the same data set and just report those that are
statistically significant” (Simmons et al., 2018, p. 255). Another example
involves researchers proposing hypotheses after research results are known
rather than before as should be the case (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018).

TABLE 1.3 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF MAJOR APPROACHES TO HUMAN COGNITION

Strengths Limitations
Experimental cognitive psychology
1. The first systematic approach to understanding 1. Most cognitive tasks are complex and involve many
human cognition different processes
2. The source of most theories and tasks used by the 2. Behavioural evidence provides indirect evidence concerning
other approaches internal processes
3. It is enormously flexible and can be applied to any 3. Theories are sometimes vague and hard to test empirically.
aspect of cognition
4. It has produced numerous important replicated 4. Findings sometimes do not generalise because of paradigm
findings specificity
5. It has strongly influenced social, clinical and 5. There is a lack of an overarching theoretical framework
developmental psychology
Cognitive neuropsychology
1. Double dissociations have provided strong evidence 1. Patients may develop compensatory major strategies not
for various processing modules found in healthy individuals
2. Causal links can be shown between brain damage 2. Most of its theoretical assumptions (e.g., the mind is
and cognitive performance modular) seem too extreme
3. It has revealed unexpected complexities in cognition 3. Detailed cognitive processes and their interconnectedness
(e.g., language) are often not specified
4. It transformed memory and language research 4. There has been excessive reliance on single-case studies
5. It straddles the divide between cognitive psychology 5. Brain plasticity complicates interpreting findings
and cognitive neuroscience
Cognitive neuroscience: functional neuroimaging + ERPs + TMS
1. Great variety of techniques offering excellent 1. Functional neuroimaging techniques provide essentially
temporal or spatial resolution correlational data
2. Functional specialisation and brain integration can 2. Much over-interpretation of data involving reverse
be studied inferences
3. TMS is flexible and permits causal inferences 3. There are many false positives and replication failures
4. Rich data permit assessment of integrated brain 4. It has generated very few new theories
processing as well as specialised functioning
5. Resolution of complex theoretical issues 5. Difficulty in relating brain activity to psychological processes
Computational cognitive science
1. Theoretical assumptions are spelled out with 1. Many computational models do not make new predictions
precision
2. Comprehensive cognitive architectures have been 2. There is some overfitting, which restricts generalisation to
developed other data sets
3. Computational models are increasingly used to 3. It is sometimes hard to falsify computational effects of
model brain damage models
4. Computational cognitive neuroscience is increasingly 4. Most computational models de-emphasise motivational and
used to model patterns of brain activity emotional factors
5. The emphasis on parallel processing fits well with 5. Researchers’ reluctance to share source codes and models
functional neuroimaging data inhibits progress

KEY TERM One answer to problems with replicability is to use meta-analysis,

in which findings from many studies are combined and integrated using
Meta-analysis
A form of statistical various statistical techniques. This approach has the advantage of not
analysis based on exaggerating the importance of any single study, but has various potential
combining the findings problems (Sharpe, 1997):
from numerous studies on
a given research topic.
(1) The “apples and oranges” problem: very different studies are often
included within a meta-analysis.
(2) The “file drawer” problem: it is hard for researchers to publish
non-significant findings. Since meta-analyses often ignore unpublished
findings, the studies included may be unrepresentative.
(3) The “garbage in – garbage out” problem: poorly designed and con-
ducted studies are often included along with high-quality ones.
The above problems can be addressed. Precise criteria for studies to be

included can reduce the first and third problems. The second problem can
be reduced by asking researchers to provide relevant unpublished data.
Watt and Kennedy (2017) identified a more important problem: many
researchers use somewhat subjective criteria for inclusion of studies in
meta-analyses, favouring those supporting their theoretical position and
rejecting those that do not. This creates confirmation bias (see Chapter 14).
The good news is that experimental psychologists (including cogni-
tive psychologists) have responded very positively to the above problems.
More specifically, there has been a large increase in disclosure and pre-
registration. Disclosure means that researchers “disclose all of their meas-
ures, manipulations, and exclusions” (Nelson et al., 2018, p. 518). In the
case of meta-analyses, it means researchers making available all the find-
ings initially considered for inclusion. That would allow other research-
ers to conduct their own meta-analyses and check whether the outcome
remains the same.
Pre-registration involves researchers making publicly available all
decisions about sample size, hypotheses, statistical analyses and so on
before an experimental study is carried out. With respect to meta-analyses,
pre-registration involves making public the inclusion criteria for a meta-
analysis, the methods of analysis and so on, before the findings of included
studies are known (Hamlin, 2017).
In sum, there are some genuine issues concerning the replicability of
findings within cognitive psychology. However, there are various reasons
why there is no “replication crisis”. First, numerous important findings
in cognitive psychology have been replicated dozens or even hundreds
of times as is clear from a very large number of meta-analytic reviews.
Second, as Nelson et al. (2018, p. 511) pointed out: “The scientific practices
of experimental psychologists have improved dramatically.”
OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK

One problem with writing a textbook of cognitive psychology is that vir-
tually all the processes and systems in the cognitive system are interde-
pendent. Consider, for example, a student reading a book to prepare for an
examination. The student is learning, but several other processes are going

on as well. Visual perception is involved in the intake of information from

the printed page, and there is attention to the content of the book.
In order for the student to benefit from the book, they must possess
considerable language skill, and must have extensive relevant knowledge
stored in long-term memory. There may be an element of problem solving
in the student’s attempts to relate the book’s content to the possibly con-
flicting information they have learned elsewhere. Decision-making may also
be involved when the student decides how much time to devote to each
chapter.
In addition, what the student learns depends on their emotional state.
Finally, the acid test of whether the student’s learning has been effective
comes during the examination itself, when the material from the book
must be retrieved and consciously evaluated to decide its relevance to the
examination question.
The words italicised in the previous three paragraphs indicate major
aspects of human cognition and form the basis of our coverage. In view
of the interdependence of all aspects of the cognitive system, we empha-
sise how each process (e.g., perception) depends on other processes and
structures (e.g., attention, long-term memory). This should aid the task of
understanding the complexities of human cognition.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
• Introduction. Cognitive psychology used to be unified by an
approach based on an analogy between the mind and the
computer. This information-processing approach viewed the mind
as a general-purpose, symbol-processing system of limited capacity.
Today there are four main approaches to human cognition:
experimental cognitive psychology; cognitive neuroscience;
cognitive neuropsychology; and computational cognitive science.
These four approaches are increasingly combined to provide an
enriched understanding of human cognition.
• Cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology focuses on internal

mental processes whereas behaviourism focused mostly on
observable stimuli and responses. Cognitive psychologists assume
top-down and bottom-up processes are both involved in the
performance of cognitive tasks. These processes can be serial
or parallel. Various methods (e.g., latent-variable analysis) have
been used to address the task impurity problem and to identify
the processes within cognitive tasks. Cognitive psychology has
massively influenced theorising and the tasks used across all
major approaches to human cognition. In spite of its enormous
contributions, cognitive psychology sometimes lacks ecological
validity, suffers from paradigm specificity and is theoretically vague.
• Cognitive neuropsychology. Cognitive neuropsychology is

based on various assumptions including modularity, anatomical

modularity, uniformity of functional architecture and subtractivity.

Double dissociations provide reasonable (limited) evidence
for separate modules or systems. The case-study approach
is more informative than the single-case approach. Cognitive
neuropsychology is limited for several reasons: its assumptions are
mostly too strong; patients can develop compensatory strategies,
there is brain plasticity; brain damage can cause widespread
reduced connectivity within the brain; and it underestimates the
extent of integrated brain functioning.
• Cognitive neuroscience: the brain in action. Cognitive

neuroscientists study the brain as well as behaviour using
techniques varying in spatial and temporal resolution. Functional
neuroimaging techniques provide basically correlational evidence,
but transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can indicate a given
brain area is necessarily involved in a given cognitive function. The
richness of the data obtained from neuroimaging studies permits
the assessment of functional specialisation and brain integration.
Cognitive neuroscience is a flexible and potentially self-correcting
approach. However, correlational findings are sometimes over-
interpreted, underpowered studies make replication difficult, and
relatively few studies in cognitive neuroscience generate (or even
test) cognitive theories.
• Computational cognitive science. Computational cognitive

scientists develop computational models to understand human
cognition. Connectionist networks use elementary units or nodes
connected together. They can learn using rules such as backward
propagation. Production systems consist of production or “IF . . .
THEN” rules. ACT-R is a highly developed model based on
production systems. Computational models have increased in
scope to provide detailed theoretical accounts of findings from
cognitive neuroscience and cognitive neuropsychology. They have
shown progress via the use of nested incremental modelling.
Computational models are often hard to falsify, de-emphasise
motivational and emotional factors, and often lack biological
plausibility.
• Comparisons of different approaches. The major approaches

are increasingly used in combination. Each approach has its own
strengths and limitations, which makes it useful to use converging
operations. When two approaches produce the same findings, this
is stronger evidence than can be obtained from a single approach
on its own. If two approaches produce different findings, this
indicates further research is needed to clarify what is happening.
• Is there a replication crisis? There is increasing evidence that

many findings in psychology (including cognitive psychology)
are hard to replicate. However, this does not mean there is a

replication crisis. Meta-analyses indicate that numerous findings

have been successfully replicated many times. In addition,
experimental research practices have improved considerably in
recent years which should increase successful replications in the
future.
FURTHER READING
Hartwigsen, G. (2018). Flexible redistribution in cognitive networks. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 22, 687–698. Gesa Hartwigsen discusses several compensatory
strategies used by brain-damaged patients and healthy individuals administered
transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
Laird, J.E., Lebiere, C. & Rosenbloom, P.S. (2017). A standard model of the mind:
Toward a common computational framework across artificial intelligence, cog-
nitive science, neuroscience, and robotics. AI Magazine, 38, 1–19. These authors
proposed a standard model based on the commonalities found among different
proposed cognitive architectures (e.g., ACT-R; Soar).
Passingham, R. (2016). Cognitive Neuroscience: A very Short Introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Richard Passingham provides an accessible account of
the essential features of cognitive neuroscience.
Poldrack, R.A., Baker, C.I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K.J., Matthews, P.M.,
Munafo, M.R., et al. (2017). Scanning the horizon: Towards transparent and
reproducible neuroimaging research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 115–126.
Problems with research in cognitive neuroscience are discussed and proposals for
enhancing the quality and replicability of such research are put forward.
Shallice, T. (2015). Cognitive neuropsychology and its vicissitudes: The fate of
Caramazza’s axioms. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32, 385–411. Tim Shallice dis-
cusses strengths and limitations of various experimental approaches within cogni-
tive neuropsychology.
Shrout, P.E. & Rodgers, J.L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge con-
struction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 69, 487–510. Patrick Shrout and Joseph Rodgers discuss the numer-
ous ways in which improving research practices are reducing replication problems.
Taatgen, N.A., van Vugt, M.K., Borst, J.P. & Melhorn, K. (2016). Cognitive mod-
elling at ICCM: State of the art and future directions. Topics in Cognitive Science,
8, 259–263. Niels Taatgen and his colleagues discuss systematic improvements in
computational cognitive models.
Ward, J. (2015). The Student’s Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience (3rd edn). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press. The first five chapters of this textbook provide detailed
information about the main techniques used by cognitive neuroscientists.
Brenner, E. & Smeets, J.B.J. (2018). Depth perception. In J.T. Serences (ed.),
Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol.
2: Sensation, Perception, and Attention (4th edn; 385–414). New York: Wiley.
The authors provide a comprehensive account of theory and research on depth
perception.
de Haan, E.H.F., Jackson, S.R. & Schenk, T. (2018). Where are we now with
“what” and “how”? Cortex, 98, 1–7. Edward de Haan and his colleagues provide
an evaluation of the perception-action model
Goldstein, E.B. & Brockmole, J. (2017). Sensation and Perception (10th edn).
Boston: Cengage. There is coverage of key areas within visual perception in this
introductory textbook.
Naccache, L. (2016). Chapter 18: Visual consciousness: A “re-updated” neurolog-
ical tour. Neurology of Consciousness (2nd edn; pp. 281–295). Lionel Naccache
provides a theoretical framework within which to understand blindsight and
other phenomena associated with visual consciousness.
Shanks, D.R. (2017). Regressive research: The pitfalls of post hoc data selection
in the study of unconscious mental processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
24, 752–775. David Shanks discusses some issues relating to research claiming to
provide evidence for subliminal perception.
Tang, F. (2018). Foundations of vision. In J.T. Serences (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook
of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2: Sensation,
Perception, and Attention (4th edn; pp. 1–62). New York: Wiley. Frank Tong
provides a comprehensive account of the visual system and its workings.
Witzel, C. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2018). Colour perception: Objects, constancy,
and categories. Annual Review of Vision Science, 4, 475–499. Christoph Witzel
and Karl Gegenfurtner discuss our current knowledge of colour perception.
Baruch, O., Kimchi, R. & Goldsmith, M. (2018). Attention to distinguishing
features in object recognition: An interactive-iterative framework. Cognition,
170, 228–244. Orit Baruch and colleagues provide a theoretical framework
for understanding how bottom-up and top-down processes interact in object
recognition.
Dijkstra, N., Zeidman, P., Ondobaka, S., van Gerven, M.A.J. & Friston, K.
(2017b). Distinct top-down and bottom-up brain connectivity during visual per-
ception and imagery. Scientific Reports, 7 (Article 5677). In this article, Nadine
Dijkstra and her colleagues clarify the roles of top-down and bottom-up pro-
cesses in visual perception and imagery.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B.J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating
the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–77. The
authors argue that top-down processes do not directly influence visual percep-
tion. Read the open peer commentary following the article, however, and you
will see most experts disagree.
Gauthier, I. & Tarr, M.J. (2016). Visual object recognition: Do we (finally) know
more now than we did? Annual Review of Vision Science, 2, 377–396. Isabel
Gauthier and Michael Tarr provide a comprehensive overview of theory and
research on object recognition.
Grill-Spector, K., Weiner, K.S., Kay, K. & Gomez, J. (2017). The functional
neuroanatomy of human face perception. Annual Review of Vision Science, 3,
167–196. This article by Kalanit Grill-Sector and colleagues contains a compre-
hensive account of brain mechanisms underlying face perception.
Wagemans, J. (2018). Perceptual organisation. In J.T. Serences (ed.), Stevens’
Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2:
Sensation, Perception, and Attention (4th edn; pp. 803–822). New York: Wiley.
Johan Wagemans reviews various theoretical and empirical approaches to under-
standing perceptual organisation.
Young, A.W. (2018). Faces, people and the brain: The 45th Sir Frederic Bartlett
lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 569–594. Andy Young
provides a very interesting account of theory and research on face perception.
Binder, E., Dovern, A., Hesse, M.D., Ebke, M., Karbe, H., Salinger, J. et al.
(2017). Lesion evidence for a human mirror neuron system. Cortex, 90, 125–137.
Ellen Binder and colleagues discuss the nature of the mirror neuron system based
on evidence from brain-damaged patients.
Keysers, C., Paracampo, R. & Gazzola, V. (2018). What neuromodulation and
lesion studies tell us about the function of the mirror neuron system and embod-
ied cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 35–40. This article provides a
succinct account of our current understanding of the mirror neuron system.
Lappi, O. & Mole, C. (2018). Visuo-motor control, eye movements, and steering: A
unified approach for incorporating feedback, feedforward, and internal models.
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 981–1001. Otto Lappi and Callum Mole provide
a comprehensive theoretical account of driving behaviour that emphasises the
importance of top-down control mechanisms in influencing drivers’ eye fixations.
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y. & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years
later. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417. François Osiurak
and colleagues discuss Gibson’s notion of affordances in the contest of contem-
porary research and theory.
Rosenholtz, R. (2017a). What modern vision science reveals about the awareness
puzzle: Summary-statistic encoding plus decision limits underlie the richness of
visual perception and its quirky failures. Vision Sciences Society Symposium on
Summary Statistics and Awareness, preprint arXiv:1706.02764. Ruth Rosenholtz
provides an excellent account of the role played by peripheral vision in change
blindness and other phenomena.
Sakreida, K., Effnert, I., Thill, S., Menz, M.M., Jirak, D., Eickhoff, C.R. et al.
(2016). Affordance processing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream
sub-pathways. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 80–112. The path-
ways within the brain involved in goal-directed interactions with objects are dis-
cussed in the context of a meta-analytic review.
Chen, Y.-C. & Spence, C. (2017). Assessing the role of the “unity assumption”
on multi-sensory integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article 445).
Factors determining the extent to which stimuli from different sensory modalities
are integrated are discussed.
Engstrom, J., Markkula, G., Victor, T. & Merat, N. (2017). Effects of cognitive
load on driving performance: The cognitive control hypothesis. Human Factors,
59, 734–764. Johan Engstrom and his colleagues review research on factors influ-
encing driving performance and provide a new theoretical approach.
Hulleman, J. & Olivers, C.N.L. (2017). The impending demise of the item in visual
search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–20. This review article indicates very
clearly why theoretical accounts of visual search increasingly emphasise the role
of fixations and visual perception. Several problems with previous a ttention-based
theories of visual search are also discussed.
Karnath, H.-O. (2015). Spatial attention systems in spatial neglect. Neuropsychologia,
75, 61–73. Hans-Otto Karnath discusses theoretical accounts of neglect empha-
sising the role of attentional systems.
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H. & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibil-
ity, and plasticity in human multitasking – An integrative review of dual-task
and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583. Iring Koch
and colleagues review dual-task and task-switching research with an emphasis on
major theoretical perspectives.
McDermott, J.H. (2018). Audition. In J.T. Serences (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook
of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2: Sensation,
Perception, and Attention (4th edn; pp. 63–120). New York: Wiley. Josh
McDermott discusses theory and research focused on selective auditory attention
in this comprehensive chapter.
Melnikoff, D.E. & Bargh, J.A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 22, 280–293. Research revealing limitations with traditional
theoretical approaches to “automaticity” is discussed.
Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic expla-
nations. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 263–287. Agnes Moors provides an
excellent critique of traditional views on “automaticity” and develops her own
comprehensive theoretical account.
Nobre, A.C. (2018). Attention. In J.T. Serences (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of
Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2: Sensation,
Perception, and Attention (4th edn; pp. 241–316). New York: Wiley. Anna (Kia)
Nobre discusses the key role played by attention in numerous aspects of cogni-
tive processing.
Baddeley, A.D., Eysenck, M.W. & Anderson, M.C. (2020). Memory (3rd edn).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Psychology Press. The main topics covered in this chapter
are discussed in this textbook (for example, Chapters 8–10 are on theories of
forgetting).
Eysenck, M.W. & Groome, D. (eds) (2020). Forgetting: Explaining Memory Failure.
London: Sage. This edited book focuses on causes of forgetting in numerous
laboratory and real-life situations. Chapter 1 by David Groome and Michael
Eysenck provides an overview of factors causing forgetting and a discussion of
the potential benefits of forgetting.
Friedman, N.P. & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive functions:
Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204.
Naomi Friedman and Akira Miyake provide an excellent review of our current
understanding of the major executive functions.
Karpicke, J.D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In J. Wixted
(ed.), Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference (2nd edn; pp. 487–514).
Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jeffrey Karpicke provides an up-to-date account of the
testing effect and other forms of retrieval-based learning.
Morey, C.C. (2018). The case against specialised visual-spatial short-term memory.
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 849–883. Candice Morey discusses a considerable
range of evidence apparently inconsistent with Baddeley’s working memory
model (especially the visuo-spatial sketchpad).
Norris, D. (2017). Short-term memory and long-term memory are still different.
Psychological Bulletin, 143, 992–1009. Dennis Norris discusses much evidence
supporting a clear-cut separation between short-term and long-term memory.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G.D.A., Conway, A., Cowan,
N., (2018). Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 885–958. This article provides an excellent account of
the key findings relating to short-term and working memory that would need to
be explained by any comprehensive theory.
Shanks, D.R. (2017). Regressive research: The pitfalls of post hoc data selection in
the study of unconscious mental processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24,
752–775. David Shanks discusses problems involved in attempting to demonstrate
the existence of implicit learning.
Baddeley, A.D., Eysenck, M.W. & Anderson, M.C. (2020). Memory (3rd edn).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Psychology Press. Several chapters are of direct relevance to
the topics covered in this chapter.
Bastin, C., Besson, G., Simon, J., Delhaye, E., Geurten, M., Willems, S., (2019). An
integrative memory model of recollection and familiarity to understand memory
deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–66 (epub: 5 February 2019). Christine
Bastin and colleagues provide a comprehensive theoretical account of episodic
memory.
Cabeza, R., Stanley, M.L. & Moscovitch, M. (2018). Process-specific alliances
(PSAs) in cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 996–1010.
Roberto Cabeza and colleagues how cognitive processes (including memory)
depend on flexible interactions among brain regions.
Ferbinteanu, J. (2019). Memory systems 2018 – Towards a new paradigm.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 157, 61–78. Janina Ferbinteanu discusses
recent theoretical developments in our understanding of memory systems.
Kim, H. (2017). Brain regions that show repetition suppression and enhancement:
A meta-analysis of 137 neuroimaging experiments. Human Brain Mapping, 38,
1894–1913. Hongkeun Kim discusses the processes underlying repetition priming
with reference to a meta-analysis of the relevant brain areas.
Lambon Ralph, M.A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K. & Rogers, T.T. (2017). The neural
and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18,
42–55. Our current knowledge and understanding of semantic memory are dis-
cussed in the context of the hub-and-spoke model.
Verfaillie, M. & Keane, M.M. (2017). Neuropsychological investigations of human
amnesia: Insights into the role of the medial temporal lobes in cognition. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 23, 732–740. Research on amnesia
and memory is discussed in detail in this article.
Yee, E., Jones, M.N. & McRae, K. (2018). Semantic memory. In S.L. Thompson-
Schill & J.T. Wixted (eds), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and
Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3: Language and Thought: Developmental and social
psychology (4th edn; pp. 319–356). New York: Wiley. This chapter provides a
comprehensive account of theory and research on semantic memory.
Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M.W. & Anderson, M.C. (2020). Memory (3rd edn).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Psychology Press. This textbook provides detailed coverage of
research and theory on all the main topics discussed in this chapter.
Conway, M.A., Justice, L.V., D’Argembeau, A. (2019). The self-memory system
revisited: Past, present, and future. In J.H.Mace (ed). The Organisation and
Structure of Autobiographical Memory (pp. 28–51). New York: Oxford University
Press. Martin Conway provides an update of his influential theoretical approach
to autobiographical memory.
Davis, D. & Loftus, E.F. (2018). Eyewitness science in the 21st century: What do we
know and where do we go from here? In E.A. Phelps, L. Davachi & J.T. Wixted
(eds), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience,
Vol. 1: Learning and Memory (4th edn; pp. 529–566). New York: Wiley. Deborah
Davis and Beth Loftus discuss theory and research in the field of eyewitness
testimony.
Putnam, A.L., Sungkhasettee, V.W. & Roediger, H.L. (2017). When misinforma-
tion improves memory: The effects of recollecting change. Psychological Science,
28, 36–46. Adam Putnam and colleagues shed new light on the circumstances in
which eyewitness memory is (or is not) adversely affected by misinformation.
Sheldon, S., Nicholas B., Diamond, N.B., Armson, M.J., Daniela J. Palombo,
D.J., (2018). Assessing autobiographical memory: Implications for understand-
ing the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms. In E.A. Phelps, L. Davachi &
J.T. Wixted (eds), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive
Neuroscience, Vol. 1: Learning and Memory (4th edn; pp. 363–396). New York:
Wiley. This chapter emphasises the importance of cognitive neuroscience to an
understanding of autobiographical memory.
Shelton, J.T. & Scullin, M.K. (2017). The dynamic interplay between bottom-up
and top-down processes supporting prospective remembering. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 26, 352–358. This article updates the influential dynamic
multiprocess framework including relevant research.
Smith, R.E. (2017). Prospective memory in context. Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, 66, 211–249. Contemporary views on prospective memory are dis-
cussed by Rebekah Smith with an emphasis on the role played by contextual
information.
Cai, Z.G. & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Word processing. In S. Thompson-Schill (ed.),
Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience,
Vol. 3: Language and Thought (4th edn; pp. 75–110). New York: Wiley. The
processes involved in processing words presented in text and in speech are
discussed in detail.
Eisner, F. & McQueen, J.M. (2018). Speech perception. In S. Thompson-Schill
(ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience,
Vol. 3: Language and Thought (4th edn; pp. 1–46). New York: Wiley. This
chapter contains a comprehensive account of basic processes involved in speech
perception.
Grainger, J. (2018). Orthographic processing: A “mid-level” vision of reading: The
44th Sir Frederic Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
71, 335– 359. Basic processes involved in word recognition and reading are
discussed in detail in this article by Jonathan Grainger.
Nieuwland, M.S. (2019). Do “early” brain responses reveal word form prediction
during language comprehension? A critical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 96, 367–400. Mante Nieuwland discusses how contextual information is
used by readers and listeners.
Pickering, M.J. & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language:
A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1002–1044. Martin Pickering
and Chiara Gambi provide a thorough discussion of research supporting the
theoretical assumption that listeners’ speech perception often depends on their
speech-production system.
Schwanenflugel, P.J. & Knapp, N.F. (2016). The Psychology of Reading: Theory
and Applications. New York: Guilford Press. Paula Schwanenflugel and Nancy
Knapp provide a comprehensive account of theory and research on reading.
Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J. & Meeter, M. (2018b). OB1-reader: A model
of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review,
125, 969–984. Joshua Snell and colleagues provide a theoretical model of reading
based on word-recognition and eye-movement research.
Carreiras, M., Armstrong, B.C. & Duñabeitia, J.A. (2018). Reading. In S.L.
Thompson-Schill (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and
Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3: Language and Thought (4th edn; pp. 207–244).
New York: Wiley. Manuel Carreiras and colleagues provide a thorough account
of comprehension processes in reading.
Cook, A.E. & O’Brien, E.J. (2017). Fundamentals of inferencing during reading.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 11 (Article e12246). This article evaluates
several major theoretical approaches to inference drawing while comprehending
text.
Garnham, A. (2018). Pragmatics and inference. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer and M.G.
Gaskell (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd edn). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Alan Garnham provides a thorough review of theory
and research on pragmatics.
Karimi, H. & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online
cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 69, 1013–1040. Hossein Karimi and Fernanda Ferreira propose an
interesting theoretical model of language comprehension based on the good-
enough processing approach.
Kim, A.E. (2018). Sentence processing. In S.L. Thompson-Schill (ed.), Stevens’
Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3:
Language and Thought (4th edn; pp. 111–148). New York: Wiley. The many
processes involved in understanding sentences are discussed in detail in this
chapter.
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H.L. et al. (2018).
A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory.
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48–76. This article provides a detailed account of how
reading performance is related to individual differences in working memory.
Pickering, M.J. & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language.
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1002–1044. Martin Pickering and Chiara Gambi
discuss how listeners’ and readers’ language comprehension is enhanced by
predictive processes.
Zwaan, R.A. (2016). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts
in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 1028–1034.
Rolf Zwaan discusses key theoretical issues relating to approaches to language
comprehension based on situation models (e.g., Kintsch’s construction-
integration model; event-indexing model; event-segmentation theory).
Chater, N., McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (2016). Language as skill:
Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language,
89, 244–254. Nick Chater and colleagues stress the strong links between speech
production and comprehension and emphasise the role played by general
processes (e.g., short-term memory; basic learning) in their development.
Dronkers, N.F., Ivanova, M.V. & Baldo, J.V. (2017). What do language disorders
reveal about brain-language relationships? From classic models to network
approaches. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 23, 741–
754. This article by Nina Dronkers and colleagues contains a historical account
showing how cognitive neuropsychology has enhanced our understanding of the
processes underlying language comprehension and production.
Ferreira, V.S. (2019). A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in
language production. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 29–51. Victor Ferreira
discusses the processes used by speakers when attempting to be responsive to
listeners’ needs.
Hepner, C., McCloskey, M. & Rapp, B. (2017). Do reading and spelling share
orthographic representations? Evidence from developmental dysgraphia.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 34, 119–143. Christopher Hepner and colleagues
discuss a recent version of the influential two-route theory of spelling.
Kellogg, R.T., Turner, C.E., Whiteford, A.P. & Mertens, A. (2016). The role of
working memory in planning and generating written sentences. Journal of Writing
Research, 7, 397–416. Ronald Kellogg and his colleagues provide a comprehensive
account of the various ways working memory contributes to the writing process.
McClain, R. & Goldrick, M. (2018). The neurocognitive mechanisms of speech
production. In S.L. Thompson-Schill (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental
Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3: Language and Thought (4th edn;
pp. 319–356). New York: Wiley. The major processes (including attention) that
are involved in speech production are discussed in this chapter.
Nozari, N. & Novick, J. (2017). Monitoring and control in language production.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 403–410. This article provides
an overview of the mechanisms used by speakers to avoid or correct production
errors.
Al-Moteri, M.O., Symmons, M., Plummer, V. & Cooper, S. (2017). Eye track-
ing to investigate cue processing in medical decision-making: A scoping review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 52–66. Modi Owied Al-Moteri and colleagues
provide a theoretical framework indicating the main processes involved in medical
decision-making.
Gobet, F. (2016). Understanding Expertise: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. London:
Palgrave. Fernand Gobet shows how expertise can be understood by integrating
ideas and research from several scientific disciplines.
Hambrick, D.Z., Burgoyne, A.P., Macnamara, B.N. & Ullén, F. (2018). Toward a
multifactorial model of expertise: Beyond born versus made. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1423 (SI), 284–295. David Hambrick and colleagues
discuss limitations with the notion that expertise depends almost totally on delib-
erate practice and discuss their multifactorial gene-environment interaction model
in detail.
Lovett, A. & Forbus, K. (2017). Modelling visual problem solving as analogical rea-
soning. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 60–90. This article provides interesting theo-
retical insights into the processes underlying analogical reasoning.
Robertson, S.I. (2017). Problem Solving: Perspectives from Cognition and
Neuroscience (2nd edn). London: Routledge. This book provides a useful and
readable introduction to problem solving and expertise.
Ward, P., Schragen, J.M., Gore, J. & Roth, E. (eds.) (2019). Oxford Handbook of
Expertise: Research and Application. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This edited
book contains chapters by leading experts on expertise.
Weisberg, R.W. (2018). Problem solving. In L.J. Ball & V.A. Thompson (eds),
Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 607–623).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Robert Weisberg reviews contemporary theories
and research on problem solving.
Zuk, J. & Gaab, N. (2018). Evaluating predisposition and training in shaping the
musician’s brain: The need for a developmental perspective. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1423, 4–60. Jennifer Zuk and Nadine Gaab discuss a
theoretical model accounting for the role of brain plasticity in the development of
musical expertise (the “musician brain”).
Hoffrage, U., Hafenbrädtl, S. & Marewski, J.N. (2018). The fast-and-frugal heuris-
tics programme. In L.J. Ball and V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International
Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 325–345). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
The role of fast-and-frugal heuristics in judgement and decision-making is dis-
cussed thoroughly by Ulrich Hoffrage and his colleagues.
Keren, G. & Wu, G. (eds) (2016). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and
Decision-Making (2 vols). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. This two-volume hand-
book contains chapters covering all the main topics in judgement and deci-
sion-making research.
Rakow, T. & Skylark, W.J. (2018). Judgement heuristics. In L.J. Ball and V.A.
Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning
(pp. 451–471). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. The authors evaluate prominent
theoretical accounts of the heuristics or rules of thumb used on judgement tasks.
Schraagen, J.M. (2018). Naturalistic decision-making. In L.J. Ball and V.A.
(pp. 487–501). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. This chapter focuses on what is
known about complex decision-making in the real world.
Schulz, C. & Newell, B.R. (2018). Decision-making under risk: An experience-based
perspective. In L.J. Ball and V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International
Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 502–522). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Christin Schulz and Ben Newell discuss theory and research on decision-making
with an emphasis on the roles played by learning and experience.
Chater, N., Felin, T., Funder, C.D., Gigerenzer, G., Koenderink, J.J., Krueger,
J.I. (2018). Mind, rationality, and cognition: An interdisciplinary debate.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 793–826. This article contains the contrast-
ing views of many experts on key issues relating to rationality.
Collins, P.J. & Hahn, U. (2018). Fallacies of argumentation. In L.J. Ball and V.A.
(pp. 88–108). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Peter Collins and Ulrike Hahn
discuss recent theory and research on informal reasoning.
De Neys, W. (ed.) (2018). Dual Process Theory 2.0. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Wim De Neys is the editor of this book in which leading experts discuss (and
evaluate) various versions of dual-process theory as applied to thinking and
reasoning.
Elqayam, S. (2018). The new paradigm in psychology of reasoning. In L.J. Ball
and V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and
Reasoning (pp. 130–150). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Shira Elqayam discusses
in detail the shift from traditional theories of reasoning based on logic to theories
focusing on informal reasoning.
Goel, V. & Waechter, R. (2018). Inductive and deductive reasoning: Integrating
insights from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. In L.J. Ball and V.A.
(pp. 218–247). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. This chapter indicates how cognitive
neuroscience has enhanced our understanding of human reasoning.
Gorman, M.E. (2018). Scientific thinking. In L.J. Ball and V.A. Thompson (eds),
Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 248–267).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Real-life and laboratory research of relevance to
scientific thinking and hypothesis testing is discussed by Michael Gorman.
Pohl, R.F. (ed.) (2017). Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking,
Judgement and Memory (2nd edn). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. This book, with
its emphasis on discussing a very wide range of cognitive illusions, provides solid
evidence for evaluating human rationality.
Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Why humans are (sometimes) less rational than other
animals: Cognitive complexity and the axioms of rational choice. Thinking &
Reasoning, 19, 1–26. Keith Stanovich provides an excellent of the complexities of
human rationality.I
Brownstein, L.M., Gross, J.J. & Ochsner, K.N. (2017). Explicit and implicit emotion
regulation: A multi-level framework. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
12, 1545–1557. The authors provide a theoretical framework for categorising
and understanding emotion regulation strategies based on implicit–explicit and
automatic–controlled dimensions.
Dolcos, F., Katsumi, Y., Weymar, M., Moore, M., Tsukiura, T. & Dolcos, S. (2017).
Emerging directions in emotional episodic memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8
(Article 1867). This review article discusses thoroughly the neural mechanisms
associated with the enhancing effects of emotion on memory.
Eysenck, M.W. & Holmes, A. (in press). Anxiety, depression and cognitive dys-
function. In P. Corr (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
(2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael Eysenck and Mandy
Holmes discuss the cognitive biases associated with anxiety and depression and
the use of cognitive bias modification techniques to reduce these biases.
Kuckertz, J.M. & Amir, N. (2017). Cognitive bias modification. In S. Hofmann
and G. Asmundson (eds), The Science of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
(pp. 463–491). London: Academic Press. Jennie Kuckertz and Nader Amir
discuss the theoretical foundations of cognitive bias modification and review its
effectiveness.
Lerner, J.S., Valdesolo, P. & Kassam, K.S. (2015). Emotion and decision-making.
Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823. Jennifer Lerner and her colleagues
discuss their model of the effects of emotion on decision-making. This model pro-
vides the most comprehensive account in this area.
Scherer, K.R. & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and com-
ponent differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719–745. Klaus Scherer
and Agnes Moors discuss the role played by appraisal in emotion.
Smith, R. & Lane, R.D. (2015). The neural basis of one’s own conscious and uncon-
scious emotional states. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 1–29. An
integrative model of emotion focusing on interactions among several appraisal
mechanisms and bodily states is presented in this article. This model combines
insights from several previous appraisal and other theories.
Brownstein, L.M., Gross, J.J. & Ochsner, K.N. (2017). Explicit and implicit emotion
regulation: A multi-level framework. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
12, 1545–1557. The authors provide a theoretical framework for categorising
and understanding emotion regulation strategies based on implicit–explicit and
automatic–controlled dimensions.
Dolcos, F., Katsumi, Y., Weymar, M., Moore, M., Tsukiura, T. & Dolcos, S. (2017).
Emerging directions in emotional episodic memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8
(Article 1867). This review article discusses thoroughly the neural mechanisms
associated with the enhancing effects of emotion on memory.
Eysenck, M.W. & Holmes, A. (in press). Anxiety, depression and cognitive dys-
function. In P. Corr (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology
(2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael Eysenck and Mandy
Holmes discuss the cognitive biases associated with anxiety and depression and
the use of cognitive bias modification techniques to reduce these biases.
Kuckertz, J.M. & Amir, N. (2017). Cognitive bias modification. In S. Hofmann
and G. Asmundson (eds), The Science of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
(pp. 463–491). London: Academic Press. Jennie Kuckertz and Nader Amir
discuss the theoretical foundations of cognitive bias modification and review its
effectiveness.
Lerner, J.S., Valdesolo, P. & Kassam, K.S. (2015). Emotion and decision-making.
Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823. Jennifer Lerner and her colleagues
discuss their model of the effects of emotion on decision-making. This model pro-
vides the most comprehensive account in this area.
Scherer, K.R. & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and com-
ponent differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719–745. Klaus Scherer
and Agnes Moors discuss the role played by appraisal in emotion.
Smith, R. & Lane, R.D. (2015). The neural basis of one’s own conscious and uncon-
scious emotional states. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 1–29. An
integrative model of emotion focusing on interactions among several appraisal
mechanisms and bodily states is presented in this article. This model combines
insights from several previous appraisal and other theories.
Bayne, T., Hohwy, J. & Owen, A.M. (2016). Are there levels of consciousness?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 405–413. Tim Bayne and colleagues discuss
ways of moving beyond simplistic accounts based on the notion of levels of
consciousness.
Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes
our Thoughts. New York: Viking Press. Stanislas Dehaene provides a detailed
and authoritative account of consciousness from the perspective of cognitive
neuroscience.
Hill, C.S. (2018). Unity of consciousness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive
Science, 9, e1465. Christopher Hill reviews theoretical views on the unity of con-
sciousness with an emphasis on research involving split-brain patients.
Kondziella, D., Friberg, C.K., Frokjaer, V.G., Fabricius, M. & Møller, K. (2016).
Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: Systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 87,
485–492. The extent to which consciousness is present in patients in the minimal
conscious state or vegetative state is evaluated in this meta-analytic review.
Pitts, M.A., Lutsyshyna, L.S. & Hillyard, S.A. (2018). The relationship between
attention and consciousness: An expanded taxonomy and implications for “no-re-
port” paradigms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373 (Article
no. 21070348). Michael Pitts and colleagues compare two major theories of con-
sciousness (global workspace theory and recurrent processing theory) in the light
of the relationship between attention and consciousness.
Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M. & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information
theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
17, 450–461. Giulio Tononi and his colleagues discuss their influential integrated
information theory and the neural correlates of conscious experience.
Troscianko, E. & Blackmore, S. (2018). Consciousness: An introduction (3rd edn).
Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Emily Troscianko and Susan Blackmore provide a
very readable account of all the main issues relating to consciousness.
Volz, L.J. & Gazzaniga, M.S. (2017). Interaction in isolation: 50 years of insights
from split-brain research. Brain, 140, 2051–2060. Lukas Voltz and Michael
Gazzaniga (a leading expert) discuss issues involved in trying to understand the
conscious experience of split-brain patients
References
Aarts, H. & van den Bos, K. (2011). On the foundations Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses. Brain &
of beliefs in free will: Intentional binding and uncon- Language, 122, 42–54.
scious priming in self-agency. Psychological Science, 22, Addis, D.R. (2018). Are episodic memories special? On the
532–537. sameness of remembered and imagined event simulation.
Aberegg, S.K., Haponik, E.F. & Terry, P.B. (2005). Omission Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 48, 64–88.
bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care Addis, D.R., Knapp, K., Roberts, R.P. & Schacter, D.L.
medicine. Chest, 128, 1497–1505. (2012). Routes to the past: Neural substrates of direct
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H. & Kammoun, H. (2013). Do and generative autobiographical memory retrieval.
financial professionals behave according to prospect NeuroImage, 59, 2908–2922.
theory? An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 74, Addyman, C. & French, R.M. (2012). Computational model-
411–429. ling in cognitive science: A manifesto for change. Topics
Ablinger, I. & Radach, R. (2016). Diverging receptive and in Cognitive Science, 4, 332–341.
expressive word processing mechanisms in a deep dys- Adelman, J.S., Sabatos-De Vito, M.G., Marquis, S.J. & Estes,
lexic reader. Neuropsychologia, 81, 12–21. Z. (2014). Individual differences in reading aloud: A
Ablinger, I., Abel, S. & Huber, W. (2008). Deep dysphasia mega-study, item effects, and some models. Cognitive
as a phonetic input deficit: Evidence from a single case. Psychology, 68, 113–160.
Aphasiology, 22, 537–556. Adlam, A.-L.R., Patterson, K. & Hodges, J.R. (2009). “I
Abramov, I. & Gordon, J. (1994). Colour appearance – on remember it as if it were yesterday”: Memory for
seeing red – or yellow, or green, or blue. Annual Review recent events in patients with semantic dementia.
of Psychology, 45, 451–485. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1344–1351.
Achim, A.M., Achim, A. & Fossard, M. (2017). Knowledge Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. & Buchanan, T.W. (2005). Amygdala
likely held by others affects speakers’ choices of ref- damage impairs emotional memory for gift but not details
erential expressions at different stages of discourse. of complex stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 512–518.
Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 32, 21–36. Adriaanse, M.A., Prinsen, S., de Witt Huberts, J.C., de
Ackerman, P.L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science Ridder, D.T.D. & Evers, C. (2016). “I ate too much so I
of expert performance: Talent and individual differences. must have been sad”: Emotions as a confabulated reason
Intelligence, 45, 6–17. for overeating. Appetite, 103, 318–323.
Ackerman, R. & Thompson, V.A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Aggleton, J.P. (2013). Understanding HM – Is it time to
Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. forget HM? Psychologist, 26, 612–614.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617. Ahtamad, M., Spence, C., Ho, C. & Gray, R. (2016). Warnings
Ackerman, P.L., Beier, M.E. & Boyle, M.O. (2005). Working drivers about impending collisions using vibrotactile
memory and intelligence: The same or different con- flow. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 9, 134–141.
structs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30–60. Aikin, S.F. & Casey, J.P. (2016). Straw men, iron men, and
Aczel, B., Lukacs, B., Komlos, J. & Aitken, M.R.F. (2011). argumentative virtue. Topoi, 35, 431–440.
Unconscious intuition or conscious analysis? Critical Ajina, S., Pastilli, F., Rokem, A., Kennard, C. & Beridge, H.
questions for the deliberation-without-attention para- (2015). Human blindsight is mediated by an intact geniculo-
digm. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 351–358. extrastriate pathway. eLIFE, 4 (Article no. e08935).
Adank, P. (2012). The neural bases of difficult speech com- Akhtar, S., Justice, L.V., Morrison, C.M. & Conway, M.A.
prehension and speech production: Two Activation (2018). Fictional first memories. Memory, 29, 1612–1619.
9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_back.indd 824 28/02/20 4:08 PM

References 825
Alain, C., Du, Y., Bernstein, L.J., Barten, T. & Banai, K. Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G. & Hambrick, D.Z. (2017). Effects
(2018). Listening under difficult conditions: An activa- of interruption length on procedural errors. Journal of
tion likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Human Brain Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 216–229.
Mapping, 39, 2695–2709. Álvaro, L., Linhares, J.M.M., Moreira, H., Lillo, J. &
Alais, D. & Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results Nascimento, S.M.N. (2017). Robust colour constancy
from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, in red-green dichromats. PLoS ONE, 12 (Article
14, 257–262. no. e018310).
Al-Azary, H. & Buchanan, L. (2017). Novel metaphor com- Aly, M. & Ranganath, C. (2018). Perspectives on the hip-
prehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts pocampus and memory. Neuroscience Letters, 680, 1–3.
with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45, 296–307. Amer, T., Anderson, J.A.E., Campbell, K.L., Hasher, L. &
Albo, Z. & Gräff, J. (2018). The mysteries of remote memory. Grady, C.L. (2016b). Age differences in the neural cor-
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373, relates of distraction regulation: A network interaction
1–12. approach. Neuroimage, 139, 231–239.
Albouy, G., King, B.R., Maque, P. & Doyon, J. (2013). Amer, T., Campbell, K.L. & Hasher, L. (2016a). Cognitive
Hippocampus and striatum: Dynamics and interaction control as a double-edged sword. Trends in Cognitive
during acquisition and sleep-related motor sequence Sciences, 20, 905–915.
memory consolidation. Hippocampus, 23, 985–1004. Ames, A. (1952). The Ames Demonstrations in Perception.
Albright, T.D. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail. Proceedings of New York: Hafner Publishing.
the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 7758–7764. Amir, N., Bomyes, J. & Beard, C. (2010). The effect of sin-
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Schweizer, S. (2010). gle-session interpretation modification on attention
Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: bias in socially anxious individuals. Journal of Anxiety
A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, Disorders, 24, 178–182.
217–237. Amitani, Y. (2015). The natural frequency hypothesis and
Aldao, A., Sheppes, G. & Gross, J.J. (2015). Emotion regu- evolutionary arguments. Mind and Society, 14, 1–19.
lation flexibility. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39, Anderson, C.J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing:
263–278. Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and
Alexeeva, S., Frolova, A. & Slioussar, N. (2017). Data from emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.
Russian help to determine in which languages the pos- Anderson, F.T. & McDaniel, M.A. (2019). Hey buddy, why
sible word constraint applies. Journal of Psycholinguistic don’t we take it outside: An experience sampling study
Research, 46, 629–640. of prospective memory. Memory & Cognition, 47,
Ali, S.S., Lifshitz, M. & Raz, A. (2014). Empirical neuro- 47–62.
enchantment: From reading minds to thinking critically. Anderson, F.T., Rummel, J. & McDaniel, M.A. (2018).
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (Article no. 357). Proceeding with care for successful prospective memory:
Allen, R.J., Hitch, G.J., Mate, J. & Baddeley, A.D. (2012). Do we delay ongoing responding or actively monitor
Feature binding and attention in working memory: A for cues? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
resolution of previous contradictory findings. Quarterly Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1036–1050.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2369–2383. Anderson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S.,
Allopenna, P.D., Magnuson, J.S. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1998). Lebiere, C. & Qin, Y.L. (2004). An integrated theory of
Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.
using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping Anderson, J.R., Fincham, J.M., Qin, Y. & Stocco, A. (2008).
models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419–439. A central circuit of the mind. Trends in Cognitive
Al-Moteri, M.O., Symmons, M., Plummer, V. & Cooper, Sciences, 12, 136–143.
S. (2017). Eye tracking to investigate cue processing in Anderson, J.R., Zhang, Q., Borst, J.P. & Walsh, M.W.
medical decision-making: A scoping review. Computers (2016a). The discovery of processing stages: Extension of
in Human Behavior, 66, 52–66. Sternberg’s method. Psychological Review, 123, 481–509.
Alonso, J.M. & Martinez, L.M. (1998). Functional connectiv- Anderson, M.C. & Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted
ity between simple cells and complex cells in cat striate memories by executive control. Nature, 410, 366–369.
cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 395–403. Anderson, M.C. & Huddleston, E. (2012). Towards a cogni-
Altenberg, B. (1990). Speech as linear composition. In G. tive and neurobiological model of motivated forgetting.
Caie, K. Haastrup, A.L. Jakobsen, J.E. Nielsen, J. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 58, 53–120.
Sevaldsen, H. Sprecht, et al. (eds), Proceedings from Anderson, M.C., Bunce, J.G. & Barbas, H. (2016b).
the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies (Vol. Prefrontal-hippocampal pathways underlying inhibitory
1; pp. 133–143). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen control over memory. Neurobiology of Learning and
University Press. Memory, 134, 145–161.

826 References
Anderson, R.C. & Pichert, J.W. (1978). Recall of previously Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory:
unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12. Spence & J.T. Spence (eds), The Psychology of Learning
Anderson, R.C., Pichert, J.W. & Shirey, L.L. (1983). Effects and Motivation (Vol. 2; pp. 89–195). London: Academic
of the reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal Press.
of Educational Psychology, 75, 271–279. Auckland, M.E., Cave, K.R. & Donnelly, N. (2007). Non-
Anderson, S.W., Rizzo, M., Skaar, N., Stierman, L., Cavaco, target objects can influence perceptual processes during
S., Dawson, J., et al. (2007). Amnesia and driving. object recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14,
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 332–337.
29, 1–12. Augustine, A.A. & Hemenover, S.H. (2009). On the relative
Andrews, P.W. & Thomson, J.A. (2009). The bright side of merits of affect regulation strategies: A meta-analysis.
being blue: Depression as an adaptation for analysing Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1181–1220.
complex problems. Psychological Review, 116, 620–654. Avenanti, A., Paracampo, R., Annella, L., Tidoni, E. &
Andrews, S., Lo, S. & Xia, V. (2017). Individual differences Aglioti, S.M. (2018). Boosting and decreasing action
in automatic semantic priming. Journal of Experimental prediction abilities through excitatory and inhibitory
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, tDCS of inferior frontal cortex. Cortex, 28, 1282–1296.
1025–1039. Averell, L. & Heathcote, A. (2011). The form of the forgetting
Andrews-Hanna, J.R., Saxe, R. & Yarkoni, T. (2014). curve and the fate of memories. Journal of Mathematical
Contributions of episodic retrieval and mentalising to Psychology, 55, 25–35.
autobiographical thought: Evidence from functional Awasthi, B., Williams, M.A. & Friedman, J. (2016).
neuroimaging, resting-state connectivity, and fMRI Examining the role of red background in magnocellu-
meta-analyses. NeuroImage, 91, 324–335. lar contribution to face perception. PeerJ, 4 (Article no.
Angelone, B.L., Levin, D.T. & Simons, D.J. (2003). The e1617).
relationship between change detection and recognition of Awh, E. & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional
centrally attended objects in motion pictures. Perception, foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
32, 947–962. Perception and Performance, 26, 834–846.
Angie, A.D., Connelly, S., Waples, E.P. & Kligyte, V. (2011). Axelrod, R. (2015). Structure of Decision: The cognitive maps
The influence of discrete emotions on judgment and of political elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Cognition & Press.
Emotion, 25, 1393–1422. Axelrod, V. & Yovel, G. (2015). Successful decoding of
Ardila, A. (2016). Some unusual neuropsychological syn- famous faces in the fusiform face area. PLoS ONE, 10
dromes: Somatoparaphrenia, akinetopsia, reduplica- (Article no. e0117126).
tive paramnesia, autotopagnosia. Archives of Clinical Aydelott, J., Jamaluddin, Z. & Pearce, S.N. (2015). Semantic
Neuropsychology, 31, 456–464. processing of unattended speech in dichotic listen-
Ardila, A. & Surloff, C. (2006). Dysexecutive agraphia: A ing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138,
major executive dysfunction sign. International Journal 964–975.
of Neuroscience, 116, 653–663. Azevedo, R.T., Garfinkel, S.N., Critchley, H.D. & Tsakiris,
Armstrong, T. & Olatunji, B.O. (2012). Eye tracking of atten- M. (2017). Cardiac afferent activity modulates the
tion in the affective disorders: A meta-analytic review expression of racial stereotypes. Nature Communications,
and synthesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 704–723. 8 (Article no. 13854).
Ask, K. & Granhag, P.A. (2007). Hot cognition in investiga- Baars, B.J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness.
tive judgments: The differential influence of anger and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
sadness. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 537–551. Baars, B.J., Franklin, S. & Ramsoy, T.Z. (2013). Global work-
Atkins, J.E., Fiser, J. & Jacobs, R.A. (2001). Experience- space dynamics: Cortical “binding and propagation”
dependent visual cue integration based on consistencies enables conscious contents. Frontiers in Psychology, 4
between visual and haptic percepts. Vision Research, 41, (Article no. 200).
449–461. Baddeley, A.D. (1978). Trouble with levels: Re-examinatioin
Atkinson, A.P., Dittrich, W.H., Gemmell, A.J. & Young, of Craik and Lockhart5’s framework for memory
A.W. (2004). Emotion perception from dynamic and research. Psychological Review, 85, 139–152.
static body expressions in point-light and full-light dis- Baddeley, A.D. (1996). Exploring the central executive.
plays. Perception, 33, 717–746. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.
Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E. & Bem, D.J. Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new compo-
(1993). Introduction to Psychology (11th edn). New York: nent of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
Harcourt Brace. 4, 417–423.

References 827
Baddeley, A.D. (2003). New data: Old pitfalls. Commentary the human cerebrum – Chapter 9: The occipital lobe.
on Ruchkin, Grafman, Cameron & Berndt. Behavioral Operative Neurosurgery, 15, S372–S406.
and Brain Sciences, 26, 728–729. Bakker, M. & Wicherts, J.M. (2011). The (mis)reporting
Baddeley, A.D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior
and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, Research Methods, 43, 666–678.
1–29. Bakroon, A. & Lakshminarayanan, V. (2018). Do different
Baddeley, A.D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and experimental tasks affect psychophysical measurements
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, of motion perception in autism-spectrum disorder? An
299–311. analysis. Clinical Optometry, 10, 131–143.
Baddeley, A.D. & Andrade, J. (2000). Working memory Baldassarre, A., Ramsey, L., Hacker, C.L., Callejas, A.,
and the vividness of imagery. Journal of Experimental Astafiev, S.V., Metcalf, N.V., et al. (2014). Large-scale
Psychology: General, 129, 126–145. changes in network interactions as a physiological signa-
Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. ture of spatial neglect. Brain, 137, 3267–3283.
In G.H. Bower (ed.), Recent Advances in Learning and Baldassarre, A., Ramsey, L.E., Siegel, J.S., Shulman, G.L. &
Motivation (Vol. 8; pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Corbetta, M. (2016). Brain connectivity and neurological
Press. disorders after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology, 29,
Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G.J. (2017). Is the levels of pro- 706–713.
cessing effect language-limited? Journal of Memory and Baldassi, C., Alemi-Neissi, A., Pagan, M., DiCarlo, J.J.,
Language, 92, 1–13. Zecchina, R. & Zoccolan, D. (2013). Shape similarity,
Baddeley, A.D., Eysenck, M.W. & Anderson, M.C. (2015). better than semantic membership, accounts for the struc-
Memory (2nd edn). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. ture of visual object representations in a population of
Baddeley, A.D., Gathercole, S. & Papagno, C. (1998). monkey inferotemporal neurons. PloS Computational
The phonological loop as a language learning device. Biology, 9 (Article no. e1003 167).
Psychological Review, 105, 158–173. Ball, F. & Busch, N.A. (2015). Change detection on a hunch:
Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.J. & Quinlan, P.T. (2018). Is the Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature
phonological similarity effect in working memory due to changes. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77,
proactive interference? Journal of Experimental Psycho 2570–2588.
logy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1312–1316. Ball, F., Bernasconi, F. & Busch, N.A. (2015). Semantic rela-
Baddeley, A.D., Papagno, C. & Vallar, G. (1988). When long- tions between visual objects can be unconsciously pro-
term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of cessed but not reported under change blindness. Journal
Memory and Language, 27, 586–595. of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 2253–2268.
Baddeley, A.D., Thomson, N. & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word Ball, L.J. & Thompson, V.A. (2018). Belief bias and reason-
length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal ing. In L.J. Ball & V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575–489. International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp.
Baddeley, A.D., Vallar, G. & Wilson, B.A. (1987). Sentence 16–36). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
comprehension and phonological memory: Some neu- Balota, D.A., Paul, S. & Spieler, D. (1999). Attentional
ropsychological evidence. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention control of lexical processing pathways during word rec-
and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 509– ognition and reading. In S. Garrod & M.J. Pickering
529). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (eds), Language Processing (pp. 15–58). Hove, UK:
Bader, M. & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of Psychology Press.
non-canonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experi Bannard, C., Klinger, J. & Tomasello, M. (2013). How selec-
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, tive are 3-year-olds in imitating novel linguistic material?
44, 1286–1311. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2344–2356.
Bae, G.-Y., Olkkonen, M., Allred, S.R. & Flombaum, J.I. Bannard, C., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling
(2015). Why some colours appear more memorable than children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of
others: A model combining categories and particulars the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
in colour working memory. Journal of Experimental America, 106, 17284–17289.
Psychology: General, 14, 744–763. Bannert, M.M. & Bartels, A. (2017). Invariance of surface
Bagneux, V., Font, H. & Bollon, T. (2013). Incidental emo- colour representations across illuminant changes in the
tions associated with uncertainty appraisals impair human cortex. NeuroImage, 158, 356–370.
decisions in the Iowa Gambling Task. Motivation and Bannert, M.M. & Bartels, A. (2018). Human V4 activ-
Emotion, 37, 818–827. ity patterns predict behavioural performance in
Baker, C.M., Burks, J.D., Briggs, R.G., Stafford, J., Conner, imagery of object colour. Journal of Neuroscience, 38,
A.K., Glenn, C.A., et al. (2018). A connectomic atlas of 3657–3668.

828 References
Baptista, M. (2012). On universal grammar, the bioprogram Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publi-
hypothesis and creole genesis. Journal of Pidgin and cation (19 July 2018), 641–676.
Creole Languages, 27, 351–376. Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social
Bar, M., Kassam, K.S., Ghuman, A.S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A.M., Dale, A.M., et al. (2006). Top-down facilitation of Bartley, J.E., Boeving, E.R. Riedel, M.C., Bottenhorn, K.L.,
visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy Salo, T., Eickhoff, S.B., et al. (2018). Meta-analytic
of Sciences, 103, 449–454. evidence for a core problem solving network across
Barense, M.D., Ngo, L.H.T & Peterson, M.A. (2012). multiple representational domains. Neuroscience and
Interactions of memory and perception in amnesia: Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 318–337.
The figure-ground perspective. Cerebral Cortex, 22, Bartolo, A., Rossetti, Y., Revol, P., Urquizar, C., Pisella, L.
2680–2691. & Coello, Y. (2018). Reachability judgement in optic
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans- ataxia: Effect of peripheral vision on hand and target
Kronenburg, M.J. & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2007). perception in depth. Cortex, 98, 102–113.
Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanx- Bartolomeo, P. (2002). The relationship between visual per-
ious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological ception and visual mental imagery: A re-appraisal of the
Bulletin, 133, 1–24. neuropsychological evidence. Cortex, 38, 357–378.
Barliya, A., Omlor, L., Giese, M.A., Berthoz, A. & Flash, Bartolomeo, P. (2008). The neural correlates of visual mental
T. (2013). Expression of emotion in the kinemat- imagery: An ongoing debate. Cortex, 44, 107–108.
ics of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, 225, Bartolomeo, P., Seidel-Malkinson, T. & De Vito, S. (2017).
159–176. Botallo’s error, or the quandaries of the universality
Baronchelli, A., Chater, N., Pastor-Satorras, R. & assumption. Cortex, 86, 176–185.
Christiansen, M.H. (2012). The biological origin of lin- Barton, J.J.S. & Corrow, S.L. (2016). Selectivity in acquired
guistic diversity. PLoS ONE, 7 (Article no. e48029). prosopagnosia: The segregation of divergent and conver-
Barrett, L.F. & Russell, J.A. (1998). Independence and gent operations. Neuropsychologia, 83, 76–87.
bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Bartsch, M.V., Donohue, S.E., Strumpf, H., Schoenfeld,
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967–984. M.A. & Hopf, J.-M. (2018). Enhanced spatial focusing
Barreyro, J.P., Cevasco, J., Burin, D. & Marotto, C.M. increases feature-based selection in unattended locations.
(2012). Working memory capacity and individual dif- Scientific Reports, 8 (Article no. 16132).
ferences in the making of reinstatement and elabo- Baruch, O., Kimchi, R. & Goldsmith, M. (2018). Attention to
rative inferences. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, distinguishing features in object recognition: An interac-
471–479. tive-iterative framework. Cognition, 170, 228–244.
Barry, S. (2009). Fixing My Gaze. New York: Basic Books. Barzykowski, K. & Staugaard, S.R. (2016). Does retrieval
Barsalou, L.W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualiza- intentionality really matter? Similarities and differences
tion, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the between involuntary memories and directly and gener-
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1281–1289. atively retrieved voluntary memories. British Journal of
Barsalou, L.W. (2012). The human conceptual system. In Psychology, 107, 519–536.
M.J. Spivey, K. McRae & M.F. Joanisse, (eds), The Basehore, Z. & Anderson, R.B. (2016). The simple life: New
Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 239–258). experimental tests of the recognition heuristic. Judgment
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and Decision Making, 11, 301–309.
Barsalou, L.W. (2016a). On staying grounded and avoiding Bastin, C., Besson, G., Simon, J., Delhaye, E., Geurten, M.,
quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, Willems, S., et al. (2019). An integrative memory model
1122–1142. of recollection and familiarity to understand memory
Barsalou, L.W. (2016b). Situated conceptualisation: Theory deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–66 (Epub 05
and applications. In Y. Coello & M.H. Fischer (eds), February 2019).
Foundations of Embodied Cognition (Vol 1): Perceptual Bauer, A.J. & Just, M.A. (2017). A brain-based account of
and emotional embodiment (Vol 1; pp. 11–37). London: “basic-level” concepts. NeuroImage, 161, 196–205.
Routledge. Baumeister, R.F. & Masicampo, E.J. (2010). Conscious
Barsalou, L.W., Dutriaux, L. & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving thought is for facilitating social and cultural interactions:
beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract How mental simulations serve the animal-culture inter-
concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society face. Psychological Review, 117, 945–971.
B, 373 (Article no. 2017.0144). Baumeister, R.F., Lau, S., Maranges, H.M. & Clark, C.J.
Barth, M., Stahl, C. & Haider, H. (2019). Assumptions of the (2018). On the necessity of consciousness for sophist
process-dissociation procedure are violated in implicit icated human action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (Article
sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: no. 1925).

References 829
Baumeister, R.F., Masicampo, E.J. & Vohs, K.D. (2011). Do Beck, S.M., Ruge, H., Walser, M. & Goschke, T. (2014b).
conscious thoughts cause behaviour? Annual Review of The functional neuroanatomy of spontaneous retrieval
Psychology, 62, 331–361. and strategic monitoring of delayed intentions. Neuro
Baumgartner, S.E., van der Schuur, W.A., Lemmens, J.S. & psychologia, 52, 37–50.
te Poel, F. (2018). The relationship between media mul- Beckers, G. & Zeki, S. (1995). The consequences of inactivat-
titasking and attention problems in adolescents: Results ing areas V1 and V5 on visual motion perception. Brain,
from two longitudinal studies. Human Communication 118, 49–60.
Research, 44, 3–30. Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R. & Maxim, J. (2007). Grammar
Bäuml, K.-H. & Kliegl, O. (2013). The critical role of retrieval without sentence structure: A conversation analytic
processes in release from proactive interference. Journal investigation of agrammatism. Aphasiology, 21, 256–282.
of Memory and Language, 68, 39–53. Beisswingert, B.M., Zhang, K., Goetz, T., Fang, P. &
Baurès, R., Balestra, M., Rosito, A. & VanRullen, R. (2018). Fischbavher, U. (2015). The effects of subjective loss of
The detrimental influence of attention on time-to-contact control on risk-taking behaviour: The mediating role of
perception. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80, anger. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 774).
1591–1598. Bennett, C.M., Baird, A.A., Miller, M.B. & Wolford, G.L.
Bavelas, J. & Healing, S. (2013). Reconciling the effects of (2009). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective
mutual visibility on gesturing: A review. Gesture, 13, taking in the post-mortem Atlantic salmon: An argu-
63–92. ment for proper multiple comparisons’ correction. 15th
Baxendale, S. (2004). Memories aren’t made of this: Amnesia Annual Meeting of the Organisation for Human Brain
at the movies. British Medical Journal, 329, 1480–1483. Mapping. San Francisco, CA.
Bayley, P.J., Hopkins, R.O. & Squire, L.R. (2006). The fate Bennett, P. & Lowe, R. (2008). Emotions and their cogni-
of old memories after medial temporal lobe damage. tive precursors: Responses to spontaneously identified
Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 13311–13317. stressful events among hospital nurses. Journal of Health
Bayne, T. (2010). The Unity of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford Psychology, 13, 537–546.
University Press. Benoit, R.G. & Schacter, D.L. (2015). Specifying the core
Bayne, T., Hohwy, J. & Owen, A.M. (2016). Are there levels network supporting episodic simulations and epi-
of consciousness? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, sodic memory by activation likelihood estimation.
405–413. Neuropsychologia, 75, 450–457.
Bayne, T., Holwy, J. & Owen, A.M. (2017). Reforming the Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of
taxonomy in disorders of consciousness. Annals of Written Composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Neurology, 82, 866–872. Associates.
Baynes, K. & Gazzaniga, M. (2000). Consciousness, intro- Bereiter, C., Burtis, P.J. & Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive
spection, and the split-brain: The two minds/one body operations in constructing main points in written com-
problem. In M.S. Gazzaniga (ed.), The New Cognitive position. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 261–278.
Neurosciences (pp. 1355–1368). Cambridge, MA: MIT Beres, A.M. (2017). Time is of the essence: A review of
Press. electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related brain
Bays, P.M., Singh-Curry, V., Gorgoraptis, N., Driver, J. & potentials (ERPs) in language research. Applied
Husain, M. (2010). Integration of goal-and stimulus- Psychophysiological Biofeedback, 42, 247–255.
related visual signals revealed by damage to human Bergeron, V. (2016). Functional independence and cognitive
parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 5968–5978. architecture. British Journal of the Philosophical Society,
Beauvais, C., Olive, T. & Passerault, J.-M. (2011). Why are 67, 817–836.
some texts good and others not? Relationship between Berggren, N. & Eimer, M. (2018). Object-based target tem-
text quality and management of the writing process. plates guide attention during visual search. Journal
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Performance, 44, 1368–1382.
Disorders. New York: International Universities Press. Bergman, E. & Roediger, H.L. (1999). Can Bartlett’s repeated
Beck, A.T. & Dozois, D.J.A. (2011). Cognitive therapy: reproduction experiments be replicated? Memory &
Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Cognition, 27, 937–947.
Medicine, 62, 397–409. Bergmann, H.C., Rijpkema, M., Fernández, G. & Kessels,
Beck, C., Kardatzki, B. & Ethofer, T. (2014a). Mondegreens R.P.C. (2012). Distinct neural correlate of associative
and soramimi as a method to induce misperceptions working memory and long-term memory encoding in the
of speech content – Influence of familiarity, wittiness, medial temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 63, 989–997.
and language competence. PloS ONE, 9 (Article no. Bergström, Z.M., de Fockert, J.W. & Richardson-Klavehn,
e84667). A. (2009). ERP and behavioural evidence for direct

830 References
suppression of unwanted memories. NeuroImage, 48, utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment and Decision Making, 12,
726–737. 148–167.
Berisha, V., Wang, S., LaCross, A. & Liss, J. (2015). Tracking Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis.
discourse complexity preceding Alzheimer’s disease diag- Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 173–221.
nosis: A case study comparing the press conferences of Bidelman, G.M. & Walker, B.S. (2017). Attentional modula-
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker tion and domain-specificity underlying the neural organ-
Bush. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 45, 959–963. isation of auditory categorical perception. European
Berisha, V., Wang, S., LaCross, A., Liss, J. & Garcia-Filion, Journal of Neuroscience, 45, 690–699.
P. (2017). Longitudinal changes in linguistic complexity Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory
among professional football players. Brain & Language, of human image understanding. Psychological Review,
169, 57–63. 94, 115–147.
Berman, M.G., Jonides, J. & Lewis, R.L. (2009). In search of Biederman, I. & Gerhardstein, P.C. (1993). Recognising
decay in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experi depth-rotated objects: Evidence for 3-D viewpoint
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
35, 317–333. Perception & Performance, 19, 1162–1182.
Bermúdez-Rattoni, F. & McGaugh, J.L. (2017). Memory Biedermann, B., Ruh, B., Nickels, L. & Coltheart, M.
reconsolidation and memory updating: Two sides of the (2008). Information retrieval in tip-of-the-tongue states:
same coin? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 142, New data and methodological advances. Journal of
1–3. Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 171–198.
Berninger, V.W. & Abbott, R.D. (2010). Listening com- Bier, N., Bottari, C., Hudon, C., Jobert, S., Paquette, G. &
prehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, Macoir, J.L. (2013). The impact of semantic dementia
and written expression: Related yet unique language on everyday actions: Evidence from an ecological study.
systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
Psychology, 102, 635–651. 19, 162–172.
Berntsen, D., Rubin, D.C. & Siegler, I.C. (2011). Two differ- Biggs, A.T. & Gibson, B.S. (2018). Opening the window: Size
ent versions of life: Emotionally negative and positive of the attentional window dominates perceptual load and
life events have different roles in the organisation of life familiarity in visual selection. Journal of Experimental
story and identity. Emotion, 11, 1190–1201. Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44,
Berwick, R.C., Friederici, A.D., Chomsky, N. & Bolhuis, J.J. 1780–1798.
(2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Biggs, A.T., Brockmole, J.R. & Witt, J.K. (2013). Armed
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 89–98. and attentive: Holding a weapon can bias attentional
Besson, G., Barragan-Jason, G., Thorpe, S.J., Fabre-Thorpe, priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception &
M., Puma, S., Ceccaldi, M., et al. (2017). From face pro- Psychophysics, 75, 1715–1724.
cessing to face recognition: Comparing three different Bilalić, M. (2016). Revisiting the role of the fusiform face
processing levels. Cognition, 158, 33–43. area in expertise. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28,
Beukema, P. & Verstynen, T. (2018). Predicting and binding: 1345–1357.
Interacting algorithms supporting the consolidation of Bilalić, M., McLeod, P. & Gobet, F. (2008a). Inflexibility of
sequential motor skills. Current Opinion in Behavioral experts: Reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung
Sciences, 20, 98–103. effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 73–102.
Bezdicek, O., Ballarini, T., Buschke, H., Ružička, F., Roth, Bilalić, M., McLeod, P. & Gobet, F. (2008b). Why good
J., Albrecht, F., et al. (2019). Memory impairment in thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the perni-
Parkinson’s disease: The retrieval versus associative deficit cious Einstellung effect. Cognition, 108, 652–661.
hypothesis revisited and reconciled. Neuropsychology, 33, Binder, E., Dovern, A., Hesse, M.D., Ebke, M., Karbe, H.,
391–405. Saliger, J., et al. (2017). Lesion evidence for a human
Bezuidenhout, A. (2014). Reply to Brown-Schmidt and Heller. mirror neuron system. Cortex, 90, 125–137.
Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 285–290. Binder, J.R. & Desai, R.H. (2011). The neurobiology of
Bhatt, R.S. & Quinn, P.C. (2011). How does learning impact semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15,
development in infancy? The case of perceptual organi- 527–536.
sation. Infancy, 16, 2–38. Binder, J.R., Desai, R.H., Graves, W.W. & Conant, L.L.
Bialek, M. (2017). Not that neglected! Base rates influence (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review
related and unrelated judgements. Acta Psychologica, and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging
177, 10–16. studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767–2796.
Bialek, M. & De Neys, W. (2017). Dual processes and moral Bindschaedler, C., Peter-Favre, C., Maeder, P., Hirsbrunner,
conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive T. & Clarke, S. (2011). Growing up with bilateral

References 831
hippocampal atrophy: From childhood to teenage. semantic knowledge in a case of developmental amnesia.
Cortex, 47, 931–944. Neuropsychologia, 102, 237–247.
Binkofski, F. & Buxbaum, L.J. (2013). Two action systems in Bode, S., He, A.H., Soon, C.S., Trampel, R., Turner, R. &
the human brain. Brain and Language, 127, 222–229. Haynes, J.-D. (2011). Tracking the unconscious genera-
Bird, C.M. (2017). The role of the hippocampus in recognition of free decisions using ultra-high field fMRI. PLoS
tion memory. Cortex, 93, 155–165. ONE, 6 (Article no. 21612).
Bisenius, S., Trapp, S., Neumann, J. & Schroeter, M.L. (2015). Bodien, Y.G., Chatelle, C. & Edlow, B.L. (2017). Functional
Identifying neural correlates of visual consciousness with networks in disorders of consciousness. Seminars in
ALE meta-analyses. NeuroImage, 122, 177–187. Neurology, 37, 485–502.
Bixler, R. & D’Mello, S. (2016). Automatic gaze-based Boiteau, T.W., Malone, P.S., Peters, S.A. & Almor, A. (2014).
under-independent detection of mind wandering during Interference between conversation and a concurrent
computerised reading. User Modeling and User-Adapted visuo-motor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Interaction, 26, 33–68. General, 143, 295–311.
Blackmer, E.R. & Mitton, J.L. (1991). Theories of monitor- Bolden, G.B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse mar
ing and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. kers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness
Cognition, 3, 173–194. in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56,
Blackmon, J. (2016). Hemispherectomies and independently 661–688.
conscious brain regions. Journal of Cognition and Boly, M., Garrido, M.I., Gosseries, O., Bruno, M.A.,
Neuroethics, 3, 1–26. Bovereux, P., Schnakers, C., et al. (2011). Preserved
Blanchette, I. & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are gen- feedforward but impaired top-down processes in the veg-
erated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. etative state. Science, 332, 858–862.
Memory & Cognition, 28, 108–124. Boly, M., Massimini, M., Tsuchiya, N., Postle, B.R., Koch,
Blanchette, I. & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect C. & Tononi, G. (2017). Are the neural correlates of
on higher level cognition: A review of research on inter- consciousness in the front or in the back of the cerebral
pretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. cortex? Clinical and neuroimaging evidence. Journal of
Cognition & Emotion, 24, 561–595. Neuroscience, 37, 9603–9613.
Blaney, P.H. (1986). Affect and memory – A review. Bonato, M. & Cutini, S. (2016). Increased attentional load
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246. moves the left to the right. Journal of Clinical and
Blank, H. & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness Experimental Neuropsychology, 38, 158–170.
memory against the misinformation effect: A meta- Bonato, M., Priftis, K., Marenzi, R., Umiltà, C. & Zorzi,
analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied M. (2010). Increased attentional demands impair
Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 77–88. contralesional space awareness following stroke.
Blank, I.A. & Fedorenko, E. (2017). Domain-general brain Neuropsychologia, 48, 3934–3940.
regions do not track linguistic input as closely as lan- Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. (2016). The
guage-selective regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352,
9999–10011. 1573–1576.
Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T. & Seeck, M. (2002). Bonnefond, M., Kaliuzhna, M., Van der Henst, J.-B. & De
Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature, 419, Neys, W. (2014). Disabling conditional inferences: An
269–270. EEG study. Neuropsychologia, 56, 255–262.
Blanke, O., Slater, M. & Serino, A. (2015). Behavioural, Bonnefond, M., Noveck, I., Baillet, S., Cheylus, A., Delpuech,
neural, and computational principles of bodily self- C., Bertrand, O., et al. (2013). What MEG can reveal
consciousness. Neuron, 88, 145–166. about inference making: The case of if…then sentences.
Bliss, D.P., Sun, J.J. & D’Esposito, M. (2017). Serial depend- Human Brain Mapping, 34, 684–697.
ence is absent at the time of perception but increases in Booth, R.W., Mackintosh, B., Mobini, S., Oztop, P. & Nunn,
visual working memory. Scientific Reports, 7 (Article no. S. (2014). Cognitive bias modification of attention is less
14739). effective under working memory load. Cognitive Therapy
Block, N. (2012). Response to Kouider et al.: Which view is and Research, 38, 634–639.
better supported by the evidence? Trends in Cognitive Booth, R.W., Mackintosh, B. & Sharma, D. (2017). Working
Sciences, 16, 141–142. memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing
Bluck, S. & Alea, N. (2009). Thinking and talking about the biases. Emotion, 17, 616–627.
past: Why remember? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, Bor, D. & Seth, A.K. (2012). Consciousness and the prefron-
1089–1104. tal parietal network: Insights from attention, working
Blumenthal, A., Duke, D., Bowles, B., Gilboa, A., memory, and chunking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3
Rosenbaum, R.S., Köhler, S., et al. (2017). Abnormal (Article no. 63).
832 References
Borges, J.L. (1964). Labyrinths. London: Penguin. Bowers, J.S. (2017a). Parallel distributed processing theory in
Borghesani, V. & Piazza, M. (2017). The neuro-cognitive the age of deep networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
representations of symbols: The case of concrete words. 21, 950–961.
Neuropsychologia, 105, 4–17. Bowers, J.S. (2017b). Grandmother cells and localist rep-
Borghesani, V., Buiatti, M., Eger, E. & Piazza, M. (2019). resentations: A review of current thinking. Language,
Conceptual and perceptual dimensions of word meaning Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 257–273.
are recovered rapidly and in parallel during reading. Bowers, J.S & Davis, C.J. (2012). Bayesian just-so stories in
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31, 95–108. psychology and neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin,
Bohrn, J.C., Altmann, U. & Jacobs, A.M. (2012). Looking 138, 389–414.
at the brains behind figurative language. A quantitative Bowles, B., Crupi, C., Pigott, S., Parrent, A., Wiebe, S.,
meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, Janzen, L., et al. (2010). Double dissociation of selective
idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50, recollection and familiarity impairments following two
2669–2683. different surgical treatments for temporal-lobe epilepsy.
Bormann, T. & Weiller, C. (2012). “Are there lexicons?” Neuropsychologia, 48, 2640–2647.
A study of lexical and semantic processing in word- Bowles, B., O’Neil, E.B., Mirsattari, S.M., Poppenk, J. &
meaning deafness suggests “yes”. Cortex, 48, 294–307. Köhler, S. (2011). Preserved hippocampal novelty
Bormann, T., Wolfer, S., Hachmann, W., Neubauer, C. & responses following anterior temporal-lobe resection that
Konieczny, L. (2015). Fast word reading in pure alexia: impairs familiarity but spares recollection. Hippocampus,
“Fast, yet serial”. Neurocase, 21, 251–267. 21, 847–854.
Borst, J.P., Buwalda, T.A., van Rijn, H. & Taatgen, N.A. Brainard, D.H. & Maloney, L.T. (2011). Surface colour per-
(2013). Avoiding the problem state bottleneck by stra- ception and equivalent illumination models. Journal of
tegic use of the environment. Acta Psychologica, 144, Vision, 11, 1–18.
373–379. Brainerd, C.J. & Mojardin, A.H. (1998). Children’s sponta-
Bos, E.M., Spoor, J.K.H., Smits, M., Schouten, J.W. & neous memories for narrative statements: Long-term
Vincent, A.J.P.E. (2016). Out-of-body experience during persistence and testing effects. Child Development, 69,
awake craniotomy. World Neurosurgery, 92 (Article no. 1361–1377.
UNSP 586.e9). Brainerd, C.J., Gomes, C.F.A. & Moran, R. (2014). The two
Bose, A. (2013). Phonological therapy in jargon aphasia: recollections. Psychological Review, 121, 563–599.
Effects on naming and neologisms. International Brainerd, C.J., Reyna, V.F. & Ceci, S.J. (2008). Developmental
Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48, reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory.
582–595. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 343–382.
Bostyn, D.H., Sevenhant, S. & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, Bramão, I. & Johansson, M. (2017). Benefits and costs of
and trolleys: Hypothetical judgement versus real-life context reinstatement in episodic memory: An ERP
behaviour in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29, 52–64.
Science, 29, 1084–1093. Braňas-Garza, P., Kujal, P. & Lenkei, B. (2015). Cognitive
Bourke, L., Davies, S.J., Sumner, E. & Green, C. (2014). reflection test: Whom, how, when. ESI Working Paper,
Individual differences in the development of early writing 15–25.
skills: Testing the unique contribution of visuo-spatial Brandt, A., Gebrian, M. & Slevc, L.R. (2012). Music and
working memory. Reading and Writing, 27, 315–335. early language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology,
Bourne, L.E., Kole, J.A. & Healy, A.F. (2015). Expertise: 3 (Article no. 327).
Defined, described, explained. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Brandt, K.R., Eysenck, M.W., Nilsen, M.K. & Von Oertzen,
211–213 (Article no. 186). T.J. (2016). Selective lesion to the entorhinal cortex leads
Bouvier, S.E. & Engel, S.A. (2006). Behavioural deficits and to an impairment in familiarity but not recollection.
cortical damage loci in cerebral achromatopsia. Cerebral Brain and Cognition, 104, 82–92.
Cortex, 16, 183–191. Bransford, J.D. & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prereq-
Bowden, E.M., Jung-Beeman, M., Fleck, J. & Kounios, J. uisites for understanding. Journal of Verbal Learning and
(2005). New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 322–328. Bransford, J.D., Barclay, J.R. & Franks, J.J. (1972). Sentence
Bowen, H.J., Kark, S.M. & Kensinger, E.A. (2018). memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach.
NEVER forget: Negative emotional valence enhances Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209.
recapitulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, Brase, G.L. (2014). Behavioural science integration: A prac-
870–891. tical framework of multi-level converging evidence for
Bower, G.H., Black, J.B. & Turner, T.J. (1979). Scripts in behavioural science theories. New Ideas in Psychology,
memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220. 33, 8–20.

References 833
Braunstein, M., Gross, J.J. & Ochsner, K.N. (2017). Explicit increasing stakes and framing effects on decision making
and implicit emotion regulation: A multi-level frame- under risk. International Review of Finance, 9, 27–50.
work. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, Brosch, T. (2013). Comment: On the role of appraisal pro-
1545–1557. cesses in the construction of emotion. Emotion Review,
Breitmeyer, B.G. (2015). Psychophysical “blinding” methods 5, 369–373.
reveal a functional hierarchy of unconscious visual pro- Brothers, T., Hoverstein, L.J. & Traxler, M.J. (2017). Looking
cessing. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 234–250. back on reading ahead: No evidence for lexical parafove-
Bremmer, F., Kubischik, M., Pekel, M., Hoffmann, K.P. al-on-foveal effects. Journal of Memory and Language,
& Lappe, M. (2010). Visual selectivity for heading in 96, 9–22.
monkey area MST. Experimental Brain Research, 200, Brown, A.S., Caderao, K.C., Fields, L.M. & Marsh, E.J.
51–60. (2015). Borrowing personal memories. Applied Cognitive
Brendel, E., DeLucia, P., Hecht, H., Stacy, R.L. & Larson, Psychology, 29, 471–477.
J.T. (2012). Threatening pictures induce shortened Brown, K.F., Kroll, J.S., Hudson, M.J., Ramsay, M., Green,
time-to-contact estimates. Attention, Perception & J., Vincent, C.A., et al. (2010). Omission bias and vaccine
Psychophysics, 74, 979–987. rejection by parents of healthy children: Implications for
Brenner, E. & Smeets, J.B.J. (2018). Depth perception. In the influenza A/H1N1 vaccination programme. Vaccine,
J.T. Serences (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental 28, 4181–4185.
Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2: Sensation, Brown, T.J., Uncapher, M.R., Chow, T.E., Eberhardt, J.L. &
perception, and attention (4th edn) (pp. 385–414). New Wagner, A.D. (2017). Cognitive control, attention, and
York: Wiley. the other race effect in memory. PLoS ONE, 12 (Article
Brewer, N. & Wells, G.L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. no. e0173579).
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 24–27. Brown, R. & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition,
Brewer, N.T., DeFrank, J.T. & Gilkey, M.B. (2016). 5, 73–99.
Anticipated regret and health behaviour: A meta- Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Beyond common and privileged:
analysis. Health Psychology, 35, 1264–1275. Gradient representations of common ground in real-
Brewin, C.R. (2015). Re-experiencing traumatic events in time language use. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27,
PTSDS: New avenues in research on intrusive memories 62–89.
and flashbacks. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, Brown-Schmidt, S. & Duff, M.C. (2016). Memory and
6 (Article no. 27180). common ground processes in language use. Topics in
Bridge, H. (2016). Effects of cortical damage on binocular Cognitive Sciences, 8, 722–736.
depth perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Brown-Schmidt, S. & Heller, D. (2014). What language
Society B, 371 (Article no. 20150254). processing can tell us about perspective taking: A
Bridge, H., Harrold, S., Holmes, E.A., Stokes, M. & Kennard, reply to Bezuidenhout. Journal of Pragmatics, 60,
C. (2012). Vivid visual mental imagery in the absence of 279–284.
the primary visual cortex. Journal of Neurology, 259, Brown-Schmidt, S. & Konopka, A.E. (2015). Processes of
1062–1070. incremental message planning during conversation.
Bridge, H., Thomas, O., Jbabdi, S. & Cowey, A. (2008). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 833–843.
Changes in connectivity after visual cortical brain Brownstein, L.M., Gross, J.J. & Ochsner, K.N. (2017).
damage underlie altered visual function. Brain, 131, Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A multi-level
1433–1444. framework. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
Briggs, G.F., Hole, G.J. & Land, M.F. (2011). Emotionally 12, 1545–1557.
involving telephone conversations lead to driver error Bruce, V. & Tadmor, Y. (2015). Direct perception: Beyond
and visual tunnelling. Transportation Research Part F, Gibson’s (1950) direct perception. In M.W. Eysenck &
14, 313–323. D. Groome (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the
Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and Communication. classic studies (pp. 24–37). London: Sage.
Oxford: Pergamon. Bruce, V. & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recogni-
Brock, J. & Nation, K. (2014). The hardest butter to button: tion. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.
Immediate context effects in spoken word identifica- Bruce, V., Green, P.R. & Georgeson, M.A. (2003). Visual
tion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, Perception (4th edn). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
114–123. Bruner, J.S., Goodnow, J.J. & Austin, G.A. (1956). A Study
Brooks, D.N. & Baddeley, A.D. (1976). What can amnesic of Thinking. New York: John Wiley.
patients learn? Neuropsychologia, 14, 111–122. Brüning, J. & Manzy, D. (2018). Flexibility of individual mul-
Brooks, R., Faff, R., Mulino, D. & Scheelings, R. (2009). titasking strategies in task-switching with preview: Are
Deal or no deal, that is the question? The impact of preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing
834 References
dependent on between-task conflict? Psychological Burgoyne, A.P., Sala, G., Gobet, F., Macnamara, B.N.,
Research, 82, 92–108. Campitelli, G. & Hambrick, D.Z. (2016). The relation-
Bruno, N. & Cutting, J.E. (1988). Mini-modularity and ship between cognitive ability and chess skill: A compre-
the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental hensive meta-analysis. Intelligence, 59, 72–83.
Psychology, 117, 161–170. Bürki, A., Sadat, J., Dubarry, A.-S. & Alario, F.-X. (2016).
Bruno, N., Bernardis, P. & Gentilucci, M. (2008). Visually Sequential processing during noun phrase production.
guided pointing, the Müller-Lyer illusion, and the Cognition, 146, 90–99.
functional interpretation of the dorsal-ventral split: Burnham, B.R., Sabia, M. & Langan, C. (2014). Components
Conclusions from 33 independent studies. Neuroscience of working memory and visual selective attention.
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 4213–4437. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
Brunyé, T.T., Carney, P.A., Allison, K.H., Shapiro, L.G. & and Performance, 40, 391–403.
Weaver, D.L. (2014). Eye movements as an index of Burns, B.D. (2004). The effects of speed on skilled chess per-
pathologist visual expertise: A pilot study. PLoS ONE, 9 formance. Psychological Science, 15, 442–447.
(Article no. e103447). Burns, B.D. & Wieth, M. (2004). The collider principle in
Brunyé, T.T., Taylor, H.A. & Rapp, D.N. (2008). Working causal reasoning: Why the Monty Hall dilemma is so
memory in developing and applying mental models from hard. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133,
spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 434–449.
58, 701–729. Burton, A.M., Kramer, R.S.S., Ritchie, K.L. & Jenkins, R.
Brusovansky, M., Glickman, M. & Usher, M. (2018). Fast (2016). Identity from variation: Representations of faces
and effective: Intuitive processes in complex decisions. derived from multiple instances. Cognitive Science, 40,
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1542–1548. 202–223.
Bruyer, R. (2011). Configural face processing: A meta-analytic Busigny, T., Graf, M., Mayer, E. & Rossion, B. (2010a).
survey. Perception, 40, 1478–1490. Acquired prosopagnosia as a face-specific d isorder:
Brysbaert, M. & Mitchell, D.C. (1996). Modifier attachment Ruling out the general visual similarity account. Neuro
in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly psychologia, 48, 2051–2067.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 664–695. Busigny, T., Joubert, S., Felician, O., Ceccaldi, M. & Rossion,
Buchanan, T.W., Tranel, D. & Adolphs, R. (2006). Memories B. (2010b). Holistic perception of the individual face is
for emotional autobiographical events following uni- specific and necessary: Evidence from an extensive case
lateral damage to medial temporal lobe. Brain, 129, study of acquired prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 48,
115–127. 4057–4092.
Buckley, M.J. & Mitchell, A.S. (2016). Retrosplenial cortical Butterworth, B. (1985). Jargon aphasia: Processes and
contributions to anterograde and retrograde amnesia in strategies. In S. Newman & R. Epstein (eds), Current
the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 2905–2918. Perspectives in Dysphasia (pp. 61–96). Edinburgh:
Buckthought, A., Yoonessi, A. & Balker, C.L. (2017). Churchill Livingstone.
Dynamic perspective cues enhance depth perception Byrne, M.D. (2012). Unified theories of cognition. Wiley
from motion parallax. Journal of Vision, 17, 1–19. Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive Science, 3, 431–438.
Buetler, K.A., Rodriguez, D.L., Leganaro, M., Műri, R., Cabeza, R., Stanley, M.L. & Moscovitch, M. (2018). Process-
Spierer, L. & Annoni, J.-M. (2014). Language context specific alliances (PSAs) in cognitive neuroscience.
modulates reading route: An electrical neuroimaging Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 996–1010.
study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (Article no. Caccappolo-van Vliet, E., Miozz, M. & Stern, Y. (2004).
83). Phonological dyslexia: A test case for reading models.
Bullmore, E. & Sporns, O. (2012). The economy of brain Psychological Science, 15, 583–590.
network organisation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, Caharel, S., Ramon, M. & Rossion, B. (2014). Face famil-
336–349. iarity decisions take 200ms in the human brain:
Bülthoff, I., Bülthoff, H. & Sinha, P. (1998). Top-down Electrophysiological evidence from a go/no-go speeded
influences on stereoscopic depth-perception. Nature task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 81–95.
Neuroscience, 1, 254–257. Cahill, L., Babinsky, R., Markowitsch, H.J. & McGaugh, J.L.
Burdett, B.R.D., Charlton, S.G. & Starkey, N.J. (2018). Inside (1995). Involvement of the amygdaloid complex in emo-
the commuting driver’s wandering mind. Transportation tional memory. Nature, 377, 295–296.
Research Part F, 57, 59–74. Cahir, C. & Thomas, K. (2010). Asymmetric effects of positive
Burgess, P.W., Gilbert, S.J. & Dumontheil, I. (2007). Function and negative affect on decision making. Psychological
and localisation within rostral prefrontal cortex (area Reports, 106, 193–204.
10). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Cai, Z.G., Gilbert, R.A., Davis, M.H., Gaskell, M.G., Farrar,
Biological Sciences, 362, 887–899. L., Adler, S., et al. (2017). Accent modulates access to

References 835
word meaning: Evidence for a speaker-model account Campoy, G. (2012). Evidence for decay in verbal short-term
of spoken word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 98, memory: A commentary on Berman, Jonides, and Lewis
73–101. (2009). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Cai, Z.G., Sturt, P. & Pickering, M.J. (2012). The effect of Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1129–1136.
non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language Cane, J.E., Ferguson, H.J. & Apperly, I.A. (2018). Using per-
and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1286–1311. spective to resolve reference: The impact of cognitive load
Caird, J.K., Willness, C.R., Steel, P. & Scialfa, C. (2008). and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 591–610.
performance. Accident analysis and Prevention, 40, Cann, H.W. & Raymond, L. (2018). Does climate denialism
1282–1293. still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in
Calder, A.J. & Young, A.W. (2005). Understanding the rec- opposition to climate policy. Environmental Politics, 27,
ognition of facial identity and facial expression. Nature 433–454.
Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 645–651. Cappa, S.F. (2012). Neurological accounts. In R. Bastiaanse
Calderwood, L. & Burton, A.M. (2006). Children and adults & C.K. Thompson (eds), Perspectives on Agrammatism
recall the names of highly familiar faces faster than (pp. 49–59). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
semantic information. British Journal of Psychology, 97, Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Seidlová Málková,
441–454. G. & Hulme, C. (2013). Different patterns, but equiva-
Calet, N., Gutierrez-Palma, N. & Defior, S. (2017). Effects lent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and
of fluency training on reading competence in primary inconsistent orthographies. Psychological Science, 24,
school children: The role of prosody. Learning and 1398–1407.
Instruction, 52, 59–68. Carbonell, K.M. & Lotto, A.J. (2014). Speech is not special…
Caliglore, D., Pezzulo, G., Baldassarre, G., Bostan, A.C., again. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article no. 427).
Strick, P.L., Doya, K., et al. (2017). Consensus paper: Carpenter, S.K. & Yeung, K.L. (2017). The role of mediator
Towards a systems-level view of cerebellar functions: strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory
The interplay between cerebellum, basal ganglia, and and Language, 92, 128–141.
cortex. Cerebellum, 16, 203–229. Carrasco-Ortiz, H., Midgley, K.J., Grainger, J. & Holcomb,
Calvo, M.G. & Castillo, M.D. (1997). Mood-congruent bias P.J. (2017). Interactions in the neighbourhood:
in interpretation of ambiguity: Strategic processes and Effects of orthographic and phonological neighbours
temporary activation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental on N400 amplitude. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 41,
Psychology, 50A, 163–182. 1–10.
Calvo, M.G. & Castillo, M.D. (2001). Bias in predictive infer- Carrera, E. & Tonini, G. (2014). Diaschesis: Past, present,
ences during reading. Discourse Processes, 32, 43–71. future. Brain, 137, 2408–2422.
Calvo, M.G., Castillo, M.D. & Schmalhofer, F. (2006). Carriedo, N., Corral, A., Montoro, P.R., Herrero, L.,
Strategic influence on the time course of predictive infer- Ballestrino, P. & Sebastian, I. (2016). The development
ences in reading. Memory & Cognition, 34, 68–77. of metaphor comprehension and its relationship with
Camerer, C. & Hogarth, R.B. (1999). The effects of financial relational verbal reasoning and executive function. PLoS
incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labour- ONE, 11 (Article no. e950289).
production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Cartmill, E.A., Beilock, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). A
19, 7–42. word in the hand: Action, gesture and mental representa-
Campbell, T.H. & Kay, A.C. (2014). Solution aversion: On tion in humans and non-human primates. Philosophical
the relation between ideology and motivated disbe- Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 129–143.
lief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, Casasanto, D. (2016). A shared mechanism of linguistic,
809–824. cultural, and bodily relativity. Language Learning, 66,
Campbell, K.L. & Tyler, L.K. (2018). Language-related 714–730.
domain-specific and domain-general systems in the Cattinelli, I., Borghese, N.A., Gallucci, M. & Paulesu, E.
human brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, (2013). Reading the reading brain: A new meta-analysis
132–137. of functional mapping data on reading. Journal of
Campitelli, G. & Gobet, F. (2011). Deliberate practice: Neurolinguistics, 26, 214–238.
Necessary but not sufficient. Current Directions in Cavaco, S., Anderson, S.W., Allen, J.S., Castro-Caldas, A. &
Psychological Science, 20, 280–285. Damasio, H. (2004). The scope of procedural memory in
Campos, B., Shiota, M.N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G.C. & amnesia. Brain, 127, 1853–1867.
Goetz, J.L. (2013). What is shared, what is different? Čavojová, V., Šrol, J. & Adamus, M. (2018). My point is
Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight valid, yours is not: Myside bias in reasoning about
positive emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 37–52. abortion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30, 656–669.

836 References
Ceci, S.J. & Liker, J.K. (1986). A day at the races: A study Chang, J.Y. & Lane, D.M. (2016). There is time for calcula-
of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of tion in speed chess, and calculation accuracy increases
Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266. with expertise. American Journal of Psychology, 129, 1–9.
Celeghin, A., Bagnis, A., Diano, M., Méndez, C.A., Costa, Chaplin, T.A., Hagan, M.A., Allitt, B.J. & Lul, L.L. (2018).
T. & Tamietto, M. (2019). Functional neuroanat- Neuronal correlations in MT and MST impair popu-
omy of blindsight revealed by activation likelihood lation decoding of opposite directions of random dot
estimation meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 128, motion. ENeuro, 5 (Article no. UNSP e0336–1.2018).
109–118. Charness, N., Reingold, E.M., Pomplun, M. & Stampe,
Ceraso, J. & Provitera, A. (1971). Sources of error in syllogis- D.M. (2001). The perceptual aspect of skilled perform
tic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 400–410. ance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory &
Cermak, L.S., Talbot, N., Chandler, K. & Wolharst, L.R. Cognition, 29, 1146–1152.
(1985). The perceptual priming phenomenon in amnesia. Charpentier, C.J., Aylward, J., Roiser, J.P. & Robinson, O.J.
Neuropsychologia, 23, 615–622. (2017). Enhanced risk aversion, but not loss aversion, in
Chabanat, E., Jacquin-Courtois, S., Havé, L., Kihoulou, C., unmediated pathological anxiety. Biological Psychology,
Tilikete, C., Mauguière, F., et al. (2019). Can you guess 81, 1014–1022.
the colour of this moving object? A dissociation between Charpentier, C.J., De Neve, J.-E., Li, X., Roiser, J.P. &
colour and motion in blindsight. Neuropsychologia, 128, Sharot, T. (2016). Models of affective decision making:
204–208. How do feelings predict choice? Psychological Science,
Challis, B.H., Velichkovsky, B.M. & Craik, F.I.M. (1996). 27, 763–775.
Levels-of-processing effects on a variety of memory Chater, N. & Christiansen, M.H. (2018). Language acqui-
tasks: New findings and theoretical implications. sition as skill learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral
Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 142–164. Sciences, 21, 205–208.
Challoner, J. (2009). 1,001 Inventions That Changed the World. Chater, N., McCauley, S.M. & Christiansen, M.H. (2016).
Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series. Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and pro-
Chalmers, D. (2007). The hard problem of consciousness. duction. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 244–254.
In M. Velmans & S. Schneider (eds), The Blackwell Chee, Q.W. & Goh, W.D. (2018). What explains the von
Companion to Consciousness (pp. 225–235). Oxford: Restorff effect? Contrasting distinctive processing and
Blackwell. retrieval cue efficacy. Journal of Memory and Language,
Chamberlain, F. (2003). Review of “Behavioural Assessment 99, 49–61.
of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS)”. Journal of Cheek, N.N. & Shwartz, B. (2016). On the meaning and
Occupational Psychology, 5, 33–37. measurement of maximisation. Judgment and Decision
Champod, C. (2015). Fingerprint identification: Advances Making, 11, 126–146.
since the 2009 National Research Council report. Chekaf, M., Cowan, N. & Mathy, F. (2016). Chunk forma-
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B, 370, tion in immediate memory and how it relates to data.
20140259. Cognition, 155, 96–107.
Chan, E., MacPherson, S.E., Bozzali, M., Shallice, T. & Chen, C.C. & Tyler, C.W. (2015). Shading beats binocular
Cipolotti, L. (2018). The influence of fluid intelligence, disparity in depth from luminance gradients: Evidence
executive functions and premorbid intelligence on against a maximum likelihood principle for cue combi-
memory in frontal patients. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 nation. PloS ONE, 10 (Article no. e0132658).
(Article no. 926). Chen, J., Lun, X., Guo, Y., Zhang, Y. & Gong, D. (2017). A
Chan, J., Paletz, S.B.F. & Schunn, C.D. (2012). Analogy as a survey on breaking techniques of text-based CAPTCHA.
strategy for supporting complex problem solving under Security and Communication Networks, 2017 (Article no.
uncertainty. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1352–1365. UNSP 6898617).
Chan, J.C.K. & LaPaglia, J.A. (2013). Impairing existing Chen, J., Sperandio, I. & Goodale, M.A. (2018a).
declarative memory in humans by disrupting reconsoli- Proprioceptive distance cues restore perfect size con-
dation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stancy in grasping, but not perception, when vision is
110, 9309–9313. limited. Current Biology, 26, 927–932.
Chan, J.C.K., Manley, K.D. & Lang, K. (2017). Retrieval- Chen, Q. & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation
enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new inves- among similar representations: Toward a unified account
tigation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbours.
Cognition, 6, 213–229. Psychological Review, 119, 417–430.
Chang, H. & Rosenholtz, R. (2016). Search performance is Chen, S., Wu, X., Wang, L., Wang, Y., Wu, B., Ge, M., et al.
better predicted by tileability than presence of a unique (2018b). Disrupted interactions between arousal and cor-
basic feature. Journal of Vision, 16 (Article no. 13). tical awareness networks in MCS and VS/UWS patients:

References 837
Evidence from resting-state functional imaging connec- Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42,
tivity. Neuroscience, 382, 115–124. 238–256.
Chen, X.-J., Wang, Y., Li, L.-L., Cui, J.-F., Gan, M.-Y., Choe, H. (2018). Type your listenership: An exploration of
Shum, D.H.K. & Chan, R.C.K. (2015). The effect of listenership in instant messages. Discourse Studies, 20,
implementation intention on prospective memory: A sys- 703–725.
tematic and meta-analytic review. Psychiatry Research, Cholewa, J., Mantey, S., Heber, S. & Hollweg, W. (2010).
226, 14–22. Developmental surface and phonological dysgraphia in
Chen, Y. & Zelinsky, G.J. (2019). Is there a shape to the German 3rd graders. Reading and Writing, 23, 97–127.
attention spotlight? Computing saliency over proto- Chomsky, N. (1957). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature,
objects predicts fixations during scene viewing. Journal Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s “Verbal Behaviour”.
Performance, 45, 139–154. Language, 35, 26–58.
Chen, Y.-C. & Spence, C. (2017). Assessing the role of the Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
“unity assumption” on multisensory integration: A Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. 445). Chouinard, B., Volden, J., Hollinger, J. & Cummine, J. (2018).
Chen, Z. (2002). Analogical problem solving: A hierarchical Spoken metaphor comprehension: Evaluation using the
analysis of procedural similarity. Journal of Experi metaphor interference effect. Discourse Processes, 361,
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 19–33.
28, 81–98. Christiansen, M.H. & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped
Chen, Z. (2012). Object-based attention: A tutorial review. by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–558.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 784–802. Christiansen, M.H. & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never
Chen, Z. & Cave, K.R. (2016). Zooming in on the cause of the bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.
perceptual load effect in the go/no-go paradigm. Journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–19.
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Christiansen, M.H., Kelly, M.L., Shillcock, R.C. &
Performance, 42, 1072–1087. Greenfield, K. (2010). Impaired artificial grammar learn-
Chen, Z. & Cowan, N. (2009). Core verbal working memory ing in agrammatism. Cognition, 116, 382–393.
capacity: The limit in words retained without covert Christianson, K., Luke, S.G. & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects
articulation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psycho of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experi
logy, 62, 1420–1429. mental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36,
Chenoweth, N.A. & Hayes, J.R. (2003). The inner voice in 538–544.
writing. Written Communication, 20, 99–118. Christopher, M.E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J.M., Pennington, B.,
Cherry, E.C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of DeFries, J.C., Wadsworth, S.J., et al. (2012). Predicting
speech with one and two ears. Journal of the Acoustical word reading and comprehension with executive func-
Society of America, 25, 975–979. tion and speed measures across development: A latent
Cherubini, P., Castelvecchio, E. & Cherubini, A.M. (2005). variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Generation of hypotheses in Wason’s 2-4-6 task: General, 141, 470–488.
An information theory approach. Quarterly Journal Christou, A.I., Miall, R.C., McNab, F. & Galea, J.M. (2016).
of Experimental Psychology Section A – Human Individual differences in explicit and implicit visuo-
Experimental Psychology, 58, 309–332. motor learning and working memory capacity. Scientific
Chiarello, C., Vaden, K.I. & Eckert, M.A. (2018). Reports, 6 (Article no. 36633).
Orthographic influence on spoken word identification: Chrysikou, E.G., Hamilton, R.H., Coslett, H.B., Datta,
Behavioural and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia, 111, A., Bikson, M. & Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2013).
103–111. Noninvasive transcranial direct current stimulation over
Chica, A.B., Bartolomeo, P. & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Two cog- the left prefrontal cortex facilitates cognitive flexibility in
nitive and neural systems for endogenous and exoge- tool use. Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 81–89.
nous spatial attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 237, Chukoskie, L., Snider, J., Mozer, M.C., Krauzlis, R.J. &
107–123. Sejnowski, T.J. (2013). Learning where to look for a
Chica, A.B., Bartolomeo, P. & Valero-Cabré, A. (2011). hidden target. Proceedings of the National Association of
Dorsal and ventral parietal contributions to spatial ori- Sciences, 110, 10438–10445.
enting in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, Chun, M.M., Golomb, J.D. & Turk-Browne, N.B. (2011).
8143–8149. A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual
Chick, C.F., Reyna, V.F. & Corbin, J.C. (2016). Framing Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
effects are robust to linguistic disambiguation: A critical Chun, W.Y. & Kruglanski, A.W. (2006). The role of task
test of contemporary theory. Journal of Experimental demands and processing resources in the use of base-rate

838 References
and individuating information. Journal of Personality Coch, D., Sanders, L.D. & Neville, H.J. (2005). An event-
and Social Psychology, 91, 205–217. related potential study of selective auditory attention in
Chung, S. (2012). Are lexical categories universal? The view children and adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics, 38, 1–56. 17, 606–622.
Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski, T.J. (1988). Perspectives on Coco, M.I. & Keller, F. (2015). The interaction of visual and
cognitive neuroscience. Science, 242, 741–745. linguistic saliency during syntactic ambiguity resolution.
Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2012). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 46–74.
Development of ideational writing through knowl- Coetzee, J.P. & Monti, M.M. (2018). At the core of reasoning:
edge building: Theoretical and empirical bases. In E.L. Dissociating deductive and non-deductive load. Human
Grigorenko, E. Mambrino & D. Preiss (eds), Writing: Brain Mapping, 39, 1850–1861.
A mosaic of New Perspectives (pp. 175–190). Hove, UK: Coget, J.-F., Haag, C. & Gibson, D.E. (2011). Anger and fear
Psychology Press. in decision-making: The case of film directors on set.
Cisler, J.M. & Koster, E.H.W. (2010). Mechanisms of atten- European Management Journal, 29, 476–490.
tional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An inte- Cohen, L.R. (2002). The role of experience in the perception of
grative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 203–216. biological motion. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Clancy, S.A. & McNally, R.J. (2005/2006). Who needs repres- Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 63, 3049.
sion? Normal memory processes can explain “forgetting” Cohen, M.A., Alvarez, G.A. & Nakayama, K. (2011).
of childhood sexual abuse. Scientific Review of Mental Natural-scene perception requires attention. Psycho
Health Practice, 4, 66–73. logical Science, 22, 1165–1172.
Clark, C.M., Lawlor-Savage, L. & Goghari, V.M. (2017). Cohen, M.A., Cavanagh, P., Chun, M.M. & Nakayama, K.
Comparing brain activations associated with working (2012). The attentional requirements of consciousness.
memory and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 63, 66–77. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 411–417.
Clark, G.M., Lum, J.A.G. & Ullman, M.T. (2014). A Cohen, M.A., Dennett, D.C. & Kanwisher, N. (2016). What
meta-analysis and meta-regression of serial reaction time is the bandwidth of perceptual experience? Trends in
performance in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology, Cognitive Sciences, 20, 324–335.
28, 945–958. Colavita, F.B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception
Clark, I.A. & Maguire, E.A. (2016). Remembering pres- & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412.
ervation in hippocampal amnesia. Annual Review of Cole, J. (2015). Prosody in context: A review. Language,
Psychology, 67, 51–82. Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 1–31.
Clark, L.A. & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety Collegio, A.J., Nah, J.C., Scott, P.S. & Schomstein, S. (2019).
and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic Attention scales according to inferred real-world object
implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, size. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 140–147.
316–336. Collette, F., Van der Linden, M., Laureys, S., Delfiore, G.,
Clarke, J. & Mack, A. (2015). Iconic memory for natural Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., et al. (2005). Exploring the
scenes: Evidence using a modified change-detection pro- unity and diversity of the neural substrates of executive
cedure. Visual Cognition, 23, 917–938. functioning. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 409–423.
Clay, Z. & Genty, E. (2017). Natural communication in Collin, G., Sporns, O., Mandl, R.C.W. & van den Heuvel,
bonobos: Insights into social awareness and the evo- M.P. (2014). Structural and functional aspects relat-
lution of language. In B. Hare & S. Yamamoto (eds), ing to costs and benefit of rich club organisation in the
Bonobos: Unique in mind, brain, and behaviour (pp. 105– human cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 2258–2267.
122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation
Clifton, C., Ferreira, F., Henderson, J.M., Inhoff, A.W., theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82,
Liversedge, S.P., Reichle, E.D., et al. (2016). Eye 407–428.
movements in reading and information processing: Collins, W.M. & Daniel, F. (2018). The impact of reading at
Keith Rayner’s 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and rapid rates on inference generation. Journal of Research
Language, 86, 1–19. in Reading, 41, 564–581.
Clore, G.L., Schiller, A.J. & Shaked, A. (2018). Affect Colman, A.M. (2015). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (4th
and cognition: Three principles. Current Opinion in edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Behavioral Science, 19, 78–82. Colomb, C. & Ginet, M. (2012). The cognitive interview
Close, J. & Pothos, E.M. (2012). “Object categorisation: for use with adults: An empirical test of an alternative
Reversals and explanations of the basic-level advan- mnemonic and of a partial protocol. Applied Cognitive
tage” (Rogers & Patterson, 2007): A simplicity account. Psychology, 26, 35–47.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, Colombo, L., Fudio, S. & Mosna, G. (2009). Phonological
1615–1632. and working memory mechanisms involved in written

References 839
spelling. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, Conway, M.A., Wang, Q., Hanyu, K. & Haque, S. (2005). A
837–861. cross-cultural investigation of autobiographical memory.
Coltheart, M. (2001). Assumptions and methods in cogni- Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 739–749.
tive neuropsychology. In B. Rapp (ed.), The handbook Conway, P., Goldstei-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D. & Greene,
of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about J.D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgements do reflect
the human mind (pp. 3–21). Hove, UK: Psychology concern for the greater good: Clarification via process
Press. dissociation and the judgements of philosophers.
Coltheart, M. (2010). Lessons from cognitive neuropsychol- Cognition, 179, 241–265.
ogy for cognitive science: A reply to Patterson and Plaut Cook, A.E. & Myers, J.L. (2004). Processing discourse rules
(2009). Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 3–11. in scripted narratives: The influences of context and
Coltheart, M. (2015). Language processing: Revisiting world knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 50,
Marshall and Newcombe (1973). In M.W. Eysenck & 268–288.
D. Groome (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the Cook, A.E. & O’Brien, E.J. (2017). Fundamentals of inferenc-
classic studies (pp. 189–202). London: Sage. ing during reading. Language and Linguistics Compass,
Coltheart, M. & Ulicheva, A. (2018). Why is non-word 11 (Article no. e12246).
reading so variable in adult skilled readers? PeerJ, 6 Cook, G.I., Rummel, J. & Dummel, S. (2015). Toward an
(Article no. 34879). understanding of motivational influences on prospec-
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R. & Ziegler, tive memory using value-added intentions. Frontiers in
J. (2001). DRC: A dual-route cascaded model of visual Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 278).
word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Copeland, D.E. & Radvansky, G.A. (2004). Working
Review, 108, 204–256. memory and syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of
Colvin, M.K. & Gazzaniga, M.S. (2007). Split-brain cases. In Exerimental Psychology, 57A, 1437–1457.
M. Velmans & S. Schneider (eds), The Blackwell Companion Corbetta, M. & Shulman, G.L. (2002). Control of goal-
to Consciousness (pp. 181–193). Oxford: Blackwell. directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain.
Colvin, M.K., Dunbar, K. & Grafman, J. (2001). The effects Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215.
of frontal lobe lesions on goal achievement in the Corbetta, M. & Shulman, G.L. (2011). Spatial neglect and
water jug task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, attention networks. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34,
1129–1147. 569–599.
Cona, G., Arcara, G., Tarantino, V. & Bisiacchi, P.S. (2015). Corbetta, M., Patel, G. & Shulman, G.I. (2008). The re-
Does predictability matter? Effects of cue predictability orienting system of the human brain: From environment
on neurocognitive mechanisms underlying prospective to theory of mind. Neuron, 58, 306–324.
memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article Corkin, S. (1968). Acquisition of motor skill after bilateral
no. 188). medial temporal-lobe excision. Neuropsychologia, 6,
Cona, G., Bisiacchi, P.S. & Scapazza, C. (2016). Effects of 255–265.
cue focality on the neural mechanisms of prospective Corkin, S. (1984). Lasting consequences of bilateral medial
memory: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. temporal lobectomy – Clinical course and experimental
Scientific Reports, 6 (Article no. 25983). findings in HM. Seminars in Neurology, 4, 249–259.
Conway, A.R.A., Cowan, N. & Bunting, M.F. (2001). The Corley, M., Brocklehurst, P.H. & Moat, H.S. (2011). Error
cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance biases in inner and overt speech: Evidence from tongue
of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & twisters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Review, 8, 331–335. Memory, and Cognition, 37, 162–175.
Conway, B.R., Eskew, R.T., Martin, P.R. & Stockman, A. Cormack, L.K., Czuba, T.B., Knöll, J. & Huk, A.C. (2017).
(2018). A tour of contemporary colour vision research. Binocular mechanisms of 3D motion processing. Annual
Vision Research, 151, 2–6. Review of Vision Science, 3, 297–318.
Conway, M.A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Cormier, D.C., Bulut, O., McGrew, K.S. & Frison, J.
Memory and Language, 53, 594–628. (2016). The role of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cogni-
Conway, M.A. (2009). Episodic memories. Neuropsychologia, tive abilities in predicting writing achievement during
47, 2305–2313. the school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 53,
Conway, M.A. & Pleydell-Pearce, C.W. (2000). The construc- 787–803.
tion of autobiographical memories in the self-memory Corner, A., Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psycholog-
system. Psychological Review, 107, 262–288. ical mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal
Conway, M.A., Loveday, C. & Cole, S.N. (2016). The of Memory and Language, 64, 133–152.
remembering-imagining system. Memory Studies, 9, Cosentino, S., Chut, D., Libon, D., Moore, P. & Grossman,
256–265. M. (2006). How does the brain support script

840 References
comprehension? A study of executive processs and Crible, L. (2017). Discourse markers and (dis)fluencies in
semantic knowledge in dementia. Neuropsychology, 20, English and French: Variation and combination in
307–318. the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus
Coste, C.P. & Kleinschmidt, A. (2016). Cingulo-opercular Linguistics, 22, 242–269.
network activity maintains alertness. NeuroImage, 128, Crisp, J., Howard, D. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2011). More
264–272. evidence for a continuum between phonological and
Costello, F.J. & Keane, M.T. (2000). Efficient creativity: deep dyslexia: Novel data from three measures of direct
Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive orthography-to-phonology translation. Aphasiology, 25,
Science, 24, 299–349. 615–641.
Cowen, A.S. & Keltner, D. (2017). Self-report captures 27 dis- Cristea, I.A., Kok, R.N. & Cuijpers, P. (2015). Efficacy of
tinct categories of emotion bridged by continuous gra- cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and
dients. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, depression: Meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry,
114, E7900–E7909. 206, 7–16.
Cowen, A.S. & Keltner, D. (2018). Clarifying the concep- Croskerry, P. (2018). Medical decision making. In L.J. Ball &
tualization, dimensionality, and structure of emotion: V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook
Response to Barrett and colleagues. Trends in Cognitive of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 109–129). Abingdon,
Sciences, 22, 274–276. Oxon.: Routledge.
Cowley, M.B. (2015). Hypothesis falsification in the 2-4-6 Crupi, V., Elia, F., Aprà, F. & Tentori, K. (2018). Double
number sequence test: Introducing imaginary counter- conjunction fallacies in physicians’ probability judge-
parts. Philosophy of Mind eJournal, 8, 3–44. ment. Medical Decision Making, 38, 756–760.
Cowley, M.B. & Byrne, R.M.J. (2005). When falsification Cruse, D., Chennu, S., Chatelle, C., Bekinschtein, T.A.,
is the only path to truth. In B.G. Bara, L. Barsalou & Fernandez-Espejo, D., Pickard, J.D., et al. (2011).
M. Bucciarelli (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state.
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Societ Lancet, 378, 2088–2094.
(pp. 512–517). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cryder, C.E., Lerner, J.S., Gross, J.J. & Dahl, R.E. (2008).
Cowley, S.J. & Harvey, M.I. (2016). The illusion of common Misery is not miserly: Sad and self-focused individuals
ground. New Ideas in Psychology, 42, 56–63. spend more. Psychological Science, 19, 525–530.
Cox, W.T.L. & Devine, P.G. (2016). Experimental research Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
on shooter bias: Ready (or relevant) for application in (4th edn). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
the courtroom? Journal of Applied Research in Memory Crystal, D. (2005). Speaking of writing and writing of speak-
and Cognition, 5, 236–238. ing. Longman’s Language Review, 1, 5–8.
Craik, F.I.M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present . . . Curiel, J.M. & Radvansky, G.A. (2014). Spatial and char-
and future? Memory, 10, 305–318. acter situation model updating. Journal of Cognitive
Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: Psychology, 26, 205–212.
A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Curot, J., Busigny, T., Valton, L., Denuelle, M., Vignal, J.-P.,
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. Maillard, L., et al. (2017). Memory scrutinized through
Craik, F.I.M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and electrical brain stimulation: A review of 80 years of
the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of experiential phenomena. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294. Reviews, 78, 161–177.
Crawford, J.R., Smith, G., Maylor, E.A., Della Sala, S. & Cutler, A. & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech
Logie, R.H. (2003). The Prospective and Retrospective segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception.
Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ): Normative data and Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218–236.
latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Memory, Cuttler, C. & Graf, P. (2009a). Checking-in on the memory
11, 261–275. deficit and meta-memory deficit theories of com-
Craycraft, N.N. & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2018). Compensating pulsive checking. Clinical Psychology Review, 29,
for an inattentive audience. Cognitive Science, 42, 393–409.
1509–1528. Cuttler, C. & Graf, P. (2009b). Sub-clinical compulsive check-
Creem, S.H. & Proffitt, D.R. (2001). Grasping objects by their ers show impaired performance on habitual, event- and
handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and time-cued episodic prospective memory tasks. Journal of
action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Anxiety Disorders, 23, 813–823.
Perception and Performance, 27, 218–228. Cvejic, E., Kim, J. & Davis, C. (2012). Recognising prosody
Crescentini, C., Seyed-Allaei, S., Vallesi, A. & Shallice, T. across modalities, face areas and speakers: Examining
(2012). Two networks involved in producing and realis- perceivers’ sensitivity to variable realisations of visual
ing plans. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1521–1535. prosody. Cognition, 122, 442–453.

References 841
Dąbrowska, E. (2018). Experience, aptitude and individ- Davies, B.L. (2007). Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Meaning
ual differences in native language ultimate attainment. and rationality. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2308–2331.
Cognition, 178, 222–235. Davies, M. (2010). Double dissociation: Understanding its
Dagher, A., Owen, A.M., Boecker, H. & Brooks, D.J. (1999). role in cognitive neuropsychology. Mind & Language,
Mapping the network for planning: A correlational PET 25, 500–540.
activation study with the Tower of London task. Brain, Davies-Thompson, J., Pancaroglu, R. & Barton, J. (2014).
122, 1973–1987. Acquired prosopagnosia: Structural basis and processing
Dalgleish, T. & Werner-Seidler, A. (2014). Disruptions in impairments. Frontiers in Bioscience, E6, 159–174.
autobiographical memory processing in depression Davis, J.I., Senghas, A., Brandt, F. & Ochsner, K.N. (2010).
and the emergence of memory therapeutics. Trends in The effects of BOTOX injections on emotional experi-
Cognitive Sciences, 18, 596–604. ence. Emotion, 10, 433–440.
Dalgleish, T., Hill, E., Golden, A.-M.J., Morant, N. & Dunn, Davis, M. (2018). Frederic Bartlett: A question of prior-
B.D. (2011). The structure of past and future lives ity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71,
in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 1030–1031.
1–15. Dawes, R.M. (1988). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World.
Dalrymple, K.A., Kingstone, A. & Handy, T.C. (2009). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Event-related potential evidence for a dual-locus model Dawson, E., Gilovich, T. & Regan, D.T. (2002). Motivated
of global/local processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, reasoning and performance on the Wason selection task.
26, 456–470. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1379–1387.
Danckert, J. & Ferber, S. (2006). Revisiting unilateral neglect. Day, M.V. & Ross, M. (2014). Predicting confidence in flash-
Neuropsychologia, 44, 987–1006. bulb memories. Memory, 22, 232–242.
Dando, C.J., Ormerod, T.C., Wilcock, R. & Milne, R. (2011). Deady, D.K., North, N.T., Allan, D., Smith, M.J.L. &
When help becomes hindrance: Unexpected errors O’Carroll, R.E. (2010). Examining the effect of spinal
of omission and commission in eyewitness memory cord injury on emotional awareness, expressivity and
resulting from changes in temporal order at retrieval? memory for emotional material. Psychology, Health &
Cognition, 121, 416–421. Medicine, 15, 406–419.
Dandolo, L.C. & Schwabe, L. (2018). Time-dependent Dean, M., Kibris, O. & Masatlioglu, Y. (2017). Limited atten-
memory transformation along the hippocampal anterior tion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory,
axis. Nature Communications, 9 (Article no. 1205). 169, 93–127.
Danek, A.H. & Wiley, J. (2017). What about false insights? Debelak, R., Egle, J., Köstering, L. & Kaller, C.P. (2016).
Deconstructing the Aha! experience along its multiple Assessment of planning ability: Psychometric analyses
dimensions for correct and incorrect solutions sepa- on the unidimensionality and construct validity of the
rately. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article no. 2077). Tower of London task (TOL-F). Neuropsychology, 30,
Danek, A.H., Fraps, T., von Műller, A., Grothe, B. & 346–360.
Öllinger, M. (2014). Working wonders? Investigating de Bode, S., Smets, L., Mathern, G.W. & Dubinsky, S.
insight with magic tricks. Cognition, 130, 174–185. (2015). Complex syntax in the isolated right hemisphere:
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differ- Receptive grammatical abilities after cerebral hemi-
ences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal spherectomy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 51, 33–39.
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. Dębska, A. & Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2018). What makes us
Darling, S. & Havelka, J. (2010). Visuospatial bootstrapping: more egocentric in communication? Discourse Processes,
Evidence for binding of verbal and spatial information 55, 1–11.
in working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental DeCaro, M.S., van Stockum, C.A. & Wieth, M.B. (2016).
Psychology, 63, 239–245. When higher working memory hinders insight. Journal
Darling, S., Allen, R.J. & Havelka, J. (2017). Visuo-spatial of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
bootstrapping: When visuo-spatial and verbal memory Cognition, 42, 39–49.
work together. Current Directions in Psychological DeCaro, M.S., van Stockum, C.A. & Wieth, M.B. (2017).
Science, 26, 3–9. The relationship between working memory and insight
Das, T., Hwang, J.J. & Poston, K.L. (2019). Episodic rec- depends on moderators: Reply to Chuderski and
ognition memory and the hippocampus in Parkinson’s Justrzêbski (2017). Journal of Experimental Psychology:
disease: A review. Cortex, 113, 191–209. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 2005–2010.
D’Avanzato, C., Joormann, J., Siemer, M. & Gotlib, I.H. Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., Penrod, S.D. &
(2013). Emotion regulation and anxiety: Examining diag- McGorty, E.K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the
nostic specificity and stability of strategy use. Cognitive effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and
Therapy & Research, 37, 968–980. Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.

842 References
de Gardelle, V., Sackur, J. & Kouider, S. (2009). Perceptual Dell, G.S., Burger, L.K. & Svec, W.R. (1997). Language pro-
illusions in brief visual presentations. Consciousness and duction and serial order: A functional analysis and a
Cognition, 18, 569–577. model. Psychological Review, 104, 123–147.
de Gardelle, V., Waszczuk, M., Egner, T. & Summerfield, Dell, G.S., Nozari, N. & Oppenheim, G.M. (2014). Word
C. (2013). Concurrent repetition enhancement and sup- production: Behavioural and computational considera-
pression responses in extrastriate visual cortex. Cerebral tions. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira & M. Miozzo (eds),
Cortex, 23, 2235–2244. The Oxford Handbook of Language Production. Oxford:
Degno, F., Loberg, O., Zang, C.L., Zhang, M.M., Donnelly, Oxford University Press.
N. & Liversedge, S.P. (2019). Parafoveal previews and Dell, G.S., Oppenheim, G.M. & Kitttredge, A.K. (2008).
lexical frequency in natural reading: Evidence from eye Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic
movements and fixation-related potentials. Journal of and paradigmatic interference in sentence production.
Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 453–473. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 583–608.
de Graaf, T.A., Hsieh, P.-J. & Sack, A.T. (2012). The “corre- DeLong, K.A., Urbach, T.P. & Kutas, M. (2005).
lates” in neural correlates of consciousness. Neuroscience Probabilisltic word activation during language compre-
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 16, 191–197. hension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature
De Groot, A.D. (1965). Thought and Choice in Chess. The Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.
Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. DeLucia, P.R. (2013). Effects of size on collision perception
de Haan, E.H.F., Jackson, S.R. & Schenk, T. (2018). Where and implications for perceptual theory and transporta-
are we now with “what” and “how”? Cortex, 98, 1–7. tion safety. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
de Haan, B., Karnath, H.-O. & Driver, J. (2012). Mechanisms 22, 199–204.
and anatomy of unilateral extinction after brain injury. del Prete, F., Hanczakowski, M., Bajo, M.T. & Mazzoni, G.
Neuropsychologia, 50, 1045–1053. (2015). Inhibitory effects of thought substitution in the
Dehaene, S. & Changeux, J.P. (2011). Experimental and the- think/no-think task: Evidence from independent cues.
oretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70, Memory, 23, 507–517.
200–227. de Manzano, O. & Ullén, F. (2018). Same genes, different
Delaney, P.F., Ericsson, K.A. & Knowles, M.E. (2004). brains: Neuroanatomical differences between mono
Immediate and sustained effects of planning in a problem- zygotic twins discordant for musical training. Cerebral
solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Cortex, 28, 387–394.
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1219–1234. De Martino, B., Camerer, C.F. & Adolphs, R. (2010).
de la Rosa, S., Schillinger, F.L., Bülthoff, H.H., Schultz, Amydala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion.
J. & Uludag, K. (2016). fMRI adapation between Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107,
action observation and action execution reveals corti- 3788–3792.
cal areas with mirror neuron properties in human BA Demertzi, A., Soddu, A. & Laureys, S. (2013). Consciousness
44/45. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10 (Article supporting networks. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
no. 78). 23, 239–244.
Del Cul, A., Dehaene, S., Reyes, P., Bravo, E. & Slachevsky, DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L. & Budescu, D.V. (2009). Optimal
A. (2009). Causal role of prefrontal cortex in the thresh- versus naïve diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N
old for access to consciousness. Brain, 132, 2531–2540. portfolio strategy? Review of Financial Studies, 22,
Del Guidice, M. & Ellis, B.J. (2015). Evolutionary foundations 1915–1953.
of developmental psychopathology. In D. Ciccetti (ed.), Demiray, B. & Janssen, S.M.J. (2015). The self-enhancement
Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 2: Developmental function of autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive
neuroscience (3rd edn) (pp. 1–58). New York: Wiley. Psychology, 29, 49–60.
Dell, G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two
sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17,
Dell, G.S. (2013). Cascading and feedback in interactive 428–433.
models of production: A reflection of forward model- De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intui-
ling? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 351–352. tions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38.
Dell, G.S. & Caramazza, A. (2008). Introduction to special De Neys, W. (2014). Conflict detection, dual processes,
issue on computational modelling in cognitive neuropsy- and logical intuitions: Some clarifications. Thinking &
chology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 131–135. Reasoning, 20, 169–187.
Dell, G.S. & Oppenheim, G.M. (2015). Insights for speech De Neys, W., Cromheeke, S. & Osman, M. (2011). Feeling
production planning from errors in inner speech. In we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning con-
M.A. Redford (ed.), The Handbook of Speech Production flict. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12,
(pp. 404–418). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 123–130.
References 843
De Neys, W. & Verschueren, N. (2006). Working memory Diana, R.A., Yonelinas, A.P. & Ranganath, C. (2007).
capacity and a notorious brain teaser – The case of the Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial
Monty Hall dilemma. Experimental Psychology, 53, temporal lobe: A three-component model. Trends in
123–131. Cognitive Sciences, 11, 379–386.
De Neys, W., Moyens, E. & Vansteenwegen, D. (2010). Diano, M., Celeghin, A., Bagnis, A. & Tamietto, M. (2017).
Feeling we’re biased: Autonomic arousal and reasoning Amygdala response to emotional stimuli without aware-
conflict. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, ness: Facts and interpretations. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 123–130. 7 (Article no. 2029).
De Neys, W., Schaeken, W. & d’Ydewalle, G. (2005). Diao, L., Qi, S., Xu, M., Li, Z., Ding, C., Chen, A., et al.
Working memory and everyday conditional reasoning: (2016). Neural signature of reward-modulated uncon-
Retrieval and inhibition of stored counterexamples. scious inhibitory control. International Journal of
Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 349–381. Psychophysiology, 107, 1–8.
den Ouden, D.-B., Dickey, M.W., Anderson, C. & Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utman, J.A., Dronkers, N.
Christianson, K. (2016). Neural correlates of & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2001). Language deficits, locali-
early-closure garden-path processing: Effects of prosody zation, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model
and plausibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neuro-
Psychology, 69, 926–949. logically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108,
Derryberry, D. & Reed, M.A. (2002). Anxiety-related atten- 759–788.
tional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Dijksterhuis, A. & Nordgren, L.F. (2006). A theory of uncon-
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 225–236. scious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
De Salvo, S., Caminiti, F., Bonanno, L., De Cola, M.C., 95–180.
Corallo, F., Caizzone, A., et al. (2015). Neuro lo Dijksterhuis, A. & Strick, M. (2016). A case for thinking
physiological assessment for evaluating residual cogni- without consciousness. Perspectives on Psychological
tion in vegetative and minimally conscious state patients: Science, 11, 117–132.
A pilot study. Functional Neurology, 30, 237–244. Dijkstra, K. & Post, L. (2015). Mechanisms of embodiment.
de Schotten, M.T. & Shallice, T. (2017). Identical, similar or Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 1525).
different? Is a single brain model sufficient? Cortex, 86, Dijkstra, N., Bosch, S.E. & van Gerven, M.A.J. (2017a).
172–175. Vividness of visual imagery depends on the neural
Destrebecqz, A., Peigneux, P., Laureys, S., Degueldre, C., Del overlap with perception in visual areas. Journal of
Fiorem, G., Aerts, J., et al. (2005). The neural correlates Neuroscience, 37, 1367–1373.
of implicit and explicit sequence learning: Interacting Dijkstra, N., Mostert, P., de Lange, F.P., Bosch, S. & van
networks revealed by the process dissociation procedure. Gerven, M.A.J. (2018). Differential temporal dynamics
Learning and Memory, 12, 480–490. during visual imagery and perception. eLIFE, 7 (Article
Deutsch, J.A. & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoret- no. e33904).
ical considerations. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. Dijkstra, N., Zeidman, P., Ondobaka, S., van Gerven,
De Vries, J.V. (1970). Perspective. (Original work published M.A.J. & Friston, K. (2017b). Distinct top-down
in 1604). and bottom-up brain connectivity during visual per-
De Vries, M., Holland, R.W., Corneille, O., Rondeel, E.J.E. ception and imagery. Scientific Reports, 7 (Article
& Witteman, C.L.M. (2012). Mood effects on domi- no. 5677).
nated choices: Positive mood induces departures from Di Lollo, V. (2018). Attention is a sterile concept; itera-
logical rules. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, tive re-entry is a fertile substitute. Consciousness and
74–81. Cognition, 64, 45–49.
Dew, I.T.Z. & Cabeza, R. (2011). The porous boundaries Ding, S., Cueva, C.J., Tsodyks, M. & Qian, N. (2017). Visual
between explicit and implicit memory: Behavioural and perception as retrospective Bayesian decoding from
neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of high- to low-level features. Proceedings of the National
Sciences, 1224, 174–190. Association of Sciences, 43, E9115–E9124.
Dewar, M.T., Cowan, N. & Della Sala, S. (2007). Forgetting Dion, K.L. & Dion, K.K. (1976). The Honi phenomenon
due to retroactive interference: A fusion of Müller and revisited: Factors underlying the resistance to p
erceptual
Pizecker’s (1900) early insights into everyday forgetting distortion of one’s partner. Journal of Personality and
and recent research on retrograde amnesia. Cortex, 43, Social Psychology, 33, 170–177.
616–634. Di Russo, F., Aprile, T., Spitoni, G. & Spinelli, D. (2008).
Diana, R.A. (2017). Parahippocampal cortex processes the Impaired visual processing of contralesional stimuli in
non-spatial context of an event. Cerebral Cortex, 27, neglect patients: A visual-evoked potential study. Brain,
1808–1816. 131, 842–854.

844 References
Dismukes, R.K. (2012). Prospective memory in workplace and Downing, P.E., Chan, A.W.Y., Peelen, M.V., Dodds, C.M.
everyday situations. Current Directions in Psychological & Kanwisher, N. (2006). Domain specificity in visual
Science, 21, 215–220. cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1453–1461.
Dismukes, R.K. & Nowinski, J.L. (2006). Prospective Doyon, J., Gabitov, E., Vahdat, S., Lungu, O. & Boutin, A.
memory, concurrent task management, and pilot (2018). Current issues related to motor sequence learning
error. In A. Kramer, D. Wiegmann & A. Kirlik (eds), in humans. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20,
Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 223–238). Oxford: 89–97.
Oxford University Press. Dreyer, F.R., Frey, D., Arana, S., von Saldern, S., Picht,
Di Stasi, L.L. & Guardini, P. (2007). Perceiving affordances T., Vajkoczy, P., et al. (2015). Is the motor system
in virtual environments: Visual guidance of virtual stair necessary for processing action and abstract emotion
climbing. Perception, 36 (Suppl. S), 186. words? Evidence from focal brain lesions. Frontiers in
Ditto, P.H., Scepansky, J.A., Munro, G.D., Apanovitch, Psychology, 6 (Article no. 1661).
A.M. & Lockhart, L.K. (1998). Motivated sensitiv- Dronkers, N.F., Ivanova, M.V. & Baldo, J.V. (2017). What
ity to preference inconsistent information. Journal of do language disorders reveal about brain-language rela-
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69. tionships? From classic models to network approaches.
Dodhia, R.M. & Dismukes, K.R. (2009). Interruptions create Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
prospective memory tasks. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 741–754.
23, 73–89. Dror, I.E., Charlton, D. & Péron, A.E. (2006). Contextual
Döhring, J., Stoldt, A., Witt, K., Schönfeld, R., Deuschl, G., information renders experts vulnerable to making erro-
Born, J., et al. (2017). Motor skill learning and offline- neous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156,
changes in TGA patients with acute hippocampal CA1 74–78.
lesions. Cortex, 89, 156–168. Dror, I.E., Wertheim, K., Fraser-Mackenzie, P. & Walajtys,
Dolcos, F., Katsumi, Y., Weymar, M., Moore, M., Tsukiura, J. (2012). The impact of human-technology co-operation
T. & Dolcos, S. (2017). Emerging directions in emotional and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing
episodic memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. effects of AFIS contextual information on human
1867). experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 343–352.
Domeier, M., Sachse, P. & Schäfer, B. (2018). Motivational Drummond, L. & Shomstein, S. (2010). Object-based atten-
reasons for biased decisions: The sunk-cost effect’s tion: Shifting or uncertainty? Attention, Perception &
instrumental rationality. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 Psychophysics, 72, 1743–1755.
(Article no. 815). Drury, J.E., Baum, S.R., Valertote, H. & Steinhauer, K.
Domini, F., Shah, R. & Caudek, C. (2011). Do we perceive (2016). Punctuation and implicit prosody in silent
a flattened world on the monitor screen? Acta Psycho reading: An ERP study investigating English garden-
logica, 138, 359–366. path sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article
Domurat, A., Kowalczuk, O., Idzikowska, K., Borzymowska, no. 1375).
Z. & Nowak-Przygodzka, M. (2015). Bayesian proba- Dubarry, A.-S., Llorens, A., Trébuchon, A., Carron, R.,
bility estimates are not necessary to make choices satis- Liégeois-Chauvel, C., Bénar, C.-G., et al. (2017).
fying Bayes’ rule in elementary situations. Frontiers in Estimating parallel processing in a language task using
Psychology, 6, 1–14. single-trial intracerebral electroencephalography.
Donovan, I., Pratt, J. & Shomstein, S. (2017). Spatial atten- Psychological Science, 28, 414–426.
tion is necessary for object-based attention: Evidence Duchaine, B. & Yovel, G. (2015). A revised neural framework
from temporal-order judgements. Attention, Perception for face processing. Annual Review of Vision Science, 1,
& Psychophysics, 79, 753–764. 393–416.
Doré, B.P., Silvers, J.A. & Ochsner, K.N. (2016). Dudai, Y. & Edelson, M.G. (2016). Personal memory: Is it
Toward a personalized science of emotion regula- personal, is it memory? Memory Studies, 9, 275–283.
tion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, Dudukovic, N.M., Marsh, E.J. & Tversky, B. (2004). Telling
171–187. a story or telling it straight: The effects of entertaining
Dosenbach, N.U.F., Fair, D.A., Cohen, A.L., Schlaggar, B.L. versus accurate retellings on memory. Applied Cognitive
& Petersen, S.E. (2008). A dual-networks architecture Psychology, 18, 125–143.
of top-down control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, Duffau, H. (2017). A two-level model of inter-individual
99–105. anatomo-functional variability of the brain and its impli-
Douglass, A.B. & Steblay, N.K. (2006). Memory distortion in cations for neurosurgery. Cortex, 86, 303–313.
eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification Duffy, S.A. & Pisoni, D.B. (1992). Comprehension of syn-
feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, thetic speech produced by rule: A review and theoretical
859–869. interpretation. Language and Speech, 35, 351–389.

References 845
Dufour, S., Bruneilliere, A. & Frauenfelder, U.H. (2013). Dyer, J.S. (2016). Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT).
Tracking the time course of word-frequency effects in International Series in Operations Research and
auditory word recognition with event-related potentials. Management Science, 233, 285–314.
Cognitive Science, 37, 489–507. Eagle, M.N., Gallese, V. & Migone, P. (2007). Intentional
Dugué, L., Merriam, E.P., Heeger, D.J. & Carrasco, M. (2018). attunement: Mirror neurons and the neural under
Specific visual subregions of TPJ mediate reorienting of pinnings of interpersonal relations. Journal of the
spatial attention. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 2375–2390. American Psychoanalytic Association, 55, 131–176.
Dummel, S., Rummel, J. & Voss, A. (2016). Additional infor- Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utili-
mation is not ignored: New evidence for information sation and the organisation of behaviour. Psychological
integration and inhibition in take-the-best decisions. Review, 66, 183–201.
Acta Psychologica, 163, 167–184. Eaton, E., Marshall, J. & Pring, T. (2011). Mechanisms of
Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. change in the evolution of jargon aphasia. Aphasiology,
Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434. 25, 1543–1561.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Über das Gedächtnis (Leipzig:
reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R.J. Sternberg & Dunker) [translated by H. Ruyer & C.E. Bussenius].
J.E. Davidson (eds), The Nature of Insight (pp. 365–395). New York: Teacher College, Columbus University.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ecker, U.K.H., Brown, G.D.A. & Lewandowsky, S. (2015).
Dunbar, K. & Blanchette, I. (2001). The analogical paradox: Memory without consolidation: Temporal distinctive-
Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so ness explains retroactive interference. Cognitive Science,
difficult in the psychological laboratory. In D. Genter, 39, 1570–1593.
K. Holyoak & B. Kokinov (eds), Analogy: Perspectives Edelson, M.G., Sharot, T., Dolan, R.J. & Dudai, Y. (2011).
from Cognitive Science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: Following the crowd: Brain substrates of long-term
MIT Press. memory conformity. Science, 333, 108–111.
Duncan, J. & Humphreys, G.W. (1989). A resemblance Egly, R., Driver, J. & Rafal, R.D. (1994). Shifting visual
theory of visual search. Psychological Review, 96, attention between objects and locations: Evidence
433–458. from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of
Duncan, J. & Humphreys, G.W. (1992). Beyond the search Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.
surface: Visual search and attentional engagement. Eherenfreund-Hager, A. & Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. (2016). The
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception effect of affect induction and personal variables on young
& Performance, 18, 578–588. drivers’ willingness to drive recklessly. Transportation
Duncan, J., Bundesen, C., Olson, A., Humphreys, G., Research Part F, 41, 138–149.
Chavda, S. & Shibuya, H. (1999). Systematic analysis Eherenfreund-Hager, A., Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Toledo, T. &
of deficits in visual attention. Journal of Experimental Farah, H. (2017). The effect of positive and n egative
Psychology: General, 128, 450–478. emotions on young drivers: A simulator study. Trans
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological portation Research Part F, 49, 236–243.
Monographs, 58 (Whole No. 270). Ehinger, K.A., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Torraiba, A. & Oliva,
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J. & A. (2009). Modelling search for people in 900 scenes:
Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving students’ learn- A combined source model of eye guidance. Visual
ing with effective learning techniques: Promising direc- Cognition, 17, 945–978.
tions from cognitive and educational psychology. Eich, E. (1995). Searching for mood-dependent memory.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. Psychological Science, 6, 67–75.
Dunn, J.C. (2008). The dimensionality of the remember-know Eich, E. & Metcalfe, J. (1989). Mood-dependent memory for
task: A state-trace analysis. Psychological Review, 115, internal versus external events. Journal of Experimental
426–446. Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15, 443–455.
Dunning, D. (2011). Chapter five – The Dunning Kruger effect: Eichenbaum, H. (2015). Amnesia: Revisiting Scoville and
On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Milner’s (1957) research on HM. In M.W. Eysenck &
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247–296. D. Groome (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the
Duss, S.B., Reber, T.P., Hänggi, J., Schwab, S., Wiest, R., classic studies (pp. 71–85). London: Sage.
Muri, R.M., et al. (2014). Unconscious relational encod- Eil, D. & Lien, J.W. (2014). Staying ahead and getting even:
ing depends on hippocampus. Brain, 137, 3355–3370. Risk attitudes of experienced poker players. Games and
Dux, P.E., Tombu, M.N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B.P., Tong, Economic Behavior, 87, 50–69.
F. & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking Eimer, M. & Schröder, E. (1998). ERP effects of intermodal
performance by increasing the speed of information pro- attention and cross-modal links in spatial attention.
cessing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63, 127–138. Psychophysiology, 35, 317–328.

846 References
Eimer, M., Gosling, A. & Duchaine, B. (2012). Electro generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112,
physiological markers of covert face recognition in 777–813.
developmental prosopagnosia. Brain, 135, 542–554. Engel, P.J.H. (2008). Tacit knowledge and visual expertise in
Einstein, G.O. & McDaniel, M.A. (2005). Prospective medical diagnostic reasoning: Implications for medical
memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions education. Medical Teacher, 30, e184–e188.
in Psychological Science, 14, 286–290. Engel, S., Shapiro, L.P. & Love, T. (2018). Proform-
Ekroll, V., Sayim, B., Van der Hallen, R. & Wagemans, J. antecedent linking in individuals with agrammatic
(2016). Illusory visual completion of an object’s invisi- aphasia: A test of the intervener hypothesis. Journal of
ble backside can make your finger feel shorter. Current Neurolinguistics, 48, 79–94.
Biology, 26, 1029–1033. Engle, R.W. & Kane, M.J. (2004). Executive attention, wor
Ekroll, V., Sayim, B. & Wagermans, J. (2017). The other side king memory capacity and a two-factor theory of cogni-
of magic: The psychology of perceiving hidden things. tive control. In B. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 91–106. and Motivation (pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.
Eldar, E., Niv, Y. & Cohen, J.D. (2016). Neural gain Engstrom, J., Markkula, G., Victor, T. & Merat, N. (2017).
and breadth versus focus in perceptual processing. Effects of cognitive load on driving performance:
Psychological Science, 27, 1632–1643. The cognitive control hypothesis. Human Factors, 59,
Elder, J.H. & Goldberg, R.M. (2002). Ecological statistics of 734–764.
Gestalt laws for the perceptual organisation of contours. Enz, K.F., Pillemer, D.B. & Johnson, K.M. (2016). The relo-
Journal of Vision, 2, 324–353. cation bump: Memories of middle adulthood are organ-
Elliott, D., Lyons, J., Hayes, S.J., Burkitt, J.J., Roberts, J.W., ised around residential moves. Journal of Experimental
Grierson, L.E.M., et al. (2017). The multiple process Psychology: General, 145, 935–940.
model of goal-directed reaching revisited. Neuroscience Erez, J., Cusack, R., Kendall, W. & Barense, M.D. (2016).
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 72, 95–110. Conjunctive coding of complex object features. Cerebral
Ellis, A.W. & Young, A.W. (1988). Human Cognitive Cortex, 26, 2271–2282.
Neuropsychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Ericsson, K.A. (2017). Expertise and individual differences:
Ellis, J.J., Glaholt, M.G. & Reingold, E.M. (2011). Eye The search for the structure and acquisition of experts’
movements reveal solution knowledge prior to insight. superior performance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 768–776. Cognitive Science, 8, 1–6.
Elqayam, S. (2018). The new paradigm in psychology of rea- Ericsson, K.A. & Chase, W.G. (1982). Exceptional memory.
soning. In L.J. Ball & V.A.Thompson (eds), Routledge American Scientist, 70, 607–615.
International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning Ericsson, K.A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working
(pp. 130–150). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
Elqayam, S. & Evans, J.St.B.T. (2011). Subtracting “ought” Eriksen, C.W. & St. James, J.D. (1986). Visual attention
from “is”: Descriptivism versus normatism in the study within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom
of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
233–248. Eriksson, J., Larsson, A., Ahlströn, K.R. & Nyberg, L.
Elsey, J.W.B., van Ast, V.A. & Kindt, M. (2018). Human (2006). Similar frontal and distinct posterior cortical
memory reconsolidation: A guiding framework and crit- regions mediate visual and auditory perceptual aware-
ical review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144, ness. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 760–765.
797–848. Esteves-Sorenson, C. & Perretti, F. (2012). Micro-costs:
Elward, R.L. & Vargha-Khadem, F. (2018). Semantic memory Inertia in television viewing. The Economic Journal, 122,
in developmental amnesia. Neuroscience Letters, 680, 867–902.
23–30. Etchells, D.B., Brooks, J.L. & Johnston, R.A. (2017).
Endres, T. & Renkl, A. (2015). Mechanisms behind the testing Evidence for view-invariant face recognition units
effect: An empirical investigation of retrieval practice in in unfamiliar face learning. Quarterly Journal of
meaningful learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article Experimental Psychology, 70, 874–889.
no. 1054). Etkin, A. & Schatzberg, A.F. (2011). Common abnormalities
Endress, A.D. & Potter, M.C. (2014). Large capacity tempo- and disorder-specific compensation during implicit reg-
rary visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: ulation of emotional processing in generalised anxiety
General, 143, 548–565. and major depressive disorders. American Journal of
Endress, A.D. & Szabó, S. (2017). Interference and memory Psychiatry, 168, 968–978.
capacity limitations. Psychological Review, 124, 551–571. Etkin, A., Büchel, C. & Gross, J.J. (2015). The neural basis
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E.M. & Kliegl, of emotion regulation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16,
R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade 693–700.

References 847
Eustache, F., Viard, A. & Desgranges, B. (2016). The Processing in Human Memory (pp. 89–118). Hillsdale,
MNESIS model: Memory systems and processes, iden- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
tity and future thinking. Neuropsychologia, 87, 96–109. Eysenck, M.W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective.
Evans, J.St.B.T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of rea- Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
soning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin Eysenck, M.W. (2015). Auditory attention: Beyond Cherry’s
& Review, 13, 378–395. (1953) cocktail party problem. In M.W. Eysenck & D.
Evans, J.St.B.T. (2016). Reasoning, biases and dual processes: Groome (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the
The lasting impact of Wason (1960). Quarterly Journal classic studies (pp. 13–23). London: Sage.
of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2076–2092. Eysenck, M.W. & Brysbaert, M. (2018). Fundamentals of
Evans, J.St.B.T. (2018). Dual-process theories. In L.J. Ball & Cognition (3rd edn). Abingdon, Oxon.: Psychology Press.
V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook Eysenck, M.W. & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives
of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 151–166). Abingdon, in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual
Oxon.: Routledge. Differences, 50, 955–960.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid respond- Eysenck, M.W. & Eysenck, M.C. (1980). Effects of processing
ing increases belief bias: Evidence for dual-process the- depth, distinctiveness, and word frequency on retention.
ories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382–389. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 263–274.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Over, D.E. (2010). Heuristic thinking Eysenck, M.W. & Fajkowska, M. (2018). Anxiety and depres-
and human intelligence: A commentary on Marewski, sion: Toward overlapping and distinctive features.
Gaissmaier and Gigerenzer. Cognitive Processing, 11, Cognition and Emotion, 32, 1391–1400.
171–175. Eysenck, M.W. & Groome, D. (eds) (2015a). Cognitive
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Stanovich, K.E. (2013a). Dual-process Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. London: Sage.
theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Eysenck, M.W. & Groome, D. (2015b). Memory systems:
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. Beyond Tulving’s (1972) episodic and semantic memory.
Evans, J.St.B.T. & Stanovich, K.E. (2013b). Theory and meta In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), Cognitive
theory in the study of dual processing: Reply to com- Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 105–116).
ments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 263–271. London: Sage.
Evans, J.St.B.T., Thompson, V.A. & Over, D.E. (2015). Eysenck, M.W. & Holmes, A. (in press). Anxiety, depres-
Uncertain deduction and conditional reasoning. sion and cognitive dysfunction. In P. Corr (ed.), The
Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 398). Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology (2nd
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language uni- edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
versals: Language diversity and its importance for cogni- Eysenck, M.W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R. & Calvo, M.G.
tive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional
Evans, S., McGettigan, C., Agnew, Z.K., Rosen, S. & Scott, control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.
S.K. (2016). Getting the cocktail party started: Masking Eysenck, M.W., Macleod, C. & Mathews, A. (1987). Cognitive
effects in speech perception. Journal of Cognitive functioning and anxiety. Psychological Research, 49,
Neuroscience, 28, 483–500. 189–195.
Everaert, J., Duyck, W. & Koster, E.H.W. (2014). Attention, Eysenck, M.W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A. & Mathews,
interpretation, and memory biases in subclinical depres- A. (1991). Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sen-
sion: A proof-of-principle test of the combined biases tences related to threat in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal
hypothesis. Emotion, 14, 331–340. Psychology, 100, 144–150.
Everaert, J., Grahek, I. & Koster, E.H.W. (2017a). Individual Eysenck, M.W., Payne, S. & Santos, R. (2006). Anxiety and
differences in cognitive control over emotional material depression: Past, present, and future events. Cognition &
modules cognitive biases linked to depressive symptoms. Emotion, 20, 274–294.
Cognition and Emotion, 31, 736–746. Fabbro, F., Skrap, M. & Agliotti, S. (2000). Pathological
Everaert, J., Koster, E.H.W. & Derakshan, N. (2012). The switching between languages after frontal lesions in a
combined cognitive bias hypothesis in depression. bilingual patient. Journal of Neurology, Neuroscience,
Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 413–424. and Psychiatery, 68, 650–652.
Everaert, J., Podina, I.R. & Koster, E.H.W. (2017b). A com- Fama, R., Pitel, A.-L. & Sullivan, E.V. (2012). Anterograde
prehensive meta-analysis of interpretation biases in episodic memory in Korsakoff syndrome.
depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 58, 33–48. Neuropsychology Review, 22, 93–104.
Everett, D.L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and Farag, C., Troiani, V., Bonner, M., Powers, C., Avants, B.,
cognition in Piraha. Current Anthropology, 46, 621–646. Gee, J., et al. (2010). Hierarchical organization of scripts:
Eysenck, M.W. (1979). Depth, elaboration, and distinctive- Converging evidence from fMRI and fronto-temporal
ness. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (eds), Levels of degeneration. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 2453–2463.

848 References
Farah, M.J. (1991). Cognitive neuropsychology: Patterns Fedorenko, E., Scott, T.L., Brunner, P., Coon, W.G.,
of co-occurrence among the associative agnosias: Pritchett, B., Schalk, G., et al. (2016). Neural correlate
Implications for visual object representation. Cognitive of the construction of sentence meaning. Proceedings of
Neuropsychology, 8, 1–19. the National Association of Sciences, 113, E6256–E6262.
Farah, M.J. (1994). Specialisations within visual object Fedzechkina, M., Chu, B. & Jaeger, T.F. (2018). Human
recognition: Clues from prosopagnosia and alexia. information processing shapes language change.
In M.J. Farah & G. Ratcliff (eds), The Neuro Psychological Science, 29, 72–82.
psychology of High-Level Vision: Collected Tutorial Feeser, M., Prehn, K., Kazzer, P., Mungee, A. & Bajhouj, M.
Essays (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances
Associates. cognitive control during emotion regulation. Brain
Farmer, C.M., Klauer, S.G., McClafferty, J.A. & Guo, F. Stimulation, 7, 105–112.
(2015). Relationship of near-crash/crash risk to time Feinstein, J.S. (2013). Lesion studies of human emotion and
spent on a cell phone while driving. Traffic Injury feeling. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, 304–309.
Prevention, 16, 792–800. Feist, G.J. (2008). The Psychology of Science and the Origins
Farmer, G.D., Janssen, C.P., Nguyen, A.T. & Brumby, of the Scientific Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University
D.P. (2018). Dividing attention between tasks: Testing Press.
whether explicit payoff functions elicit optimal dual-task Feldman, A.G. (2016). Active sensing without efference
performance. Cognitive Science, 42, 820–849. copy: Referent control of perception. Journal of
Farmer, M.E. & Klein, R.M. (1995). The evidence for a tem- Neurophysiology, 116, 960–976.
poral processing deficit linked to dyslexia: A review. Feldman, G. & Albarracín, D. (2017). Norm theory and the
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 460–493. action-effect: The role of social norms in regret follow-
Faroqui-Shah, Y. & Friedman, L. (2015). Production of ing action and inaction. Journal of Experimental Social
verb tense in agrammatic aphasia: A meta-analysis Psychology, 69, 111–120.
and further data. Behavioural Neurology, (Article no. Feldman, J. (2013). The neural binding problem(s). Cognitive
ID983870). Neurodynamics, 7, 1–11.
Fatania, J. & Mercer, T. (2017). Non-specific retroactive Felleman, D.J. & Van Essen, D.C. (1991). Distributed hierar-
interference in children and adults. Advances in Cognitive chical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral
Psychology, 13, 314–322. Cortex, 1, 1–47.
Fath, A.J., Lind, M. & Bingham, G.P. (2018). Perception of Ferber, R. (1995). Reliability and validity of slip-of-the-
time to contact of slow- and fast-moving objects using tongue corpora: A methodological note. Linguistics, 33,
monocular and binocular motion information. Attention, 1169–1190.
Perception & Psychphysics, 80, 1584–1590. Ferbinteanu, J. (2019). Memory systems 2018 – Towards a
Fawcett, J.M., Peace, K.A. & Greve, A. (2016). Looking new paradigm. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory,
down the barrel of a gun: What do we know about the 157, 61–78.
weapon focus effect? Journal of Applied Research in Fernandez, K.C., Jazaieri, H. & Gross, J.J. (2016). Emotion
Memory and Cognition, 5, 257–263. regulation: A transdiagnostic perspective on a new RDoC
Fawcett, J.M., Russell, E.J., Peace, K.A. & Christie, J. domain. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40, 426–440.
(2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the Ferrari, P.F., Gerbella, M., Coudé, G. & Rozzi, S. (2017a).
“weapon focus” literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, Two different mirror neuron networks: The sensori-
35–66. motor (hand) and limbi (face) pathways. Neuroscience,
Fazekas, P. & Overgaard, M. (2018). Perceptual conscious- 358, 300–315.
ness and cognitive access: An introduction. Philosophical Ferrari, V., Codispoti, M. & Bradley, M.M. (2017b).
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373 (Article no. Repetition and ERPs during emotional scene pro-
201170340). cessing: A selective review. International Journal of
Fazio, L.K., Brashier, N.M., Payne, B.K. & Marsh, E.J. Psychophysiology, 111, 170–177.
(2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of non-canonical
truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.
993–1002. Ferreira, F. & Lowder, M.W. (2016). Prediction, informa-
Fecher, B., Friesike, S. & Hebing, M. (2015). What drives tion structure, and good-enough language processing.
academic data sharing? PLoS ONE, 10 (Article no. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65, 217–247.
e0118053). Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language
Fedor, A., Szathmáry, E. & Őllinger, M. (2015). Problem production? Evidence from the production of utterances
solving stages in the five square problem. Frontiers in requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of
Psychology, 6 (Article no. 1050). Memory and Language, 46, 57–84.

References 849
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K.G.D. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good- Fischer, R. & Plessow, F. (2015). Efficient multitasking:
enough representations in language comprehen- Parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks.
sion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 1366).
11–15. Fischer-Baum, S., Kook, J.H., Lee, Y., Ramos-Nunez, A.
Ferreira, V.S. (2019). A mechanistic framework for explaining & Vannucci, M. (2018). Individual differences in the
audience design in language production. Annual Review neural and cognitive mechanisms of single word reading.
of Psychology, 70, 29–51. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12 (Article no. 271).
Ferreira, V.S. & Griffin, Z.M. (2003). Phonological influ- Fisk, J., Ellis, J.A. & Reynolds, S.A. (2019). A test of the
ences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14, CaR-FA-X mechanisms and depression in adolescents.
86–90. Memory, 27, 455–464.
Ferrer, R.A., Maclay, A., Litvak, P.M. & Lerner, J.S. (2017). Fitousi, D. & Wenger, M.J. (2013). Variants of independ-
Revisiting the effects of anger on risk-tasking: Empirical ence in the perception of facial identity and expression.
and meta-analytic evidence for differences between males Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and females. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, and Performance, 39, 133–155.
516–526. Fivush, R. (2010). The development of autobiographical
Ffytche, D.H., Howard, R.J., Brammer, M.J., Woodruff, memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 2–24.
D.P. & Williams, S. (1998). The anatomy of conscious Fleck, J.I. & Weisberg, R.W. (2013). Insight versus analy-
vision: An fMRI study of visual hallucinations. Nature sis: Evidence for diverse methods in problem solving.
Neuroscience, 1, 738–742. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 436–463.
Fiedler, K. & von Sydow, M. (2015). Heuristics and biases: Flegal, K.E. & Anderson, M.C. (2008). Overthinking skilled
Beyond Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) judgment motor performance: Or why those who teach can’t do.
under uncertainty. In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 927–932.
(eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies Flevaris, A.V. & Robertson, L.C. (2016). Spatial frequency
(pp. 146–161). London: Sage. selection and integration of global and local information
Fiedler, K., Brinkmann, B., Betsch, T. & Wild, B. (2000). A in visual processing: A selective review and tribute to
sampling approach to biases in conditional probabil- Shlomo Bentin. Neuropsychologia, 83, 192–200.
ity judgments: Beyond base-rate neglect and statistical Flinker, A. & Knight, R.T. (2018). Broca’s area in compre-
format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, hension and production, insights intracranial studies in
129, 1–20. humans. Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 170–175.
Filmer, H.L., Lyons, M., Mattingley, J.B. & Dux, P.E. (2017). Flinker A., Korzeniewska A., Shestyuk, A.Y., Franaszczuk,
Anodal tDCS applied during multitasking training leads P.J., Dronkers, N.F., Knight, R.T., et al. (2015).
to transferable performance gains. Scientific Reports, 7 Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech.
(Article no. 12988). Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences, 112,
Fine, A.B., Jaeger, T.F., Farmer, T.A. & Qian, T. (2013). 2871–2875.
Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic compre- Fodor, J.D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of
hension. PLoS ONE, 8 (Article no. e77661). Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319.
Finn, E.S., Shen, X., Scheinost, D., Rosenberg, M.D., Huang, Foerde, K. & Poldrack, R.A. (2009). Procedural learn-
J., Chun, M.M., et al. (2015). Functional connectome ing in humans. In L.R. Squire (ed.), Encylopaedia
fingerprinting: Identifying individuals using patterns of of Neuroscience (Vol. 7; pp. 1083–1091). New York:
brain connectivity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, Academic Press.
1664–1671. Foland-Ross, L.C. & Gotlib, I.H. (2012). Cognitive and
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B.J. (2016). Cognition does not affect neural aspects of information processing in major
perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” depressive disorder: An integrative perspective. Frontiers
effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39 (Article no. in Psychology, 3 (Article no. 489).
e229). Follmer, D.J. (2018). Executive function and reading com-
Fischer, R., Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Shielding and prehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational
relaxation in multitasking: Prospect of reward counter- Psychologist, 53, 42–60.
acts relaxation of task shielding in multitasking. Acta Fontaine, J.R.J., Scherer, K.R. & Soriano, C. (eds) (2013).
Psychologica, 191, 112–123. Components of Emotional Meaning: A sourcebook.
Fischer, J. & Whitney, D. (2014). Serial dependence in visual Oxford: Oxford University Press.
perception. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 738–746. Ford, J.H., Addis, D.R. & Giovanello, K.S. (2011).
Fischer, P. & Greitemeyer, T. (2010). A new look at selec- Differential neural activity during search of specific and
tive-exposure effects: An integrative model. Current general autobiographical memories elicited by music
Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 384–389. cues. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2514–2526.

850 References
Forster, S. & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely introspection and action but not to perception. Journal
irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of of Neuroscience, 34, 1738–1747.
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73–83. Frauenfelder, U.H., Segui, J. & Dijkstra, T. (1990). Lexical
Fossett, T.R.D., McNeil, M.R., Pratt, S.R., Tompkins, effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhib-
C.A. & Shuster, L.I. (2016). The effect of speaking rate itory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
on serial-order sound-level errors in normal healthy Perception & Performance, 16, 77–91.
controls and persons with aphasia. Aphasiology, 30, Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors
74–95. during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the
Foster, D.H. (2011). Colour constancy. Vision Research, 51, analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive
674–700. Psychology, 14, 178–210.
Foster, D.H. (2018). The Verriest lecture: Colour vision in Frazier, L., Carlson, K. & Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phras-
an uncertain world. Journal of the Optical Society of ing is central to language comprehension. Trends in
America, 35, B192–B201. Cognitive Sciences, 10, 244–249.
Foster, D.H. & Nascimento, S.M.C. (1994). Relational Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making.
colour constancy from invariant cone-excitation ratios. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Fredrickson, B.L. & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions
Biological Sciences, 257, 115–121. broaden the scope of attention and thought-action rep-
Foster, J.D., Reidy, D.E., Misra, T.A. & Goff, J.S. (2011). ertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Narcissism and stock market investing: Correlates and Freed, E.M., Hamilton, S.T. & Long, D.L. (2017).
consequences of cocksure investing. Personality and Comprehension in proficient readers: The nature of indi-
Individual Differences, 50, 816–821. vidual variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 97,
Foulsham, T. (2015). Eye movements and their functions in 135–153.
everyday tasks. Eye, 29, 196–199. Freeman, J. & Simoncelli, E.P. (2011). Metamers of the
Foulsham, T. & Kingstone, A. (2017). Are fixations in static ventral stream. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1195–1201.
natural scenes a useful predictor of attention in the real Freud, E., Culham, J.C., Plaut, D.C. & Behrmann, M.
world? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, (2017a). The large-scale organisation of shape processing
71, 172–181. in the ventral and dorsal pathways. ELIFE, 6 (Article
Fowlkes, C.C., Martin, D.R. & Malik, J. (2007). Local no. e27576).
figure-ground cues are valid for natural images. Journal Freud, E., Ganel, T., Shelef, I., Hammer, M.D., Avidan, G.
of Vision, 7 (Article no. 2). & Behrmann, M. (2017b). Three-dimensional representa-
Fox, C.J., Hanif, H.M., Iaria, G., Duchaine, B.C. & Barton, tions of objects in dorsal cortex are dissociable from
J.J.S. (2011). Perceptual and anatomic patterns of selec- those in ventral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 27, 422–434.
tive deficits in facial identity and expression processing. Freud, E., Plaut, D.C. & Behrmann, M. (2016). “What”
Neuropsychologia, 49, 3188–3200. is happening in the dorsal visual pathway. Trends in
Frank, M.C., Everett, D.L., Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. Cognitive Sciences, 20, 773–784.
(2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence Freuenberger, D. & Roeham, D. (2017). The costs of being
from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, certain: Brain potential evidence for linguistic preac-
819–824. tivation in sentence processing. Psychophysiology, 54,
Franklin, S., Turner, J., Lambon Ralph, M.A., Morris, J. & 824–832.
Bailey, P.J. (1996). A distinctive case of word meaning Frick-Horbury, D. & Guttentag, R.E. (1998). The effects of
deafness? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1139–1162. restricting hand gesture production on lexical retrieval
Franz, V.H. & Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2008). Grasping visual and free recall. American Journal of Psychology, 111,
illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive 43–62.
Neuropsychology, 25, 920–950. Fried, I., Haggard, P., He, B.J. & Schurger, A. (2017). Volition
Fraser H. (2018a). Thirty years is long enough: It’s time to and action in the human brain: Processes, pathologies,
create a process that ensures covert recordings used as and reasons. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 10842–10847.
evidence in court are interpreted reliably and fairly. Friedman, N.P. & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of
Journal of Judicial Administration, 27, 95–104. executive functions: Individual differences as a window
Fraser, H. (2018b). “Assisting” listeners to hear words that on cognitive structure. Cortex, 86, 186–204.
aren’t here: Dangers in using police transcripts of indis- Friedman, N.P., Miyake, A., Young, S.E., DeFries, J.C.,
tinct covert recordings. Australian Journal of Forensic Corley, R.P. & Hewitt, J.K. (2008). Individual differ-
Sciences, 50, 129–139. ences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic
Frässle, S., Summer, J., Jansen, A., Naber, M. & Einhäuser, in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
W. (2014). Binocular rivalry: Frontal activity relates to 137, 201–225.

References 851
Friedman-Hill, S.R., Robertson, L.C. & Treisman, A. Gabrieli, J.D.E., Fleischman, D., Keane, M., Reminger, S. &
(1995). Parietal contributions to visual feature binding: Morrell, F. (1995). Double dissociation between memory
Evidence from a patient with bilateral lesions. Science, systems underlying explicit and implicit memory in the
269, 853–855. human brain. Psychological Science, 6, 76–82.
Friedrich, C.K. & Kotz, S.A. (2007). Event-related potential Gaillard, R., Dehaene, S., Adam, C., Clémenceau, S.,
evidence of form and meaning coding during online Hasboun, D., Baulac, M., et al. (2009). Converging
speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, intracranial markers of conscious access. PLoS Biology,
19, 594–604. 7 (Article no. e1000061).
Friedrich, T.E., Hunter, P.V. & Elias, L.J. (2018). The tra- Gainotti, G. & Ciaraffa, F. (2013). Is “object-centred neglect”
jectory of pseudoneglect in adults: A systematic review. a homogeneous entity? Brain and Cognition, 81, 18–23.
Neuropsychology Review, 28, 436–452. Gale, M. & Ball, L.J. (2012). Contrast class cues and perfor-
Friesen, L.K. (2013). The structure of c onsciousness. mance facilitation in a hypothesis-testing task: Evidence
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts – for an iterative counterfactual model. Memory &
Amherst. Cognition, 40, 408–419.
Frijda, N.H. (2013). Comment: The why, when, and how of Gallagher, S. & Trigg, D. (2016). Agency and anxiety:
appraisal. Emotion Review, 5, 169–170. Delusions of control and loss of control in schizophrenia
Frisson, S., Harvey, D.R. & Staub, A. (2017). No prediction and agoraphobia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10
error cost in reading: Evidence from eye movements. (Article no. 459).
Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 200–214. Gallese, V. & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Understanding action with
Froyen, V., Feldman, J. & Singh, M. (2015). Bayesian hier- the motor system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37,
archical grouping: Perceptual grouping as mixture 199–200.
estimation. Psychological Review, 122, 575–597. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. & Rizzolatti, G. (1996).
Fugelsang, J.A., Stein, C.B., Green, A.E. & Dunbar, K.N. Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119,
(2004). Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: 593–609.
Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive l aboratory. Galletti, C. & Fattori, P. (2018). The dorsal visual stream
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 86–95. revisited: Stable circuits or dynamic pathways? Cortex,
Fukumura, K. & van Gompel, R.P.G. (2012). Producing 98, 203–217.
pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use Gallivan, J.P., Chapman, C.S., Wolpert, D.M. & Flanagan,
the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science, 36, J.R. (2018). Decision-making in sensori-motor control.
1289–1311. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19, 519–534.
Funnell, M., Metcalfe, J. & Tsapkini, K. (1996). In the mind Galotti, K.M. (2002). Making Decisions That Matter:
but not in the tongue: Feeling of knowing in anomic How people face important life choices. Mahwah, NJ:
patient H.W. In L.M. Reder (ed.), Implicit Memory and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Metacognition (pp. 171–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Galotti, K.M. (2007). Decision structuring in important real-
Futrell, R., Steams, L., Everett, D.L., Piantadosi, S.T. & life choices. Psychological Science, 18, 320–325.
Gibson, E. (2016). A corpus investigation of syntac- Galotti, K.M. & Tinkelenberg, C.E. (2009). Real-life deci-
tic embedding in Piraha. PLoS ONE, 11 (Article no. sion making: Parents choosing a first-grade placement.
e0145289). American Journal of Psychology, 122, 455–468.
Gable, P.A. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010a). The effect of low Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into Human Faculty and its
versus high approach-motivated positive affect on Development. London: Macmillan.
memory for peripherally versus centrally presented infor- Gambetti, E. & Giusberti, F. (2012). The effect of anger
mation. Emotion, 10, 599–603. and anxiety traits on investment decisions. Journal of
Gable, P.A. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010b). The blues broaden, Economic Psychology, 33, 1059–1069.
but the nasty narrows: Attentional consequences of Gandhi, T., Acharya, S. & Shukla, S. (2016). Anton’s syn-
negative affects low and high in motivational intensity. drome – The neurologic mystery of denial. Medical
Psychological Science, 21, 211–215. Science, 20, 161–163.
Gable, P.A., Browning, L. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2015a). Gangemi, A., Bourgeois-Gironde, S. & Mancini, F. (2015).
Affect, motivation, and cognitive scope. In T.S. Braver Feelings of error in reasoning – In search of a phenome-
(ed.), Motivation and Cognitive Control (pp. 164–187). non. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 383–396.
London: Routledge. Ganong, W.F. (1980). Phonetic categorisation in auditory
Gable, P.A., Poole, B.D. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2015b). Anger word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope. Human Perception & Performance, 6, 110–125.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, Gao, X. & Jiang, T. (2018). Sensory constraints on per-
163–174. ceptual simulation during sentence reading. Journal

852 References
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Gavilán, J.M., Rivera, D., Guasch, M., Demestre, J. &
Performance, 44, 848–855. Garcia-Albea, J.E. (2017). Exploring the effects of visual
Garcea, F.E. & Mahon, B.Z. (2012). What is in a tool concept? frame and matching direction on the vertical-horizontal
Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function illusion. Perception, 46, 1339–1355.
knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1303–1313. Gawronski, B. & Beer, J.S. (2017). What makes moral
Gardiner, J.M., Brandt, K.R., Baddeley, A.D., Vargha- dilemma judgements “utilitarian” or “deontological”?
Khadem, F. & Mishkin, M. (2008). Charting the acqui- Social Neuroscience, 12, 626–632.
sition of semantic knowledge in a case of developmental Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R. &
amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2865–2868. Hütter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and gener-
Garg, N., Williams, L.A. & Lerner, J.S. (2018). The misery- alised inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of
is-not-miserly effect revisited: Replication despite oppor- moral decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
tunities for compensatory consumption. PLoS ONE, 13 Psychology, 112, 343–376.
(Article no. e199433). Gazzaniga, M.S. (1992). Nature’s Mind. London: Basic Books.
Garner, K.G. & Dux, P.E. (2015). Training conquers mul- Gazzaniga, M.S. (2013). Shifting gears: Seeking new
ti-tasking costs by dividing task representations in the approaches for mind/brain mechanisms. Annual Review
fronto-parietal-subcortical system. Proceedings of the of Psychology, 64, 1–20.
National Academy of Sciences, 112, 14372–14377. Gazzaniga, M.S. & Ledoux, J.E. (1978). The Integrated Mind.
Garrard, P., Carroll, E., Vinson, D. & Vigliocco, G. (2004). London: Basic Books.
Dissociation of lexical syntax and semantics: Evidence Gazzaniga, M.S., Ivry, R.B. & Mangun, G.R. (2008).
from focal cortical degeneration. Neurocase, 10, 353–362. Cognitive Neuroscience: The biology of the mind (3rd
Garrard, P., Maloney, L.M., Hodges, J.R. & Patterson, K. edn). New York: W.W. Norton.
(2005). The effects of very early Alzheimer’s disease on Gegenfurtner, A., Kok, E., van Geel, K., de Bruin, A.,
the characteristics of writing by a renowned author. Jarodzka, H., Szulewski, A., et al. (2017). The challenges
Brain, 128, 250–260. of studying visual expertise in medical image diagnosis.
Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the Innocent: Where crimi- Medical Education, 51, 97–104.
nal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E. & Säljö, R. (2011). Expertise
University Press. differences in the comprehension of visualisations: A
Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence pro- meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional
duction. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production domains. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 523–552.
(pp. 177–220). London: Academic Press. Geiselman, R.E. & Fisher, R.P. (1997). Ten years of cogni-
Garrod, S. & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical tive interviewing. In D.G. Payne & F.G. Conrad (eds),
and situational knowledge to resolving discourse Intersections in Basic and Applied Memory Research
roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory and (pp. 291–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Language, 42, 526–544. Associates.
Garson, J. (2016). Connectionism. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Geisler, W.S., Perry, J.S., Super, B.J. & Gallogly, D.P.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online). Stanford, (2001). Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts
CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. contour grouping performance. Vision Research, 41,
Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2002). 711–724.
Representation and competition in the perception of Gelbard-Sagiv, H., Faivre, N., Mudrik, L. & Koch, C. (2016).
spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 220–266. Low-level awareness accompanies “unconscious” high-
Gathercole, S.E. & Baddeley, A.D. (1993). Phonological level processing during continuous flash suppression.
working memory: A critical building-block for reading Journal of Vision, 16, 1–16.
development and vocabulary acquisition. European Geng, J.J., DiQuattro, N.E. & Helm, J. (2017). Distractor
Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 259–272. probability changes the shapes of attentional template.
Gauld, A. & Stephenson, G.M. (1967). Some experiments Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
relating to Bartlett’s theory of remembering. British and Performance, 43, 1993–2007.
Journal of Psychology, 58, 39–50. Genon, S., Reid, A., Langner, R., Amunts, K. & Eickhoff,
Gauthier, I. & Tarr, M.J. (2016). Visual object recognition: S.B. (2018). How to characterise the function of a brain
Do we (finally) know more now than we did? Annual region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 350–364.
Review of Vision Science, 2, 377–396. Genty, E., Neumann, C. & Zuberbühler, K. (2015). Bonobos
Gauvin, H.S., De Baene, W., Brass, M. & Hartsuiker, R.J. modify communication signals according to recipient
(2016). Conflict monitoring in speech processing: An familiarity. Scientific Reports, 5 (Article no. 16442).
fMRI study of error detection in speech production and George, T. & Wiley, J. (2016). Forgetting the literal: The
perception. NeuroImage, 126, 96–105. role of inhibition in metaphor comprehension. Journal

References 853
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Gick, M.L. & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem
Cognition, 42, 1324–1330. solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
Geraerts, E. (2012). Cognitive underpinnings of recovered Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk Savvy: How to make good deci-
memories of childhood abuse. True and false recov- sions. New York: Viking.
ered memories: Toward a reconciliation of the debate. Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 58, 175–191. making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Geraerts, E., Schooler, J.W., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Gigerenzer, G. & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2017). Cassandra’s
Hunter, B.J.A. & Ambadar Z. (2007). Corroborating regret: The psychology of not wanting to know.
continuous and discontinuous memories of childhood Psychological Review, 124, 179–196.
sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 18, 564–568. Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve
Germine, L., Cashdollar, N., Duzel, E. & Duchaine, B. Bayesian reasoning without instruction – Frequency
(2011). A new selective developmental deficit: Impaired formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.
object recognition with normal face recognition. Cortex, Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1999). Overcoming difficul-
47, 598–607. ties in Bayesian reasoning. Psychological Review, 102,
Gerrig, R.J. & O’Brien, E.J. (2005). The scope of memory- 684–704.
based processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 225–242. Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016a). Which visual functions depend
Gerwing, J. & Allison, M. (2011). The flexible semantic inte- on intermediate visual regions? Insights from a case of
gration of gestures and words: Comparing face-to-face developmental visual form agnosia. Neuropsychologia,
and telephone dialogues. Gesture, 11, 308–329. 83, 179–191.
Geskin, J. & Behrmann, M. (2018). Congenital prosopagno- Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016b). Visual motion serves but is not under
sia without object agnosia? A literature review. Cognitive the purview of the dorsal pathway. Neuropsychologia,
Neuropsychology, 35, 4–54. 89, 378–392.
Geurten, M. & Willems, S. (2017). The learned interpretation Gilaie-Dotan, S., Saygin, A.P., Lorenzi, L.J., Egan, R.,
of fluency in amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 101, 10–16. Rees, G. & Behrmann, M. (2013). The role of human
Ghafur, R.D., Suri, G. & Gross, J.J. (2018). Emotion regu- ventral visual cortex in motion perception. Brain, 136,
lation choice: The role of orienting attention and action 2784–2798.
readiness. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, Gilbert, C.D. & Li, W. (2013). Top-down influences on visual
31–35. processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 350–363.
Gheysen, F., Van Opstal, F., Roggeman, C., Van Waelvelde, Gilboa, A. & Marlatte, H. (2017). Neurobiology of schemas
H. & Fias, W. (2011), The neural basis of implicit percep- and schema-mediated memory. Trends in Cognitive
tual sequence learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Sciences, 21, 618–631.
5 (Article no. 137). Gilhooly, K.J. (2018). Incubation, problem solving and
Ghose, G.M. & Ts’o, D.Y. (2017). Integration of colour, creativity. In L.J. Ball & V.A. Thompson (eds), The
orientation, and size functional domains in the ventral Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and
pathway. Neurophotonics, 4 (Article no. 031216). Reasoning (pp. 204–217). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Ghosh, V.E. & Gilboa, A. (2014). What is a memory schema? Giorgetta, C., Grecucci, A., Bonini, N., Coricelli, G.,
A historical perspective on current neuroscience litera- Demarchi, G., Braun, C., et al. (2013). Waves of regret:
ture. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104–114. An MEG study of emotion and decision-making.
Ghosh, V.E., Moscovitch, M., Colella, B.M. & Gilboa, A. Neuropsychologia, 51, 38–51.
(2014). Schema representation in patients with ven- Girshick, A.R. & Banks, M.S. (2009). Probabilistic com-
tromedial PFC lesions. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, bination of slant information: Weighted averaging
12057–12070. and robustness as optimal percepts. Journal of Vision, 9,
Gibbs, R.W. (2013). The real complexities of psycholinguistic 1–20.
research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40, 45–52. Glennerster, A., Tscheang, L., Gilson, S.J., Fitzgibbon, A.W.
Gibson, J.J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. & Parker, A.J. (2006). Humans ignore motion and
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. stereo cues in favour of a fictional stable world. Current
Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Biology, 16, 428–432.
Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B.E., Henninger, F. & Fielder, S. (2016).
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual The reversed description-experience gap: Disentangling
Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. sources of presentation format in risky choice. Journal of
Gibson, E., Tan, C., Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., Konieczny, Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 486–508.
L., Hemworth, B. & Fedorenko, E. (2017). Don’t Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B.E. & Jekel, M. (2014). What is
underestimate the benefits of being misunderstood. adaptive about adaptive decision making? A parallel
Psychological Science, 28, 703–712. constraint satisfaction account. Cognition, 133, 641–666.
854 References
Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the and Reasoning (pp. 218–247). Abingdon, Oxon.:
planning and control of action. Behavioral and Brains Routledge.
Sciences, 27, 3–78. Goel, V., Tierney, M., Sheesley, L., Bartolo, A., Vartanian,
Glover, S., Wall, M.B. & Smith, A.T. (2012). Distinct corti- O. & Grafman, J. (2007). Hemispheric specialisation in
cal networks support the planning and online control human prefrontal cortex for resolving certain and uncer-
of reaching-to-grasp in humans. European Journal of tain inferences. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2245–2250.
Neuroscience, 35, 909–915. Goel, V., Vartanian, O., Bartolo, A., Hakim, L., Ferraro,
Gobet, F. (2016). Understanding Expertise: A multi- A.M., Isella, V., et al. (2013). Lesions to the right pre-
disciplinary approach. London: Palgrave. frontal cortex impair real-world planning through pre-
Gobet, F. & Clarkson, G. (2004). Chunks in expert memory: mature commitments. Neuropsychologia, 51, 713–724.
Evidence for the magical number four … or is it two? Goh, W.D. & Lu, S.H.X. (2012). Testing the myth of encod-
Memory, 12, 732–747. ing-retrieval match. Memory & Cognition, 40, 28–39.
Gobet, F. & Ereku, M.H. (2014). Checkmate to deliber- Goldberg, A., Russell, M. & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of
ate practice: The case of Magnus Carlsen. Frontiers in computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies
Psychology, 5 (Article no. 878). from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Gobet, F. & Lane, P. (2015). Human problem solving: Beyond Assessment, 2, 1–52.
Newell, Shaw, and Simon’s (1958) theory of human Goldberg, I.I., Harel, M. & Malach, R. (2006). When the
problem solving. In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), brain loses its self: Prefrontal inactivation during senso-
Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. rimotor processing. Neuron, 50, 329–339.
133–145). London: Sage. Goldenberg, G., Mullbacher, W. & Nowak, A. (1995).
Gobet, F. & Simon, H.A. (2000). Five seconds or sixty? Imagery without perception: A case study of anosog-
Presentation time in expert memory. Journal of Experi nosia for cortical blindness. Neuropsychologia, 33,
mental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 1373–1382.
1082–1094. Goldinger, S.D. & Azuma, T. (2003). Puzzle-solving science:
Gobet, F. & Waters, A.J. (2003). The role of constraints in The quixotic quest for units in speech perception.
expert memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Journal of Phonetics, 31, 305–320.
Learning, Memory & Cognition, 29, 1082–1094. Goldrick, M. (2006). Limited interaction in speech produc-
Godden, D.R. & Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Context depend- tion: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsycho-
ent memory in two natural environments: On land and logical evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21,
under water. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325–331. 817–855.
Godden, D.R. & Baddeley, A.D. (1980). When does context Goldrick, M., Keshet, J., Gustafson, E., Heller, J. & Needle,
influence recognition memory? British Journal of J. (2016). Automatic analysis of slips of the tongue:
Psychology, 71, 99–104. Insights into the cognitive architecture of speech produc-
Godefroy, O., Azouvi, P., Robert, P., Roussel, M., LeGall, tion. Cognition, 148, 31–39.
D. & Meulemans, T. (2010). Dysexecutive syndrome: Goldstein, D.G. & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecolog-
Diagnostic criteria and validation study. Annals of ical rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological
Neurology, 68, 855–864. Review, 109, 75–90.
Godwin, D., Barry, R.L. & Marois, R. (2015). Breakdown of Gollwitzer, P. (2014). Weakness of the will: Is a quick fix pos-
the brain’s functional network modularity with aware- sible? Motivation and Emotion, 38, 305–322.
ness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Golumbic, E.Z., Cogan, G.B., Schroeder, C.E. & Poeppel, D.
the United States of America, 112, 3799–3804. (2013). Visual input enhances selective speech envelope
Goel, V. (2010). Neural basis of thinking: Laboratory prob- tracking in auditory cortex at a “cocktail party”. Journal
lems versus real-world problems. Wiley Interdisciplinary of Neuroscience, 33, 1417–1426.
Reviews – Cognitive Science, 1, 613–621. Gómez, A.T., Lupón, N., Cardna, G. & Aznar-Casanova,
Goel, V. & Grafman, J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes impli- J.A. (2012). Visual mechanisms governing the percep-
cated in “planning” functions? Interpreting data from tion of autostereograms. Clinical and Experimental
the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33, 623–642. Optometry, 95, 146–152.
Goel, V. & Grafman, J. (2000). The role of the right prefron- Gomulicki, B.R. (1956). Recall as an abstractive process. Acta
tal cortex in ill-structured problem solving. Cognitive Psychologica, 12, 77–94.
Neuropsychology, 17, 415–436. Gong, L., Wang, J., Yang, X., Li, X., Gu, C., Wang, M.,
Goel, V. & Waechter, R. (2018). Inductive and deductive rea- et al. (2016). Dissociation between conceptual and per-
soning: Integrating insights from philosophy, psychol- ceptual implicit memory: Evidence from patients with
ogy, and neuroscience. In L.J. Ball & V.A. Thompson frontal and occipital lobe lesions. Frontiers in Human
(eds), Routledge International Handbook of Thinking Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 722).

References 855
Gontar, P., Schneider, S.A.E., Schmidt-Molt, C., Bollin, Gras, D., Tardieu, H. & Nicolas, S. (2012). Predictive infer-
C. & Bengler, K. (2017). Hate to interrupt you, but… ence activation: Interest of a Stroop-like task. Swiss
Analysing turn-arounds from a cockpit perspective. Journal of Psychology, 71, 141–148.
Cognitive Technology & Work, 19, 837–853. Gray, R. (2011). Looming auditory collision warnings for
Goodale, M.A. & Milner, A.D. (1992). Separate visual path- driving. Human Factors, 53, 63–74.
ways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, Gray, R., Ho, C. & Spence, C. (2014). A comparison of
15, 20–25. different informative vibrotactile forward collision warn-
Goodale, M.A. & Milner, A.D. (2018). Two visual pathways – ings: Does the warning need to be linked to the collision
Where have they taken us and where will they lead in event? PLoS ONE, 9 (Article no. e87070).
future? Cortex, 98, 283–292. Graziano, M.S.A. (2016). Consciousness engineered. Journal
Goodale, M.A., Meenan, J.P., Bülthoff, H.H., Nicolle, of Consciousness Studies, 23, 98–115.
D.A., Murphy, K.J. & Racicot, C.I. (1994). Separate Graziano, M.S.A. & Kastner, S. (2011). Human conscious-
neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape ness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel
in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4, hypothesis. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 98–113.
604–610. Green, A.E. (2016). Creativity, within reason: Semantic dis-
Goodhew, S.C., Shen, E. & Edwards, M. (2016). Selective tance and dynamic state creativity in relational think-
spatial enhancement: Attentional spotlight size impacts ing and reasoning. Current Directions in Psychological
spatial but not temporal perception. Psychonomic Science, 25, 28–35.
Bulletin & Review, 23, 1144–1149. Greenberg, D.L., Keane, M.M., Ryan, L.R. & Verfaillie, M.
Goodroe, S.C., Stames, J. & Brown, T.I. (2018). The complex (2009). Impaired category fluency in medial tem poral
nature of hippocampal-striatal interactions in spatial lobe amnesia: The role of episodic memory. Journal of
navigation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12 (Article Neuroscience, 29, 10900–10908.
no. 250). Greenberg, J.H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with
Goolkasian, P. & Woodberry, C. (2010). Priming effects particular reference to the order of meaningful ele-
with ambiguous figures. Attention, Perception & ments. In J.H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language
Psychophysics, 72, 168–178. (pp. 58–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexities of Greene, J.D. (2014). Moral Tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap
everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132. between us and them. Bloomsbury, UK: Atlantic Books.
Grabner, R.H., Stern, E. & Neubauer, A. (2007). Individual Greene, J.D., Morelli, S.A., Lowenberg, K., Nvstrom, L.E.
differences in chess expertise: A psychometric investiga- & Cohen, J.D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively inter-
tion. Acta Psychologica, 124, 398–420. feres with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107,
Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K. & Zwaan, R.A. (1997). Discourse 1144–1154.
comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, Greene, J.D., Nystrom, L.E., Engell, A.D., Darley, J.M. &
163–1899. Cohen, J.D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.
Constructing inferences during narrative text compre- Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L.
hension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, III: Speech acts
Graf, P. (2012). Prospective memory: Faulty brain, flaky (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
person. Canadian Psychology, 53, 7–13. Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge,
Grafton, B., MacLeod, C., Rudaizky, D., Holmes, E.A., MA: Harvard University Press.
Salemink, C., Fox, E., et al. (2017). Confusing proce- Griffiths, J.D., Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Stramatakis, E.A. &
dures with process when appraising the impact of cogni- Tyler, L.K. (2013). Functional organisation of the neural
tive bias modification on emotional vulnerability. British language system: Dorsal and ventral pathways are criti-
Journal of Psychiatry, 211, 266–271. cal for syntax. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 139–147.
Graham, S.A. & Fisher, S.E. (2013). Decoding the genetics of Grill-Spector, K., Weiner, K.S., Kay, K. & Gomez, J. (2017).
speech and language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, The functional neuroanatomy of human face perception.
23, 43–51. Annual Review of Vision Science, 3, 167–196.
Grainger, J. (2018). Orthographic processing: A “mid-level” Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M.N. & Neufeld, S.L. (2010).
vision of reading: The 44th Sir Frederic Bartlett lecture. Influence of different positive emotions on persua-
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, sive processing: A functional evolutionary approach.
335–359. Emotion, 10, 190–206.
Granzier, J.J.M., Brenner, E. & Smeets, J.B.J. (2009a). Grisoni, L., Miller, T.M. & Pulvermüller, F. (2017). Neural
Reliable identification by colour under natural correlates of semantic prediction and resolution in sen-
conditions. Journal of Vision, 9, 1–9. tence processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 4848–4858.

856 References
Groopman, J. (2007). How Doctors Think. New York: Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Vergara-Martínez, M. & Perea, M.
Houghton Mifflin. (2017). Early use of phonological codes in deaf readers:
Gross, J.J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 106, 261–279.
future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26. Gvion, A. & Friedmann, N. (2016). A principled relation
Gross, J.J. & Thompson, R.A. (2007). Emotion regulation: between reading and naming in acquired and develop-
Conceptual foundations. In J.J. Gross (ed.), Handbook mental anomia: Surface dyslexia following impairment in
of Emotion Regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford the phonological output lexicon. Frontiers in Psychology,
Press. 7 (Article no. 340).
Gross, S. (2018). Perceptual consciousness and cognitive Gwilliams, L., Linzen, T., Poeppel, D. & Marantz, A. (2018).
access from the perspective of capacity-unlimited In spoken word recognition, the future predicts the past.
working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Journal of Neuroscience, 38, 7585–7599.
Royal Society B, 373 (Article no. 2017.0343). Haak, K.V. & Beckmann, C.F. (2018). Objective analysis of
Grossman, E.D., Battelli, L. & Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). the topological organisation of the human cortical visual
Repetitive TMS over STSp disrupts perception of bio- connectome suggests three visual pathways. Cortex, 98,
logical motion. Vision Research, 45, 2847–2853. 73–83.
Grossnickle, E.M., Dumas, D., Alexander, P.A. & Baggetta, Haber, R.N. & Levin, C.A. (2001). The independence of
P. (2016). Individual differences in the process of size perception and distance perception. Perception &
relational reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 42, Psychophysics, 63, 1140–1152.
141–159. Hafenbrädl, S., Waeger, D., Marewski, J.N. & Gigerenzer,
Grot, S., Leclerc, M.-E. & Luck, D. (2018). Examining the G. (2016). Applied decision making with fast-and-frugal
neural correlates of active and passive forms of ver- heuristics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
bal-spatial binding in working memory. Biological Cognition, 5, 215–231.
Psychology, 136, 67–75. Hagoort, P. (2017). The core and beyond in the language-
Guan, C.Q., Ye, F., Wagner, R.W., Meng, W. & Leary, C.K. ready brain. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81,
(2014). Text comprehension mediates morphological 194–204.
awareness, syntactic processing, and working memory Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M. & Petersson, K.M.
in predicting Chinese written composition performance. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 779–798. knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304,
Gueliaï, B., Langus, A. & Nespor, M. (2014). Prosody in the 438–441.
hands of the speaker. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article Hahn, B., Ross, T.J. & Stein, E.A. (2006). Neuroanatomical
no. 700). dissociations between bottom-up and top-down pro-
Guida, A., Gobet, F. & Nicolas, S. (2013). Functional cerebral cesses of visuospatial selective attention. NeuroImage,
reorganisation: A signature of expertise? Re-examining 32, 842–853.
Guida, Gobet, Tardieu, and Nicolas’ (2012) two-stage Hahn, S., Andersen, G.J. & Saidpour, A. (2003). Static scene
framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7 (Article analysis for the perception of heading. Psychological
no. 590). Science, 14, 543–548.
Guida, A., Gobet, F., Tardieu, H. & Nicolas, S. (2012). How Hahn, U. (2014). The Bayesian boom: Good thing or bad?
chunks, long-term working memory and templates Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article no. 765).
offer a cognitive explanation for neuroimaging data on Hahn, U. & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework
expertise acquisition: A two-stage framework. Brain and for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a
Cognition, 79, 221–244. Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.
Güllich, A. (2017). International medallists’ and non- Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal
medallists’ developmental sport activities – A matched- argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning falla-
pairs analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 2281–2288. cies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
Gustavson, D.E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J.K. & Friedman, N.P. Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2014). The Fallacies Explained.
(2015). Understanding the cognitive and genetic under- Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pinnings of procrastination: Evidence for shared genetic Haider, H., Eichler, A. & Lange, T. (2011). An old problem:
influences with goal management and executive function How can we distinguish between conscious and uncon-
abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, scious knowledge acquired in an implicit learning task?
144, 1063–1079. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 658–672.
Gutchess, A.H. & Park, D.C. (2006). The fMRI environment Haigh, M., Wood, J.S. & Stewart, A.J. (2016). Slippery slope
can impair memory performance in young and elderly arguments imply opposition to change. Memory &
adults. Brain Research, 1099, 133–140. Cognition, 44, 819–836.

References 857
Halle, M. & Stevens, K. (1962). Speech recognition: A model Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S. & Gegenfurtner, K.R.
and a programme for research. IRE Transactions on (2006). Memory modulates colour appearance. Nature
Information Theory, 8, 155–159. Neuroscience, 9, 1367–1368.
Hambrick, D.Z. & Tucker-Drob, E.M. (2015). The genetics of Haque, S., Vaphiades, M.S. & Lueck, D.J. (2018). The
music accomplishment: Evidence for gene-environment visual agnosias and related disorders. Journal of Neuro-
correlation and interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Ophthalmology, 38, 379–392.
Review, 22, 112–120. Harada, Y., Hakoda, Y., Kuroki, D. & Mitsudo, H. (2015).
Hambrick, D.Z., Burgoyne, A.P., Macnamara, B.N. & Ullén, The presence of a weapon shrinks the functional field of
F. (2018). Toward a multifactorial model of expertise: view. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 592–599.
Beyond born versus made. Annals of the New York Hardt, O., Nader, K. & Nadel, L. (2013). Decay happens: The
Academy of Sciences, 1423 (SI), 284–295. role of active forgetting in memory. Trends in Cognitive
Hambrick, D.Z., Burgoyne, A.P. & Oswald, F.L. (in press). Sciences, 17, 111–120.
Domain-general models of expertise: The role of cog- Hardwicke, T.E., Taqi, M. & Shanks, D.R. (2016). Post-
nitive ability. In P. Ward, J.M. Schragen, J. Gore retrieval new learning does not reliably induce human
& E. Roth (eds), Oxford Handbook of Expertise: memory updating via reconsolidation. Proceedings of the
Research and application. Oxford: Oxford University National Academy of Sciences, 113, 5206–5211.
Press. Hareli, S. & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as anteced-
Hamlin, J.K. (2017). Is psychology moving in the right ents of pleasure at another’s misfortune. Motivation and
direction? An analysis of the evidentiary value
Emotion, 26, 257–277.
movement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, Harley, T.A. (2010). Talking the Talk: Language, psychology
690–693. and science. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Hamm, J.P. & McMullen, P.A. (1998). Effects of orientation Harley, T.A. (2012). Why the earth is almost flat: Imaging
on the identification of rotated objects depend on and the death of cognitive psychology. Cortex, 48,
the level of identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 1371–1372.
Human Perception and Performance, 24, 413–426. Harley, T.A. (2013). The Psychology of Language: From data
Han, S.W. & Marois, R. (2013). The source of dual-task limi- to theory (4th edn). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
tations: Serial or parallel processing of multiple response Harley, T.A. & McAndrew, S. (2015). Who killed psycholin-
selections? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, guistics? Beyond Chomsky’s classic review of Skinner’s
1395–1405. Verbal Behaviour. In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome
Han, S., Lerner, J. & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and con- (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies
sumer decision making: The appraisal-tendency frame- (pp. 179–188). London: Sage.
work. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 158–168. Harley, T.A. & Bown, H.E. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the
Han, Z.Z. & Bi, Y.C. (2009). Reading comprehension without tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects
phonological mediation: Further evidence from a in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89,
Chinese aphasic individual. Science in China Series C – 151– 174.
Life Sciences, 52, 492–499. Harm, M.W. & Seidenberg, M.S. (2004). Computing the
Hanley, J.R. (2011). An appreciation of Bruce and Young’s meanings of words in reading: Co-operative division
(1986) serial stage model of face naming after 25 years. of labour between visual and phonological processes.
British Journal of Psychology, 102, 915–930. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720.
Hanley, J.R. & McDonnell, V. (1997). Are reading and Harris, A.J.L., Hahn, U., Madsen, J.K. & Hsu, A.S. (2016).
spelling phonologically mediated? Evidence from a The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for
patient with a speech production impairment. Cognitive a Bayesian network approach. Cognitive Science, 40,
Neuropsychology, 14, 3–33. 1496–1533.
Hanley, J.R. & Sotiropoulos, A. (2018). Developmental Harris, A.J.L., Hsu, A.S. & Madsen, J.K. (2012). Because
surface dysgraphia without surface dyslexia. Cognitive Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation
Neuropsychology, 35, 333–341. using ad hominem. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 311–343.
Hannula, D.E. & Greene, A.J. (2012). The hippocampus Harris, P.R., Griffin, D.W. & Murray, S. (2008). Testing the
re-evaluated in unconscious learning and memory: At limits of optimistic bias: Event and person moderators in
a tipping point? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6 a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality and Social
(Article no. 80), 1–20. Psychology, 95, 1225–1237.
Hannula, D.E., Tranel, D. & Cohen, N.J. (2006). The long Harrison, H.S., Turvey, M.T. & Frank, T.D. (2016).
and the short of it: Relational memory impairments in Affordance-based perception-action dynamics: A model
amnesia, even at short lags. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, of visually guided braking. Psychological Review, 123,
8352–8359. 305–323.

858 References
Harrison, T.L., Shipstead, Z. & Engle, R.W. (2015). Why is Report No. 12). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon
working memory capacity related to matrix reasoning University.
tasks? Memory & Cognition, 43, 389–396. Hayward, W.G. & Tarr, M.J. (2005). Visual perception II:
Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A.H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, High-level vision. In K. Lamberts & R.L. Goldstone
M.J. & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being (eds), The Handbook of Cognition (pp. 43–70). London:
correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to infor- Sage.
mation. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588. Heck, D.W. & Erdfelder, E. (2017). Linking process and
Hartwigsen, G. (2018). Flexible redistribution in cognitive measurement models of recognition-based decisions.
networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 687–698. Psychological Review, 124, 442–471.
Harvey, L.O. (1986). Visual memory: What is remembered? Hegdé, J. (2008). Time course of visual perception: Coarse-
In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (eds), Human Memory to-fine processing and beyond. Progress in Neurobiology,
and Cognitive Capabilities (pp. 179–186). The Hague, 84, 405–439.
Netherlands: Elsevier. Hegdé, J. (2018). Neural mechanisms of high-level vision.
Haskell, T.R., Thornton, R. & MacDonald, M.C. (2010). Comprehensive Physiology, 8, 902–953.
Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learn- Hegdé, J. & Van Essen, D.C. (2000). Selectivity for
ing shapes number agreement production. Cognition, complex shapes in primate visual area V2. Journal of
114, 151–164. Neuroscience, 20, RC61.
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Vann, S.D. & Maguire, E.A. Heimler, B., Weisz, H. & Collignon, O. (2014). Revisiting the
(2007). Patients with hippocampal amnesia cannot adaptive and maladaptive effects of cross-modal plas-
imagine new experiences. Proceedings of the National ticity. Neuroscience, 283, 44–63.
Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 1726–1731. Held, R.T., Cooper, E.A. & Banks, M.S. (2012). Blur and
Hassin, R.R. (2013). Yes it can: On the functional abilities of disparity are complementary cues to depth. Current
the human unconscious. Perspectives on Psychological Biology, 22, 426–431.
Science, 8, 195–207. Heller, D., Parisien, C. & Stevenson, S. (2016). Perspective-
Hasson, U., Egidi, G., Marelli, M. & Willems, R.M. (2018). taking behaviour as the probabilistic weighing of multi-
Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principle domains. Cognition, 149, 104–120.
ples: The necessity of non-language-centric explanations Hellmann, J.H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S. &
for language comprehension. Cognition, 180, 135–157. Memon, A. (2011). Talking about visually perceived
Hata, K. (2016). On the importance of the multimodal events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory.
approach to discourse markers: A pragmatic view. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 658–671.
International Review of Pragmatics, 8, 36–54. Henderson, E.N. (1903). A study of memory for connected
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). trains of thought. Psychological Review, Series of
Somatotopic representation of action words in human Monograph Supplements, 5, 1–93.
motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307. Henderson, J.M. & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene
Häuser, K.I., Titone, D.A. & Baum, S.R. (2016). The role perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243–271.
of the ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex in idiom com- Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on pro-
prehension: An rTMS study. Neuropsychologia, 91, cessing modes rather than consciousness. Nature Reviews
360–370. Neuroscience, 11, 523–532.
Hayes, J.R. (2012). Modelling and remodelling writing. Henry, M.L., Beeson, P.M., Alexander, G.E. & Rapcsak,
Written Communication, 29, 369–388. S.Z. (2012). Written language impairments in primary
Hayes, J.R. & Bajzek, D. (2008). Understanding and reducing progressive aphasia: A reflection of damage to central
the knowledge effect: Implications for writers. Written semantic and phonological processes. Journal of
Communication, 25, 104–118. Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 261–275.
Hayes, J.R. & Chenoweth, N. (2006). Is working memory Henry, M.L., Wilson, S.M., Babiak, M.C., Mandelli, M.L.,
involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Beeson, P.M., Miller, Z.A., et al. (2016). Phonological
Communication, 23, 135–141. processing in primary progressive aphasia. Journal of
Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organ- Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 210–222.
isation of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Hepner, C., McCloskey, M. & Rapp, B. (2017). Do reading
Steinberg (eds), Cognitive Processes in Writing and spelling share orthographic representations?
(pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Evidence from developmental dysgraphia. Cognitive
Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1986). Writing research and the Neuropsychology, 34, 119–143.
writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. Herholz, S.C. & Zatorre, R.J. (2012). Musical training as a
Hayes, J.R., Flower, L.S., Schriver, K., Stratman, J. & Carey, framework for brain plasticity, behaviour, function, and
L. (1985). Cognitive Processes in Revision (Technical structure. Neuron, 76, 486–502.

References 859
Herholz, S.C., Coffey, E.B.J., Pantev, C. & Zatorre, R.J. Hibberd, D.L., Jamson, S.L. & Carsten, O.M.J. (2013).
(2016). Dissociation of neural networks for predisposi- Mitigating the effects of in-vehicle distractions through
tion and for training-related plasticity in auditory-motor use of the psychological refractory period paradigm.
learning. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 3125–3134. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1096–1103.
Hering, E. (1878). Zur Lehre vom Lichtsinn. Vienna, Austria: Hicks, J.L., Marsh, R.L. & Cook, G.I. (2005). Task inter-
Gerold. ference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention
Herlihey, T.A. & Rushton, S.K. (2012). The role of discrepant prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory and
retinal motion during walking in the realignment of ego- Language, 53, 430–444.
centric space. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–11. Higham, P.A., Blank, H. & Luna, K. (2017). Effects of
Herrera, S., Montorio, I., Cabrera, I. & Botelia, J. (2017). post-warning specificity on memory performance and
Memory bias for threatening information related to confidence in the eyewitness misinformation para-
anxiety: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal of digm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23,
Cognitive Psychology, 29, 832–854. 417–432.
Hertwig, R., Pachur, T. & Kurzenhauser, S. (2005). Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases:
Judgements of risk frequencies: Test of possible cogni- How noisy information processing can bias human deci-
tive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: sion making. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 211–237.
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 621–642. Hilger, K., Ekman, M., Fiebach, C.J. & Basten, U. (2017).
Hesse, C., Franz, V.H. & Schenk, T. (2016). Pointing and Efficient hubs in the intelligent brain: Nodal efficiency
anti-pointing in Müller-Lyer figures: Why illusions of hub regions in the salient network is associated with
need to be scaled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: general intelligence. Intelligence, 60, 10–25.
Human Perception and Performance, 42, 90–102. Hilliard, C. & Cook, S.W. (2016). Bridging gaps in common
Hesse, C., Schenk, T. & Deubel, H. (2012). Attention is ground: Speakers design their gestures for their listeners.
needed for action control: Further evidence from grasp- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
ing. Vision Research, 71, 37–43. and Cognition, 42, 91–102.
Hesselmann, G. (2013). Dissecting visual awareness with Himmelbach, M., Boehme, R. & Karnath, H.-O. (2012). 20
fMRI. The Neuroscientist, 19, 495–508. years later: A second look on DF’s motor behaviour.
Hesselmann, G. & Moors, P. (2015). Definitely maybe: Can Neuropsychologia, 50, 139–144.
unconscious processes perform the same functions as Hirsch, C.R., Clark, D.M. & Mathews, A. (2006). Imagery
conscious processes? Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article and interpretations in social phobia: Support for the
no. 584). combined cognitive biases hypothesis. Behavior Therapy,
Hesselmann, G., Darcy, N., Rothkirch, M. & Sterzer, 37, 223–236.
P. (2018). Investigating masked priming along the Hirst, W. & Phelps, E.A. (2016). Flashbulb memories. Current
“vision-for-perception” and “vision-for-action” dimen- Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 36–41.
sions of unconscious priming. Journal of Experimental Hirst, W., Phelps, E.A., Meksin, R., Vaidya, C.J., Buckner,
Psychology: General, 147, 1641–1659. R.L., Budson, A.E., et al. (2015). A ten-year follow-up
Hesselmann, G., Flandin, G. & Dehaene, S. (2011). Probing of a study of memory for the attack of September 11,
the cortical network underlying the psychological refrac- 2001: Flashback memories and memories for flashbulb
tory period: A combined EEG-fMRI study. NeuroImage, events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
56, 1608–1621. 144, 604–623.
Hesselmann, G., Naccache, L., Cohen, L. & Dehaene, S. Hitchcock, C., Mueller, V., Hammond, E., Rees, C., Werner-
(2013). Splitting of the P3 component during dual-task Seidler, A. & Dalgleish, T. (2016). The effects of auto-
processing in a patient with posterior callosal section. biographical memory flexibility (MemFlex) training:
Cortex, 49, 730–747. An uncontrolled trial in individuals in remission
Heutink, J., de Haan, G., Marsman, J.-B., van Dijk, M. & from depression. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and
Cordes, C. (2018). The effect of target speed on percep- Experimental Psychiatry, 52, 92–98.
tion of visual motion direction in a patient with akine- Ho, C. & Spence, C. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of
topsia. Cortex, (Epub 15 December 2018). various auditory cues in capturing a driver’s visual atten-
Heyman, T., Brunins, A., Hutchison, K.A. & Storms, G. tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11,
(2018). The (un)reliability of item-level semantic priming 157–174.
effects. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2173–2183. Hobbs, S. & Burman, J.T. (2009). Is the “cognitive revolu-
Heywood, C.A. & Cowey, A. (1999). Cerebral achromatop- tion” a myth? The Psychologist, 22, 812–814.
sia. In G.W. Humphreys (ed.), Case Studies in the Hobeika, L., Diard-Decoeuf, C., Garcin, B., Levy, R. &
Neuropsychology of Vision (pp. 17–40). Hove, UK: Volle, E. (2016). General and specialised brain cor-
Psychology Press. relates for analogical reasoning: A meta-analysis of

860 References
functional imaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 37, Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24,
1953–1969. 1368–1384.
Hodgson, C. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2008). Mimicking Hornikx, J., Harris, A.J.L. & Boekema, J. (2018). How many
aphasic semantic errors in normal speech production: laypeople holding a popular opinion are needed to
Evidence from a novel experimental paradigm. Brain and counter an expert opinion? Thinking & Reasoning, 24,
Language, 104, 89–101. 117–128.
Hofer, F. & Schwaninger, A. (2005). Using threat image Hortensius, R., Terburg, D., Morgan, B., Stein, D.J., van
projection data for assessing individual screen- Honk, J. & de Gelder, B. (2017). The dynamic conse-
ers performance. WIT Transactions on the Built quences of amygdala damage on threat processing in
Environment, 82, 417–426. Urbach-Wiethe disease: A commentary on Pishamazi
Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M.A. & Woollams, A.M. et al. (2016). Cortex, 88, 192–197.
(2015). Triangulation of the neurocomputational archi- Horton, C., D’Zmura, M. & Srinivasan, R. (2013).
tecture underpinning reading aloud. Proceedings of the Suppression of competing speech through entrainment
National Academy of Sciences, 112, E3719–E3728. of cortical oscillations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 109,
Hoffrage, U., Hafenbrädle, S. & Marewski, J.N. (2018). The 3082–3093.
fast-and-frugal heuristics programme. In L.J. Ball & Horton, W.S. & Gerrig, R.J. (2005). Conversational common
V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook ground and memory processes in language production.
of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 325–345). Abingdon, Discourse Processes, 40, 1–35.
Oxon.: Routledge. Horton, W.S. & Gerrig, R.J. (2016). Revisiting the mem-
Hoffrage, U., Krauss, S., Martignon, L. & Gigerenzer, G. ory-based processing approach to common ground.
(2015). Natural frequencies improve Bayesian reason- Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 780–795.
ing in simple and complex inference tasks. Frontiers in Horton, W.S. & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take
Psychology, 6 (Article no. 1473). into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.
Holan, A.D. (2015). All politicians lie, some lie more than Hosking, S.G. & Crassini, B. (2010). The effects of familiar
others. New York Times, 11 December. size and object trajectories on time-to-contact judg-
Holland, A.C. & Kensinger, E.A. (2010). Emotion and auto- ments. Experimental Brain Research, 203, 541–552.
biographical memory. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 88–131. Houdé, O. & Borst, G. (2015). Evidence for an inhibitory-
Holland, R.W., de Vries, M., Hermsen, B. & van Knippenberg, control theory of the reasoning brain. Frontiers in
A. (2012). Mood and the attitude- behaviour link: Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 148).
The happy act on impulse, the sad think twice. Social Houston, A.I., Fawcdett, T.W., Mallpress, J.M. &
Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 356–364. McNamara, J.M. (2014). Clarifying the relationship
Holler, J. & Wilkin, K. (2011). An experimental investiga- between prospect theory and risk-sensitive foraging
tion of how addressee feedback affects co-speech ges- theory. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 502–507.
tures accompanying speakers’ responses. Journal of Howard, R.W. (2009). Individual differences in expertise
Pragmatics, 43, 3622–3536. development over decades in a complex intellectual
Hollingworth, A. & Henderson, J.M. (2002). Accurate visual domain. Memory & Cognition, 37, 194–209.
memory for previously attended objects in natural Howe, M.L. (2019). Unravelling the nature of early (autobio-
scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human graphical) memory. Memory, 27, 115–121.
Perception & Performance, 28, 113–136. Howe, M.L. & Courage, M.L. (1997). The emergence
Hollingworth, A., Maxcey-Richard, A.M. & Vecera, S.P. and early development of autobiographical memory.
(2012). The spatial distribution of attention within and Psychological Review, 104, 499–523.
across objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Howe, P.D.L. & Carter, O.L. (2016). Hallucinations and
Human Perception and Performance, 38, 135–151. mental imagery demonstrate top-down effects on visual
Holmes, V.M. (1988). Hesitations and sentence planning. perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39 (Article no.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 323–361. e248).
Holyoak, K.J. & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor com- Howe, P.D. & Leiserowitz, A. (2013). Who remembers a
prehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. hot summer or a cold winter? The asymmetric effects
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 641–671. of beliefs about global warming on perceptions of local
Holzgrefe, J., Wellmann, C., Petrone, C., Truckenbrodt, H., conditions in the U.S. Global Environmental Change, 23,
Hohle, B. & Wartenburger, I. (2013). Brain response to 1488–1500.
prosodic boundary cues depends on boundary position. Howe, P.D.L. & Webb, M.E. (2014). Detecting unidentified
Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (Article no. 421). changes. PLoS ONE, 9 (Article no. e84490).
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response transla- Howes, A., Warren, P.A., Farmer, G., El-Deredy, W. &
tion in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Lewis, R.L. (2016). Why contextual preference reversals

References 861
maximise expected value. Psychological Review, 123, Huntsinger, J.R., Isbell, L.M. & Clore, G.L. (2014). The
368–391. affective control of thought: Malleable, not fixed.
Huang, J., Pickering, M.J., Yang, J., Wang, S. & Branigan, Psychological Bulletin, 121, 600–618.
H.P. (2016). The independence of syntactic processing in Huppert, J.D. (2008). Anxiety disorders and depression
Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of comorbidity. In M.M. Antony & M.B. Stein (eds),
Memory and Language, 91, 81–98. Oxford Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders
Huang, Y. & Rao, R.P.N. (2011). Predictive coding. Wiley (pp. 5726–5587). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive Science, 2, 580–593. Hurme, M., Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A. & Railo, H. (2017).
Hubel, D.H. & Wiesel, T.N. (1962). Receptive fields, binoc- Early processing in primary visual cortex is necessary
ular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s for unconscious vision while late processing is neces-
visual cortex. Journal of Physiology, 160, 106–154. sary only for conscious vision in neurologically healthy
Hubel, D.H. & Wiesel, T.N. (1979). Brain mechanisms of humans. NeuroImage, 150, 230–238.
vision. Scientific American, 249, 150–162. Hurme, M., Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, A. & Railo, H.
Huberdeau, D.M., Krakauer, J.W. & Haith, A.M. (2015). (2019). V1 activity during feedforward and early
Dual-process decomposition in human sensori-motor feedback processing is necessary for both conscious

adaptation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 33, 71–77. and unconscious motion perception. NeuroImage, 185,
Huber-Huber, C. & Ansorge, U. (2018). Unconscious conflict 313–321.
adaptation without feature-repetitions and response time Hurvich, L.M. & Jameson, D. (1957). An opponent process
carry-over. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human theory of colour vision. Psychological Review, 64,
Perception and Performance, 44, 169–175. 384–390.
Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about predic- Huth, A.G., Lee, T., Nishimoto, S., Bilenko, N.Y., Vu, A.T.
tion in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, & Gallant, J.L. (2016). Decoding the semantic content of
118–135. natural movies from human brain activity. Frontiers in
Huettig, F. & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary Systems Neuroscience, 10 (Article no. 81).
to understand language? Probably not. Language, Hyde, K.L., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E.,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 19–31. Evans, A.C., et al. (2009). Musical training shapes struc-
Huff, M., Maurer, A.E., Brich, I., Pagenkopf, A., tural brain development. Journal of Neuroscience, 29,
Wickelmaier, F. & Papenmeier, F. (2018). Construction 3019–3025.
and updating of event models in auditory event pro- Hyman, I., Boss, S., Wise, B., McKenzie, K. & Caggiano, J.
cessing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, (2009). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional
Memory, and Cognition, 44, 307–320. blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone.
Huettel, S.A. (2012). Event-related fMRI in cognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 597–607.
NeuroImage, 62, 1152–1156. Ihlebaek, C., Løve, T., Eilertsen, D.E. & Magnussen, S.
Hugenberg, K., Young, S.G., Bernstein, M.J. & Sacco, D.F. (2003). Memory for a staged criminal Event witnessed
(2010). The categorisation individuation model: An live and on video. Memory, 11, 310–327.
integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Indefrey, P. (2011). The spatial and temporal signatures
Psychological Review, 117, 1168–1187. of word production components: A critical update.
Huijser, S., van Vugt, M.K. & Taatgen, N.A. (2018). The wan- Frontiers in Psychology, 2 (Article no. 255).
dering self: Tracking distracting self-generated thought Indefrey, P. & Levelt, W.J.M. (2004). The spatial and tem-
in a cognitively demanding context. Consciousness and poral signatures of word production components.
Cognition, 58, 170–185. Cognition, 92, 101–144.
Hulleman, J. & Olivers, C.N.L. (2017). The impending Inman, C.S., James, G.A., Vytal, K. & Hamann, S. (2018).
demise of the item in visual search. Behavioral and Brain Changes in large-scale functional network organi-
Sciences, 40 (Article no. e132), 1–20. sation during autobiographical memory retrieval.
Hung, C.P., Kreiman, C., Poggio, T. & DiCarlo, J.J. (2005). Neuropsychologia, 110, 208–224.
Fast readout of object identity from macaque inferior Insausti, R., Annese, J., Amaral, D.G. & Squire, L.R. (2013).
temporal cortex. Science, 310, 863–866. Human amnesia and the medial temporal lobe illu-
Hunt, R.R. & Smith, R.E. (2014). How distinctive process- minated by neuropsychological and neurohistological
ing enhances hits and reduces false alarms. Journal of findings for patient E.P. Proceedings of the National
Memory and Language, 75, 45–57. Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Huntsinger, J.R. (2012). Does positive affect broaden and 110, E1953–E1962.
negative affect narrow attentional scope? A new answer Ioannides, A.A., Popescu, M., Otsuka, A., Bezerianos, A.
to an old question. Journal of Experimental Psychology: & Liu, L. (2003). Magnetoencephalographic evidence
General, 141, 595–600. of the interhemispheric asymmetry in echoic memory

862 References
lifetime and its dependence on handedness and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
NeuroImage, 19, 1061–1075. and Performance, 30, 833–835.
Ipser, A., Agolli, B., Bajraktari, A., Al-Alawi, F., Djaafara, Jacobs, R.A. (2002). What determines visual cue reliability?
N. & Freeman, E.D. (2017). Sight and sound persist Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 345–350.
ently out of synch: Stable individual differences in audio- Jacoby, L.L., Bishara, A.J., Hessels, S. & Toth, J.P. (2005).
visual synchronization revealed by implicit measures of Aging, subjective experience, and cognitive control:
lip-voice integration. Scientific Reports, 7 (Article no. Dramatic false remembering by older adults. Journal of
46413). Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 131–148.
Irish, M. & Piguet, O. (2013). The pivotal role of semantic Jacoby, L.L., Debner, J.A. & Hay, J.F. (2001). Proactive
memory in remembering the past and imagining the interference, accessibility bias, and process dissociations:
future. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7 (Article Valid subjective reports of memory. Journal of Experi
no. 27). mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
Irish, M. & Piolino, P. (2016). Impaired capacity for 27, 686–700.
prospection in the dementias – Theoretical and clinical Jacoby, L.L., Wahlheim, C.N. & Kelley, C.M. (2015).
implications. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, Memory consequences of looking back to notice
45–68. change: Retroactive and proactive facilitation. Journal
Irish, M., Bunk, S., Tu, S.C., Kamminga, J., Hodges, of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
J.R., Hornberger, M., et al. (2016). Preservation of Cognition, 41, 1282–1297.
episodic memory in semantic dementia: The impor- Jacquemot, C., Dupoux, E. & Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C. (2011).
tance of regions beyond the medial temporal lobes. Is the word-length effect linked to subvocal rehearsal?
Neuropsychologia, 81, 50–60. Cortex, 47, 484–493.
Ishibashi, R., Mima, T., Fukuyama, H. & Pobric, G. (2018). Jaeger, T.F. & Snider, N.E. (2013). Alignment as a conse-
Facilitation of function and manipulation knowledge of quence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is
tools using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior
Frontiers of Integrative Neuroscience, 11 (Article no. 37). and recent experience. Cognition, 127, 57–83.
Itkonen, T., Pekkanen, J. & Lappi, O. (2015). Driver gaze Jain, A.K. & Duin, R.P.W. (2004). Pattern recognition. In
behaviour is different in normal curve driving and when R.L. Gregory (ed.), The Oxford Companion to the Mind
looking at the tangent point. PLoS One, 10 (Article no. (pp. 698–703). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
e0135505). Jäkel, F., Singh, M., Wichmann, F.A. & Herzog, M.H. (2016).
Ittelson, W.H. (1951). Size as a cue to distance: Static localisa- An overview of quantitative approaches in Gestalt per-
tion. American Journal of Psychology, 64, 54–67. ception. Vision Research, 126, 3–8.
Itzhak, I. & Baum, S.R. (2015). Misleading bias-driven expec- Jalbert, A., Neath, I., Bireta, T.J. & Surprenant, A.M. (2011).
tations in referential processing and the facilitative When does length cause the word length effect? Journal
role of contrastive accent. Journal of Psycholinguistic of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Research, 44, 623–650. Cognition, 37, 338–353.
Iyilikci, E.A. & Amado, S. (2018). The uncertainty appraisal James, D., Friedman, D., Louie, C. & O’Meara, T. (2018).
enhances the prominent deck in the Iowa gambling task. Dissecting the Monty Hall anomaly. Economic Inquiry,
Motivation and Emotion, 42, 1–16. 56, 1817–1826.
Izard, C.E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion James, E.L., Lau-Zhu, A., Clark, I.A., Visser, R.M.,
schemas, and a new paradigm. Perspectives on Psycho Hagenaars, M.A. & Holmes, E.A. (2016). The trauma
logical Science, 2, 260–280. film paradigm as an experimental psychopathology
Jaarsma, T., Jarokzka, H., Nap, M., van Merrienboer, J.J.G. model of psychological trauma: Intrusive memories and
& Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2014). Expertise under the micro- beyond. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 106–142.
scope: Processing histopathological slides. Medical James, K.H. (2017). The importance of handwriting experi-
Education, 48, 292–300. ence on the development of the literate brain. Current
Jack, F. & Hayne, H. (2010). Childhood amnesia: Empirical Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 502–508.
evidence for a two-stage phenomenon. Memory, 18, James, T.W., Culham, J., Humphrey, G.K., Milner, A.D. &
831–844. Goodale, M.A. (2003). Ventral occipital lesions impair
Jack, F., MacDonald, S., Reese, E. & Hayne, H. (2009). object recognition but not object-directed grasping: An
Maternal reminiscing style during early childhood pre- fMRI study. Brain, 126, 2463–2475.
dicts the age of adolescents’ earliest memories. Child James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York:
Development, 80, 496–505. Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Jacobs, A., Pinto, J. & Shiffrar, M. (2004). Experience, Janczyk, M., Renas, S. & Durst, M. (2018). Identifying
context, and the visual perception of human movement. the locus of compatibility-based backward crosstalk:

References 863
Evidence from an extended PDP paradigm. Journal National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and America, 103, 17048–17052.
Performance, 44, 261–276. Jiménez, L. & Vázquez, G.A. (2011). Implicit sequence learn-
Janelle, C.M., Singer, R.N. & Williams, A.M. (1999). ing and contextual cueing do not compete for central
External distraction and attentional narrowing: Visual cognitive resources. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
search evidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 37, 222–235.
21, 70–91. Joanisse, M.F. & McClelland, J.L. (2015). Connectionist
Jans, B., Peters, J.C. & de Weerd, P. (2010). Visual spatial perspectives on language learning, representation and
attention to multiple locations at once: The jury is still processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive
out. Psychological Review, 117, 637–684. Science, 6, 235–247.
Jansma, J.M., Ramsey, N.F., Slagter, H.A. & Kahn, R.S. Jobard, G., Vigneau, M., Simon, G. & Tzurio-Mazoyer,
(2001). Functional anatomical correlates of con- N. (2011). The weight of skill: Interindividual var-
trolled and automatic processing. Journal of Cognitive iability of reading related brain activation patterns
Neuroscience, 13, 730–743. in fluent readers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24,
Janssen, P., Verhoef, B.-E. & Premereur, E. (2018). Functional 113–132.
interactions between the macaque dorsal and ventral Johannessen, K.B. & Berntsen, D. (2010). Current concerns in
visual pathways during three-dimensional object vision. involuntary and voluntary autobiographical memories.
Cortex, 98, 218–227. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 847–860.
Jantzen, M.G., Large, E.W. & Magne, C. (2016). Editorial: Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion
Overlap of neural systems for processing language and and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics,
music. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article no. 876). 14, 201–211.
Jared, D. (2002). Spelling-sound consistency and regular- Johansson, G. (1975). Visual motion perception. Scientific
ity effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and American, 232, 76–89.
Language, 46, 723–750. Johansson, G., van Hofsten, C. & Jansson, G. (1980). Event
Jared, D. & O’Donnell, K. (2017). Skilled adult readers perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 27–64.
activate the meanings of high-frequency words using John, L.K., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring
phonology: Evidence from eye tracking. Memory & the prevalence of questionable research practices with
Cognition, 45, 334–346. incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23,
Jarosz, A.F., Colflesh, G.J.H. & Wiley, J. (2012). Uncorking 524–532.
the muse: Alcohol intoxication facilitates creative Johnson, M.K., Hashtroudi, S. & Lindsay, D.S. (1993).
problem. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 487–493. Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
Jefferies, E., Sage, K. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2007). Do Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a cog-
deep dyslexia, dysphasia, and dysgraphia share a nitive science of language, inference and consciousness.
common phonological impairment? Neuropsychologia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45, 1553–1570. Johnson-Laird, P.N., Goodwin, G.P. & Khemlani, S.S.
Jeneson, A. & Squire, L.R. (2012). Working memory, long- (2018). Mental models and reasoning. In L.J. Ball &
term memory, and medial temporal lobe function. V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook
Learning & Memory, 19, 15–25. of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 346–365). Abingdon,
Jenkins, R. & Burton, A.M. (2011). Stable face representa- Oxon.: Routledge.
tions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Johnson-Laird, P.N., Khemlani, S.S. & Goodwin, G.P.
Biological Sciences, 366, 1671–1683. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends
Jenkins, R., White, D., van Montfort, X. & Burton, A.M. in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 201–214.
(2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M.A. & Kosslyn, S.M. (1984).
121, 313–323. Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive
Jensen, M.S., Yao, R., Street, W.N. & Simons, D.J. (2011). Psychology, 16, 243–275.
Change blindness and inattentional blindness. Wiley Jones, E.B. & Sharpe, L. (2017). Cognitive bias modifica-
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 529–546. tion: A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Affective
Jiahui, G., Yang, H. & Duchaine, B. (2018). Developmental Disorders, 223, 175–183.
prosopagnosics have widespread selectivity reductions Jones, P.R. (2016). A tutorial on cue combination and signal
across category-selective visual cortex. Proceedings of the detection theory: Using changes in sensitivity to evaluate
National Academy of Sciences, 115, E6418–E6427. how observers integrate sensory information. Journal of
Jiang, Y., Costello, P., Fang, F., Huang, M. & He, S. (2006). Mathematical Psychology, 73, 117–139.
A gender-and sexual orientation-dependent spatial Jones, S.P., Dwyer, D.M. & Lewis, M.B. (2017). The utility
attentional effect of invisible images. Proceedings of the of multiple synthesised views in the recognition of

864 References
unfamiliar faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice:
Psychology, 70, 906–918. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist,
Jongman, S.R., Roelofs, A. & Scheper, A.R. (2017). Picture 58, 697–720.
naming in typically developing and language-impaired Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York:
children: The role of sustained attention. International Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52, Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability –
323–333. Judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3,
Jonides, J., Lewis, R.L., Nee, D.E., Lustig, C., Berman, M.G. 430–454.
& Moore, K.S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of
memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 193–224. prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.
Joormann, J. & Tanovic, E. (2015). Cognitive vulnerability Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An anal-
to depression: Examining cognitive control and emotion ysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 4, 86–92. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and
Joormann, J., Yoon, K.L. & Zetsche, U. (2007). Cognitive frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
inhibition in depression. Applied & Preventive Kaiser, E., Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S. & Tanenhaus, M.K.
Psychology, 12, 128–139. (2009). Structural and semantic constraints on the res-
Josselyn, S.A. & Frankland, P.W. (2012). Infantile amnesia: A olution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition, 112,
neurogenic hypothesis. Learning & Memory, 19, 423–433. 55–80.
Joyce, J. (1922/1960). Ulysses. London: Bodley Head. Kaiser, D. & Cichy, R.M. (2018). Typical visual field loca-
Jun, S.A. (2010). The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt tions facilitate access to awareness for everyday objects.
prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, Cognition, 180, 118–122.
25, 1201–1233. Kaland, N., Moller-Nielsen, A., Smith, L., Mortensen, E.L.,
Juphard, A., Vidal, J.R., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Minotti, L., Callesen, K. & Gotlien, D. (2005). The Strange Stories
Kahane, P., Lachaux, J.-P., et al. (2011). Direct evidence test: A replication study of children and adolescents
for two different neural mechanisms for reading famil- with Asperger syndrome. European Child & Adolescent
iar and unfamiliar words: An intra-cerebral EEG study. Psychiatry, 14, 73–82.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5 (Article no. 101). Kandasamy, N., Garfinkel, S.N., Page, L., Hardy, B.,
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of Critchley, H.D., Gurnell, M., et al. (2016). Interoceptive
comprehension. Psychological Review, 114, 678–703. ability predicts survival on a London trading floor.
Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., Keller, T.A., Emery, L., Scientific Reports, 6 (Article no. 32986).
Zajac, H. & Thlborn, K.R. (2001). Interdependence of Kandil, F.I., Rotter, A. & Lappe, M. (2009). Driving is
non-overlapping cortical systems in dual cognitive tasks. smoother and more stable when using the tangent point.
NeuroImage, 14, 417–426. Journal of Vision, 9, 1–11.
Juskenaite, A., Quinette, P., Laisney, M., Eustache, M.L., Kane, J. & Webster, G.A. (2013). Heuristics and biases that
Desgranges, B., Viader, F., et al. (2016). Preserved help and hinder scientists: Toward a psychology of sci-
self-
evaluation in amnesia supports access to the self entific judgement and decision making. In G. Feist & M.
through introspective computation. Frontiers in Human Gorman (eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Science
Neuroscience, 10 (Article no. 462). (pp. 437–459). New York: Springer.
Kaakinen, J.K. & Hyönä, J. (2007). Perspective effects in Kanizsa, G. (1976). Subjective contours. Scientific American,
repeated reading: An eye movement study. Memory & 234, 48–52.
Cognition, 35, 1323–1336. Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J. & Chun, M.M. (1997). The
Kahan, D.M. (2012). Why we are poles apart on climate fusiform face area: A module in human extrastri-
change. Nature, 488, 255. ate cortex specialised for face perception. Journal of
Kahan, D.M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.
measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, Kaplan, S., Bekhor, S. & Shiftan, Y. (2011). Development
36, 1–43. and estimation of a semi-compensatory choice model
Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, based on explicit choice protocols. Annals of Regional
L.L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarising impact Science, 47, 51–80.
of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate Karimi, H. & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguis-
change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. tic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in
Kahane, G., Everett, J.A.C., Earp, B.D., Farias, M. & language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Savulescu, J. (2015). “Utilitarian” judgments in sacrifi- Psychology, 69, 1013–1040.
cial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for Karlen, Y. (2017). The development of a new instrument to
the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. assess metacognitive strategy knowledge about academic

References 865
writing and its relation to self-regulated writing and Kellogg, R.T., Olive, T. & Piolat, A. (2007). Verbal, visual,
writing performance. Journal of Writing Research, 9, and spatial working memory in written language pro-
61–86. duction. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382–397.
Karlsson, J., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., Hickendorff, M., Kellogg, R.T., Whiteford, A.P., Turner, C.E., Cahill, M. &
Koornneef, A. & van Leijenhorst, L. (2018). Profiles Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written com-
of young readers: Evidence from thinking aloud while position: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of
reading narrative and expository texts. Learning and Writing Research, 5, 159–190.
Individual Differences, 67, 105–116. Kemeny, F., Demeter, G., Racsmány, M., Valálik, I. &
Kasselimis, D.S., Angelopoulou, G., Kolovos, G., Daskalaki, Lukács, A. (2018). Impaired sequential and partially
A., Peppas, C., Tavernarakis, A., et al. (2017). Pure word compensated probabilistic skill learning in Parkinson’s
deafness due to herpes simplex encephalitis. Journal of disease. Journal of Neuropsychology (Epub 08 June
the Neurological Sciences, 372, 11–13. 2018).
Kassin, S.M., Dror, I.E. & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic Kendeou, P., Smith, E.R. & O’Brien, E.J. (2013). Updating
confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed during reading comprehension: Why causality matters.
solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
Cognition, 2, 42–52. and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
Katidioti, I. & Taatgen, N.A. (2014). Choice in multitasking Kenealy, P.M. (1997). Mood-state-dependent retrieval:
how delays in the primary task turn a rational into an The effects of induced mood on memory reconsidered.
irrational multitasker. Human Factors, 56, 728–736. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A,
Katti, H., Peelen, M.V. & Arun, S.P. (2017). How do targets, 290–317.
non-targets, and scene context influence real-world Kenett, Y.N., Levi, E., Anaki, D. & Faust, M. (2017). The
object detection? Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, semantic distance task: Quantifying semantic dis-
79, 2021–2036. tance with semantic network path length. Journal of
Kauffmann, L., Chauvin, A., Guyader, N. & Peyrin, C. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
(2015). Rapid scene categorisation: Role of spatial fre- Cognition, 43, 1470–1489.
quency order, accumulation mode and luminance con- Kent, S.C. & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between
trast. Vision Research, 107, 49–57. component skills and writing quality and production
Kay, K., Naselaris, T., Prenger, R.J. & Gallant, J.L. (2008). across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last
Identifying natural images from human brain activity. 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86, 570–601.
Nature, 452, 352–355. Kersten, A.W., Meissner, C.A., Lechugs, J., Schwartz, B.L.,
Kazanas, S.A. & Altarriba, J. (2015). The survival advan- Albrechtsen, J.S. & Iglesias, A. (2010). English speakers
tage: Underlying mechanisms and extant limitations. attend more strongly than Spanish speakers to manner of
Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 360–396. motion when classifying novel objects and events. Journal
Keane, M. (1987). On retrieving analogs when solving of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 638–653.
problems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Kessler, Y. & Moscovitch, M. (2013). Strategic processing in
39A, 29–41. long-term repetition priming in the lexical decision task.
Keating, J., Affleck-Brodie, C., Wiegland, R. & Morcom, Memory, 21, 366–376.
A.M. (2017). Aging, working memory capacity and Keys, D.J. & Schwartz, B. (2007). “Leaky” rationality: How
the proactive control of recollection: An event-related research on behavioural decision making challenges
potential study. PloS ONE, 12 (Article no. e0180367). normative standards of rationality. Perspectives on
Kelber, A., Yovanovich, C. & Olsson, P. (2017). Thresholds Psychological Science, 2, 162–180.
and noise limitations of colour vision in dim light. Keysar, B., Barr, D.J., Balin, J.A. & Branner, J.S. (2000).
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372 Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual
(Article no. 2016.0065). knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11,
Kellogg, R.T. (2001). Competition for working memory 32–38.
among writing processes. American Journal of Psycho Keysers, C., Paracampo, R. & Gazzola, V. (2018). What
logy, 114, 175–191. neuromodulation and lesion studies tell us about the
Kellogg, R.T. & Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplifica- function of the mirror neuron system and embodied
tion and process restructuring in computer-based writing. cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 35–40.
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 33–49. Khemlani, S.S. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2012). Theories of the
Kellogg, R.T. & Whiteford, A.P. (2012). The development of syllogism: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138,
writing expertise. In E.L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino & 427–457.
D.D. Preiss (eds), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives Khemlani, S.S. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2017). Illusions in rea-
(pp. 109–124). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. soning. Minds and Machines, 27, 11–35.

866 References
Khemlani, S.S., Orenes, I. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2012). Kintsch, W. (1992). A cognitive architecture for compre-
Negation: A theory of its meaning, representation, and hension. In H.L. Pick, P. van den Broek & D.C. Knill
use. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 541–559. (eds), Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S. & Christiansen, M.H. (2018). (pp. 143–163). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Individual differences in language acquisition and pro- Association.
cessing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for
Kilpatrick, F.P. & Ittelson, W.H. (1953). The size-distance Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
invariance hypothesis. Psychological Review, 60, 223–231. Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computa-
Kim, D., Stephens, J.D.W. & Pitt, M.A. (2012). How does tional theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257–266.
context play a part in splitting words apart: Production Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, E. & Zimny, S. (1990).
and perception of word boundaries in casual speech. Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of
Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 509–529. Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.
Kim, E.J., Suh, M.K., Lee, B., Park, K.C., Ku, B.D., Chung, Kircanski, K. & Gotlib, I.H. (2015). Processing of emotional
C.S., et al. (2009). Transcortical sensory aphasia follow- information in major depressive disorder: Toward a
ing a left frontal lobe infarction probably due to anom- dimensional understanding. Emotion Review, 7, 256–264.
alously represented language areas. Journal of Clinical Kizilirmak, J.M., Sarrger, V., Kehl, J., Őllinger, M., Folta-
Neuroscience, 16, 1482–1485. Schoofs, K. & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2018). Feelings-
Kim, H. (2017a). Brain regions that show repetition sup- of-warmth increase more abruptly for verbal riddles
pression and enhancement: A meta-analysis of 137 solved with in contrast to without Aha! experience.
neuroimaging experiments. Human Brain Mapping, 38, T.W., Mendez, M.F., Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (Article
1894–1913. no. 1404).
Kim, N.-G. (2017b). A binocular information source for size Klargaard, S.K., Starrfelt, R. & Gerlach, C. (2018). Inversion
perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. 2078). effects for faces and objects in developmental prosop-
Kim, N.-G. (2018). Independence of size and distance in agnosia: A case series analysis. Neuropsychologia, 113,
binocular vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (Article no. 52–60.
988). Klauer, K.C., Beller, S. & Hütter, M. (2010). Conditional rea-
Kim, P.Y. & Mayhorn, C.B. (2008). Exploring students’ pro- soning in context: A dual-source model of probabilistic
spective memory inside and outside the lab. American inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Journal of Psychology, 121, 241–254. Memory, and Cognition, 36, 298–323.
Kim, S. & Voss, J.L. (2019). Large-scale network interactions Klauer, K.C. & Zhao, Z. (2004). Double dissociations in
supporting item-context memory formation. PloS ONE, visual and spatial short-term memory. Journal of
14 (Article no. e0210167). Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 355–381.
Kim, S., Carello, C. & Turvey, M.T. (2016). Size and dis- Klauer, K.C., Musch, J. & Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in
tance are perceived independently in an optical tunnel: syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review, 107, 852–884.
Evidence for direct perception. Vision Research, 125, Klaus, J., Mädebach, A., Oppermann, F. & Jeseniak, J.D.
1–11. (2017). Planning sentences while doing other things
Kimchi, R., Yeshurun, Y., Spehar, B. & Pirkner, Y. (2016). at the same time: Effects of concurrent verbal and
Perceptual organisation, visual attention, and object- visuo-spatial working memory load. Quarterly Journal of
hood. Vision Research, 126, 34–51. Experimental Psychology, 70, 811–831.
King, B.R., Fogel, S.M., Albouy, G. & Doyon, J. (2013a). Klein, C. (2014). Reliability in cognitive neuroscience: A meta-
Neural correlates of the age-related changes in motor meta analysis. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 606–613.
sequence learning and motor adaptation in older adults. Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How people make deci-
Frontiers in Human Science, 7 (Article no. 142). sions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
King, J.-R., Sitt, J.D., Faugeras, F., Rohaut, B., El Karoui, Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human
I., Cohen, L., et al. (2013b). Information sharing in Factors, 50, 456–460.
the brain indexes consciousness in non-communicative Klein, G., Calderwood, R. & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (2010).
patients. Current Biology, 23, 1914–1919. Rapid decision making on the fire ground: The original
Kingston, J., Levy, J., Rysling, A. & Staub, A. (2016). Eye study plus a postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering
movement evidence for an immediate Ganong effect. and Decision Making, 4, 186–209.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Kliegl, O. & Bäuml, K-H.T. (2016). Retrieval practice can insu-
and Performance, 42, 1969–1988. late items against intralist interference: Evidence from
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse the list-length effect, output interference, and retrieval-
comprehension: A construction-integration model. induced forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 42, 202–214.

References 867
Kliegl, O., Pastötter, B. & Bäuml, K.-H.T. (2015). The contri- Koellinger, P. & Treffers, T. (2015). Joy leads to overconfi-
bution of encoding and retrieval processes to proactive dence, and a simple countermeasure. PloS ONE, 10
interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: (Article no. e0143263).
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1778–1780. Kohn, N., Eickhoff, S.B., Scheller, M., Laird, A.R., Fox,
Kloeters, S., Hartmann, C.J., Pundmann, V.D., Schnitzler, P.T. & Habel, U. (2014). Neural networks of cogni-
A., Sudmeyer, M. & Lange, J. (2017). Impaired per- tive emotion regulation – An ALE meta-analysis and
ception of human movements in Parkinson’s disease. MACM analysis. NeuroImage, 87, 345–355.
Behavioural Brain Research, 317, 88–94. Koivisto, M. & Grassini, S. (2016). Neural processing around
Klooster, N.B. & Duff, M.C. (2015). Remote semantic 200 ms after stimulus-onset correlates with subjective
memory is impoverished in hippocampal amnesia. visual awareness. Neuropsychologia, 84, 235–243.
Neuropsychologia, 79, 42–52. Koivisto, M., Kastrati, G. & Revonsuo, A. (2014). Recurrent
Klumpp, H., Bhaumik, R., Kinney, K.L. & Fitzgerald, J.M. processing enhances visual awareness but is not neces-
(2018). Principal component analysis and neural predic- sary for fast categorisation of natural scenes. Journal of
tors of emotion regulation. Behavioural Brain Research, Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 223–231.
338, 128–133. Koivisto, M., Railo, H., Revonsuo, A., Vanni, S. & Salminen-
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H. & Rhenius, D. (1999). Vaparanta, N. (2011). Recurrent processing in V1/V2
Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in contributes to categorisation of natural scenes. Journal
insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, of Neuroscience, 31, 2488–2492.
Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1534–1555. Koivisto, M. & Rientamo, E. (2016). Unconscious vision
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. & Raney, G.E. (2001). An eye spots the animal but not the dog: Masked priming of
movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & natural scenes. Consciousness and Cognition, 41, 10–23.
Cognition, 29, 1000–1009. Kok, P., Mostert, P. & de Lange, F.P. (2017). Prior expecta-
Knol, H., Huys, R., Sarrazin, J.-C., Spiegler, A. & Jirsa, tions induce pre-stimulus sensory templates. Proceedings
V.K. (2017). Ebbinghaus figures that deceive the eye do of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
not necessarily deceive the hand. Scientific Reports, 7 of America, 114, 10473–10478.
(Article no. 3111). Kondziella, D., Friberg, C.K., Frokjaer, V.G., Fabricius, M.
Knowlton, B.J. & Foerde, K. (2008). Neural representations & Møller, K. (2016). Preserved consciousness in vegeta-
of non-declarative memories. Current Directions in tive and minimal conscious states: Systematic review and
Psychological Science, 17, 107–111. meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and
Ko, Y. & Lau, H. (2012). A detection theoretic explanation of Psychiatry, 87, 485–492.
blindsight suggests a link between conscious perception Konishi, M. & Smallwood, J. (2016). Shadowing the wander-
and metacognition. Philosophical Transactions of the ing mind: How understanding the mind-wandering state
Royal Society B, 367, 1401–1411. can inform our appreciation of conscious experience.
Kocab, A., Senghas, A. & Snedeker, J. (2016). The emergence Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive Science, 7,
of temporal language in Nicaraguan Sign Language. 233–246.
Cognition, 156, 147–163. Koole, S.L., Webb, T.L. & Sheeran, P.L. (2015). Implicit
Kocagoncu, E., Clarke, A., Devereux, B.J. & Tyler, L.K. emotion regulation: Feeling better without knowing
(2017). Decoding the cortical dynamics of sound-meaning why. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 6–10.
mapping. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 1312–1319. Koornneef, A. & Reuland, E. (2016). On the shallow process-
Koch, C. & Tsuchiya, N. (2012). Attention and consciousness: ing (dis)advantage: Grammar and economy. Frontiers in
Related yet different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, Psychology, 7 (Article no. 82).
103–105. Kopiske, K.K., Cesanek, E., Campagnoli, C. & Domini, F.
Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M. & Tononi, G. (2016). (2017). Adaptation effects in grasping the Müller-Lyer
Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and prob- illusion. Vision Research, 136, 21–31.
lems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 307–321. Koppel, J. & Berntsen, D. (2015). The peaks of life: The differ-
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H. & Kiesel, A. (2018). ential temporal location of the reminiscence bump across
Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human disparate cueing methods. Journal of Applied Research in
multitasking – An integrative review of dual-task and Memory and Cognition, 4,66–80.
task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, Koppel, J. & Berntsen, D. (2016). The reminiscence bump
557–583. without memories: The distribution of imagined word-
Koehler, D.J. & James, G. (2009). Probability matching in cued and important autobiographical memories in a
choice under uncertainty: Intuition versus deliberation. hypothetical 70-year-old. Consciousness and Cognition,
Cognition, 113, 123–127. 44, 89–102.

868 References
Koppenol-Gonzalez, G.V., Bouwmeester, S. & Boonstra, mechanisms for solving a tenacious brain teaser. Journal
A.M. (2010). Understanding planning ability measured of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 3–22.
by the Tower of London: An evaluation of its internal Kravitz, D.J. & Behrmann, M. (2011). Space-, object-, and
structure by latent variable modelling. Psychological feature-based attention interact to organise visual scenes.
Assessment, 22, 923–934. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73, 2434–2447.
Kornell, N., Bjork, R.A. & Garcia, M.A. (2011). Why tests Kravitz, D.J., Saleem, K.S., Baker, C.I., Ungerleider, L.G.
appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifur- & Mishkin, M. (2013). The ventral visual pathway: An
cation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, expanded neural framework for the processing of object
85–97. quality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 26–49.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1994). Image and Brain: The resolution of the Krawczyk, D.C. (2012). The cognition and neuroscience of
imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. relational reasoning. Brain Research, 1428, 13–23.
Kosslyn, S.M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Krawczyk D.C., Morrison, R.G., Viskontas, I., Holyoak,
Neuropsychology, 22, 333–347. K.J., Chow, T.W., Mendez, M.F., et al. (2008).
Kosslyn, S.M. & Thompson, W.L. (2003). When is early Distraction during relational reasoning: The role of pre-
visual cortex activated during visual mental imagery? frontal cortex in interference control. Neuropsychologia,
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 723–746. 46, 2020–2032.
Koster, E.H.W., Hoorelbeke, K., Onraedt, T., Owens, M. Kretz, D. & Krawczyk, D.C. (2014). Expert analogy use in
& Derakshan, N. (2017). Cognitive control interven- a naturalistic setting. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article
tions for depression: A systematic review of findings no. 1333).
from training studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 53, Kriengwatana, B., Terry, J., Chládková, K. & Escudero, P.
79–92. (2016). Speaker and accent are handled differently:
Kotseruba, I. & Tsotsos, J. (2018). A review of 40 years of Evidence in native and non-native listeners. PLoS ONE,
cognitive architecture research: Core cognitive abilities 11 (Article no. e0156870).
and practical applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, Króliczak, G., Heard, P., Goodale, M.A. & Gregory, R.L.
1–78. (2006). Dissocations of perception and action unmasked
Kouider, S., de Gardelle, V., Sackur, J. & Dupoux, E. (2010). by the hollow-face illusion. Brain Research, 1080, 9–16.
How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness Kroll, J.F. & Navarro-Torres, C. (2018). Bilingualism. In
hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 301–307. J.T. Wixted & S.L. Thompson-Schill (eds), Stevens’
Kounios, J. & Beeman, M. (2014). The cognitive neuroscience Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive
of insight. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 71–93. Neuroscience, Vol. 3: Language and thought (4th edn)
Kourtzi, Z. & Connor, C.E. (2011). Neural representations (pp. 245–274). New York: Wiley.
for object perception: Structure, category, and adaptive Kruger, J.M. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware
coding. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 34, 45–67. of it: How difficulties in recognising one’s own incom-
Kovacs, G. & Schweinberger, S.R. (2016). Repetition suppres- petence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of
sion – An integrative view. Cortex, 80, 1–4. Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
Kovacs, K. & Conway, A.R.A. (2016). Process overlap Kruglanski, A.W. & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and
theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelli- deliberate judgments are based on common principles.
gence. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 151–177. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109.
Kovera, M.B., Bull, M. & Evelo, A.J. (2017). The case for Krupinski, E.A., Graham, A.R. & Weinstein, R.S. (2013).
double-blind lineup administration. Psychology, Public Characterising the development of visual search exper-
Policy and Law, 23, 421–437. tise in pathology residents viewing whole slide images.
Kraft, J.M. & Brainard, D.H. (1999). Mechanisms of colour Human Pathology, 44, 357–364.
constancy under nearly natural viewing. Proceedings of Krynski, T.R. & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2007). The role of causality
the National Academy of the United States of America, in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental
96, 307–312. Psychology: General, 136, 430–450.
Kragel, J.E. & Polyn, S.M. (2016). Decoding episodic Kubricht, J.R., Lu, H. & Holyoak, K.J. (2017). Individual dif-
retrieval processes: Fronto-parietal and medial tempo- ferences in spontaneous analogical transfer. Memory &
ral lobe contributions to free recall. Journal of Cognitive Cognition, 45, 576–588.
Neuroscience, 28, 125–139. Kugler, T., Connolly, T. & Ordonez, L.D. (2012). Emotion,
Kraus, N. & Slater, J. (2016). Beyond words: How humans decision and risk: Betting on gambles versus betting
communicate through sound. Annual Review of Psycho on people. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25,
logy, 67, 83–103. 123–134.
Krauss, S. & Wang, X.T. (2003). The psychology of the Kuhn, G. & Findlay, J.M. (2010). Misdirection, attention
Monty Hall problem: Discovering psychological and awareness: Inattentional blindness reveals temporal

References 869
relationship between eye movements and visual aware- Event-related potential evidence from the Korean lan-
ness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, guage. Psychophysiology, 53, 544–552.
136–146. Lacey, S., Stilla, R., Deshpande, G., Zhao, S., Stephens, C.,
Kuhn, G. & Martinez, L.M. (2012). Misdirection – Past, McCormick, K., et al. (2017). Engagement of the left
present, and the future. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, extrastriate body area during body-part metaphor com-
5, 172. prehension. Brain & Language, 166, 1–18.
Kuhn, G., Teszka, R., Tenaw, N. & Kingstone, A. (2016). Lacroix, A.N., Diaz, A.F. & Rogalsky, C. (2015). The rela-
Don’t be fooled! Attentional responses to social cues in tionship between the neural computations for speech
a face-to-face and video magic trick reveals greater top- and music is context-dependent: An activation likeli-
down control for overt than covert attention. Cognition, hood estimate study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article
146, 136–142. no. 1138).
Kulatunga-Moruzi, C., Brooks, L.R. & Norman, G.R. (2004). Laeng, B., Bloem, I.M., D’Ascenzo, S. & Tommasi, L. (2014).
Using comprehensive feature lists to bias medical diag- Scrutinising visual images: The role of gaze in mental
nosis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, imagery and memory. Cognition, 131, 263–283.
Memory, and Cognition, 30, 563–572. Lafer-Sousa, R., Conway, B.R. & Kanwisher, N.G. (2016).
Kulatunga-Moruzi, C., Brooks, L.R. & Norman, G.R. (2011). Colour-based regions of the ventral visual pathway lie
Teaching post-training: Influencing diagnostic strat- between face- and place-selective regions in humans, as
egy with instructions at test. Journal of Experimental in macaques. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 1682–1697.
Psychology: Applied, 17, 195–209. Laganaro, M., Morand, S. & Schnider, A. (2009). Time
Kundel, H.L. & Nodine, C.F. (1975). Interpreting chest radi- course of evoked-potential changes in different forms of
ographs without visual search. Radiology, 116, 527–532. anomia in aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
Kundel, H.L., Nodine, C.F., Conant, E.F. & Weinstein, 21, 1499–1510.
S.P. (2007). Holistic components of image perception Lahmer, M., Glatz, C., Seibold, V.C. & Chuang, L.L. (2018).
in mammogram interpretation: Gaze tracking study. Looming auditory collision warnings for semi-automated
Radiology, 242, 396–402. driving: An ERP study. AutomototiveUI’18: Proceedings
Kuperberg, G.R. & Jaeger, T.F. (2016). What do we mean of the 10th ACM International Conference on Automotive
by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 23–25
Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59. September 2018, 310–319.
Kuperberg, G.R., Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T. (2011). Lai, C.S.L., Fisher, S.E., Hurst, J.A., Vargha-Khadem, E.
Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP & Monaco, A.P. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is
study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1230–1246. mutated in a severe speech and language disorder.
Kuppens, P. (2013). Comment: Appraisal affords flexibility Nature, 413, 519–523.
to emotion in more ways than one. Emotion Review, 5, Laird, J.E., Lebiere, C. & Rosenbloom, P.S. (2017). A stand-
176–179. ard model of the mind: Toward a common computa-
Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., Smits, D.J.M. & De Broeck, tional framework across artificial intelligence, cognitive
P. (2003). The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, neces- science, neuroscience, and robotics. AI Magazine, 38,
sity and sufficiency of components. Emotion, 3, 254–269. 1–19.
Kurby, C.A. & Zacks, J.M. (2012). Starting from scratch Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research
and building brick by brick. Memory & Cognition, 40, Programmes: Philosophical papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge:
812–826. Cambridge University Press.
Kurt, S., Deutscher, A., Crook, J.M., Ohl, F.W., Budinger, Lambe, K.A., O’Reilly, G., Kelly, B.D. & Curristan, S.
E., Moeller, C.K., et al. (2008). Auditory cortical con- (2016). Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance
trast enhancing by global winner-take-all inhibitory diagnostic reasoning: A systematic review. BMJ Quality
interactions. PLoS ONE, 3 (Article no. 31735). & Safety, 25, 808–820.
Kvavilashvili, L. & Ellis, J.A. (2004). Ecological validity Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2014). Neurocognitive insights on
and twenty years of real-life/laboratory controversy conceptual knowledge and its breakdown. Philosophical
in memory research: A critical (and historical) review. Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369 (Article no.
History and Philosophy of Psychology, 6, 59–80. 20120392).
Kwon, M., Shim, W.H., Kim, S.J. & Kim, J.S. (2017). Lambon Ralph, M.A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K. & Rogers,
Transcortical sensory aphasia after left Frontal lobe T.T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of
infarction: Loss of functional connectivity. European semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18,
Neurology, 78, 15–21. 42–55.
Kwon, Y., Choi, S. & Lee, Y. (2016). Early use of Lambon Ralph, M.A., Patterson, K. & Plaut, D.C. (2011).
orthographic information in spoken word recognition: Finite case series or infinite single-case studies?

870 References
Com ments on “Case series investigations in cogni- preparatory orienting, contextual updating, and inhibi-
tive neuro psychology” by Schwartz and Dell (2010). tion of sensory processing in left spatial neglect. Journal
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 28, 466–474. of Neuroscience, 38, 3792–3808.
Lamme, V.A.F. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on con- Latorella, K.A. (1998). Effects of modality on interrupted
sciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 494–501. flight deck performance: Implications for data link.
Lamme, V.A.F. (2010). How neuroscience will change our Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
view on consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 42nd Annual Meeting, Vols. 1 and 2, 87–91. Chicago, IL.
204–240. Lau, J.Y.F. (2015). Commentary: A glass half full or half
Lamme, V.A.F. (2018). Challenges for theories of conscious- empty? Cognitive bias modification for mental health
ness: Seeing or knowing, the missing ingredient and how problems in children and adolescents – Reflections on
to deal with panpsychism. Philosophical Transactions of the meta-analysis by Cristea et al. (2015). Journal of
the Royal Society B, 373 (Article no. 2017.0344). Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 735–737.
Lamy, D., Salti, M. & Bar-Haim, Y. (2009). Neural correlates Laukkonen, R.E. & Tangen, J.M. (2018). How to detect
of subjective awareness and unconscious processing: insight moments in problem solving experiments.
An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (Article no. 282).
1435–1446. Launder, D. & Perry, C. (2014). A study identifying factors
Land, E.H. (1986). Recent advances in retinex theory. Vision influencing decision making in dynamic emergencies like
Research, 26, 7–21. urban fire and rescue settings. International Journal of
Land, M. (2009). Lee’s tau operator. Perception, 38, 853–854. Emergency Services, 3, 144–161.
Land, M.F. & Lee, D.N. (1994). Where we look when we Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention
steer. Nature, 369, 742–744. under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.
Landin-Romero, R., Tan, R., Hodges, J.R. & Kufor, F. (2016). Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control
An update on semantic dementia: Genetics, imaging, and under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
pathology. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, 8, 1–9. 19, 143–148.
Landy, M.S., Banks, M.S. & Knill, D.C. (2011). Ideal-observer Lawrence, A., Thomas, R.P. & Dougherty, M.R. (2018).
models of cue utilisation. In J. Trommershäuser, J. Integrating fast and frugal heuristics with a model of
Körding & M.S. Landy (eds), Sensory Cue Integration memory-based cue generation. Journal of Behavioral
(pp. 5–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Decision Making, 31, 487–507.
Langenburg, G., Champod, C. & Wertheim, P. (2009). Lawson, R.R., Gayle, J.O. & Wheaton, L.A. (2017). Novel
Testing for potential contextual bias during the verifica- behavioural indicator of explicit awareness reveals tem-
tion stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting poral course of fronto-parietal neural network facilita-
fingerprint comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, tion during motor learning. PLoS ONE, 12 (Article no.
54, 571–582. e0175176).
Langer, M.S. & Siciliano, R.A. (2015). Are blur and dispar- Le, X., Lancvashire, I., Hirst, G. & Jokel, R. (2011).
ity complementary cues to depth? Vision Research, 107, Longitudinal detection of dementia through lexical
15–21. and syntactic changes in writing: A case study of three
Langille, D., Asbridge, M., Kisely, S. & Wilson, K. (2012). British novelists. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 26,
Risk of depression and multiple sexual risk-taking 435–461.
behaviours in adolescents in Nova Scotia, Canada. Sex Leach, F.R. & Plaks, J.E. (2009). Regret for errors of com-
Health, 9, 254–260. mission in the distant term versus near term: The role of
Lappi, O. & Mole, C.D. (2018). Visuo-motor control, eye level of abstraction. Personality and Social Psychology
movements, and steering: A unified approach for incor Bulletin, 35, 221–229.
porating feedback, feedforward, and internal models. Leding, J.K. & Toglia, M.P. (2018). Adaptive memory:
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 981–1001. Survival processing and social isolation. Evolutionary
Lappi, O., Pekkanen, J. & Itkonen, T.H. (2013). Pursuit Psychology, 16, 1–9.
eye-movements in curve driving differentiate between Lee, C.Y., Tsai, J.-L., Su, E.C.-I., Tzeng, O.J.L. & Hung, D.
future path and tangent point models. PloS ONE, 8 (2005). Consistency, regularity, and frequency effects in
(Article no. e68326). naming Chinese characters. Language and Linguistics, 6,
Lappi, O., Rinkkala, P. & Pekkanen, J. (2017). Systematic 75–107.
observation of an expert driver’s gaze strategy – An Lee, D.N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based
on-road case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5,
no. 620). 1497–1501.
Lasaponara, S., D’Onofrio, M., Pinto, M., Dragone, A., Lee, D.N. (2009). General tau theory: Evolution to date.
Menicagli, D., Bueti, D., et al. (2018). EEG correlates of Perception, 38, 837–850.

References 871
Lee, E.K., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Watson, D.G. (2013). Ways Lenton, A.P. & Stewart, A. (2008). Changing her ways: The
of looking ahead: Hierarchical planning in language pro- number of options and mate-standard strength impact
duction. Cognition, 129, 544–562. mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and
Lee, H., Heller, A.S., van Reekum, C.M., Nelson, B. & Decision Making Journal, 3, 501–511.
Davidson, R.J. (2012a). Amygdala-prefrontal coupling Lenton-Brym, A., Kurczek, J., Rosenbaum, R.S. & Sheldon,
underlies individual differences in emotion regulation. S. (2017). A new method for assessing the impact of
NeuroImage, 62, 1575–1581. medial temporal lobe amnesia on the characteristics of
Lee, J.-S., Mathews, A., Shergill, S., Chan, D.K.Y., Majeed, generated autobiographical events. Neuropsychologia,
N. & Yiend, J. (2015). How can we enhanced cognitive 85, 35–43.
bias modification techniques? The effects of prospective Leonard, C.J., Balestreri, A. & Luck, S.J. (2015). Interactions
cognition. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental between space-based and feature-based attention.
Psychiatry, 49, 120–127. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf Theory Complex: A critical recon- and Performance, 41, 11–16.
struction. New York: John Benjamins. Leonard, M.K., Baud, M.O., Sjerps, M.J. & Chang, E.F.
Lee, R.J., Dawson, K.A. & Smithson, H.E. (2012b). Slow (2016). Perceptual restoration of masked speech in
updating of the achromatic point after a change in illu- human cortex. Nature Communications, 7 (Article no.
mination. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–22. 13619).
Lee, W.E., Wadsworth, M.E.J. & Hotopf, M. (2006). The Leopold, D.A. (2012). Primary visual cortex: Awareness and
protective role of trait anxiety: A longitudinal cohort blindsight. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 91–109.
study. Psychological Medicine, 36, 345–351. LePort, A.K.R., Mattfield, A.T., Dickinson-Anson, H.,
Légal, J.-B., Chekroun, P., Coiffard, V. & Gabarrot, F. Fallon, J.H., Stark, C.E.L., Kruggel, F., et al. (2012).
(2017). Beware of the gorilla: Effect of goal priming on Behavioural and neuroanatomical investigation of
inattentional blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 55, highly superior autobiographical memory. Neurobiology
165–171. of Learning and Memory, 98, 78–92.
Lehar, S. (2008). The constructive aspect of visual percep- LePort, A.K.R., Stark, S.M., McGaugh, J.L. & Stark, C.E.L.
tion: A Gestalt field theory principle of visual reification (2016). Highly superior autobiographical memory:
suggests a phase conjugate mirror principle of percep- Quality and quantity of retention over time. Frontiers in
tual computation. Retrieved from http://cns-alumni.bu. Psychology, 6 (Article no. 2017).
edu/-s lehar/ConstructiveAspect/ConstructiveAspect. Lerner, J.S. & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a
html. model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and
Lehle, C. & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473–493.
between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same Lerner, J.S. & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal
and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73, of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
707–726. Lerner, J.S. & Tiedens, L.Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry
Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M. & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s
parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Psychophysiology, 46, 502–509. Making, 19, 115–137.
Leinenger, M. (2014). Phonological coding during reading. Lerner, J.S., Gonzalez, R.M., Small, D.A. & Fischhoff, B.
Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1534–1555. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of
Lench, H.C. & Darbor, K.E. (2014). Negative affective reac- terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological
tions reduce perceived likelihood of risk. Motivation and Science, 14, 144–150.
Emotion, 38, 569–577. Lerner, J.S., Li, Y. & Weber, E.U. (2013). The financial costs
Lench, H.C. & Levine, L.J. (2005). Effects of fear on risk of sadness. Psychological Science, 24, 72–79.
and control judgments and memory: Implications for Lerner, J.S., Valdesolo, P. & Kassam, K.S. (2015). Emotion
health promotion messages. Cognition and Emotion, 19, and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66,
1049–1069. 799–823.
Lench, H.C., Flores, S.A. & Bench, S.W. (2011). Discrete Lev-Ari, S. (2014). Comprehending non-native speakers:
emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, expe- Theory and evidence for adjustment in manner of pro-
rience, behaviour, and physiology: A meta-analysis of cessing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article no. 1546).
experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, Levelt, W.J.M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech.
137, 834–855. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
Lenton, A.P. & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A.S. (1999). A theory
cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and
Psychological Science, 21, 528–533. Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38.

872 References
Levin, D.T., Drivdahl, S.B., Momen, N. & Beck, M.R. Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammat-
(2002). False predictions about the detectability of visual ical context on the production and perception of speech.
changes: The role of beliefs about attention, memory, Language & Speech, 6, 172–187.
and the continuity of attended objects in causing change Lief, H. & Fetkewicz, J. (1995). Retractors of false memories:
blindness blindness. Consciousness & Cognition, 11, The evolution of pseudo-memories. Journal of Psychiatry
507–527. & Law, 23, 411–436.
Levin, I.P. & Gaeth, G.J. (1988). How consumers are affected Lieto, A., Lebiere, C. & Oltramari, A. (2018). The knowledge
by the framing of attribute information before and after level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and
consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, possible developments. Cognitive Systems Research, 48,
15, 374–378. 39–55.
Levine, D.N., Calvanio, R. & Popovics, A. (1982). Language Limpo, T. & Alves, R.A. (2018). Effects of planning strategies
in the absence of inner speech. Word, 15, 19–44. on writing dynamics and final texts. Acta Psychologica,
Levine, L.J. & Edelstein, R.S. (2009). Emotion and memory 188, 97–109.
narrowing: A review and goal-relevance approach. Lin, S., Keysar, B. & Epley, N. (2010). Reflexively mindblind:
Cognition & Emotion, 23, 833–875. Using theory of mind to interpret behaviour requires
Levis, J. & Barriuso, T.A. (2011). Non-native speakers’ effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social
pronunciation errors in spoken and read English. Psychology, 46, 551–556.
Proceedings of Pronunciation in Second Language Lindholm, T. & Christianson, S.A. (1998). Intergroup biases
Learning and Teaching, 3, 187–194. and eyewitness testimony. Journal of Social Psychology,
Leviston, Z., Walker, I. & Morwinski, S. (2013). Your opinion 138, 710–723.
on climate change might not be as common as you think. Lindquist, K.A., Gendron, M., Barrett, L.F. & Dickerson,
Nature Climate Change, 3, 334–337. B.C. (2014). Emotion perception, but not affect percep-
Lewis, P.A., Critchley, H.D., Smith, A.P. & Dolan, R.J. tion, is impaired with semantic memory loss. Emotion,
(2005). Brain mechanisms for mood congruent memory 14, 375–387.
facilitation. NeuroImage, 25, 1214–1223. Lindquist, K.A., Satpute, A.B., Wager, T.D., Weber, J. &
Levy, C.M. & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it Barrett, L.F. (2016). The brain basis of positive and
seems? Memory & Cognition, 23, 767–779. negative affect: Evidence from a meta-analysis of the

Levy, D.A., Stark, C.E.L. & Squire, L.R. (2004). Intact con- human neuroimaging literature. Cerebral Cortex, 26,
ceptual priming in the absence of declarative memory. 1910–1922.
Psychological Science, 17, 228–235. Lindquist, K.A., Wager, T.D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E.
Li, O., Jackson, T. & Chen, H. (2011). Attentional and & Barrett, L.F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A
memory biases among weight dissatisfied young women: meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35,
Evidence from a dichotic listening paradigm. Cognitive 121–143.
Therapy and Research, 35, 9312–9314. Lindsay, D.S., Allen, B.P., Chan, J.C.K. & Dahl, L.C.
Li, P., Dunham, Y. & Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The (2004). Eyewitness suggestibility and source similarity:
nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Intrusions of details from one event into memory reports
Psychology, 58, 487–524. of another event. Journal of Memory and Language, 50,
Liberman, A.M., Cooper, F.S., Shankweiler, D.S. & Studdert- 96–111.
Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Lingnau, A. & Petris, S. (2013). Action understanding within
Psychological Review, 74, 431–461. and outside the motor system: The role of task difficulty.
Libet, B., Gleason, C.A., Wright, E.W. & Pearl, D.K. (1983). Cerebral Cortex, 23, 1342–1350.
Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of Linhares, A., Freitas, A.E.T.A., Mendes, A. & Silva, J.S.
cerebral activity (readiness potential): The unconscious (2012). Entanglement of perception and reasoning in the
initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106, 623–642. combinatorial game of chess: Differential errors of strate-
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M. & gic reconstruction. Cognitive Systems Research, 13, 72–86.
Coombs, J. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Linkovski, O., Kalanthroff, E., Henik, A. & Anholt, G. (2013).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning Did I turn off the stove? Good inhibitory control can
and Memory, 4, 551–578. protect from influences of repeated checking. Journal
Liden, C., Krüger, O., Schwarz, L., Erb, M., Karatzki, B., of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44,
Scheffler, K., et al. (2016). Neurobiology of knowledge 30–36.
and misperception of lyrics. NeuroImage, 134, 12–21. Linnell, K.J. & Caparos, S. (2011). Perceptual and cognitive
Liebenthal, E. & Möttönen, R. (2018). An interactive load interact to control the spatial focus of attention.
model of auditory-motor speech perception. Brain and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
Language, 187, 33–40. and Performance, 37, 1643–1648.

References 873
List, A. & Robertson, L.C. (2007). Inhibition of return Logan, G.D., Taylor, S.E. & Etherton, J.L. (1999). Attention
and object-based attentional selection. Journal of and automaticity: Toward a theoretical integration.
Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Perfor Psychological Research, 62, 165–181.
mance, 33, 1322–1334. Logie, R.H. (1995). Visuo-Spatial Working Memory. Hove,
Litvak, P.M., Lerner, J.S., Tiedens, L.Z. & Shonk, K. UK: Erlbaum.
(2010). Fuel in the fire: How anger impacts judgement Logie, R.H. (1999). Working memory. Psychologist, 12,
and decision-making. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler 174–178.
& C. Spielberger (eds), International Handbook of Logie, R.H. (2015). Working memory: Beyond Baddeley and
Anger: Constituent and concomitant biological, psycho- Hitch. In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), Cognitive
logical, and social processes (pp. 287–310). New York: Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 86–104).
Springer. London: Sage.
Liu, H.N., Li, X.W., Han, B.X. & Liu, X.Q. (2017). Effects Logie, R.H. (2016). Retiring the central executive. Quarterly
of cognitive bias modification on social anxiety: A Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2093–2109.
meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 12 (Article no. e0175107). Long, G.M. & Toppino, T.C. (2004). Enduring interest in
Liu, S. (2014). Formulaic language: An analytical review. perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible
International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 748–768.
2, 1–11. Long, M.R., Horton, W.S., Rohde, H. & Sorace, A. (2018).
Livingstone, M.S. (2000). Is it warm? Is it real? Or just low Individual differences in switching and inhibition predict
spatial frequency? Science, 290, 1299. perspective-taking across the lifespan. Cognition, 170,
Loft, S. & Remington, R.W. (2010). Prospective memory and 25–30.
task interference in a continuous monitoring dynamic Loukusa, S., Mäkinen, L., Kuusikko-Gauffin, S., Ebeling, H.
display task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: & Leinonen, E. (2018). Assessing social-pragmatic infer-
Applied, 16, 145–157. encing skills in children with autism spectrum disorder.
Loft, S., Chapman, M. & Smith, R.E. (2016). Reducing pro- Journal of Communication Disorders, 73, 91–105.
spective memory error and costs in simulated air traffic Lourenço, J.S., Hill, J.H. & Maylor, E.A. (2015). Too easy?
control: External aids, extending practice, and removing The influence of task demands conveyed tacitly on pro-
perceived memory requirements. Journal of Experimental spective memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9,
Psychology: Applied, 22, 272–284. 242.
Loft, S., Smith, R.E. & Remington, R.W. (2013). Minimising Love, J. & McKoon, G. (2011). Rules of engagement:
the disruptive effects of prospective memory in simulated Incomplete and complete pronoun resolution. Journal
air traffic control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Applied, 19, 254–265. Cognition, 37, 874–887.
Loftus, E.F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Lovell, P.G., Bloj, M. & Harris, J.M. (2012). Optimal integra-
Harvard University Press. tion of shading and binocular disparity for depth percep-
Loftus, E.F. (1992). When a lie becomes memory’s truth: tion. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–18.
Memory distortion after exposure to misinformation. Lovett, A. & Forbus, K. (2017). Modelling visual problem
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 145–147. solving as analogical reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,
Loftus, E.F. & Davis, D. (2006). Recovered memories. Annual 124, 60–90.
Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 469–498. Lu, H., Tjan, B.S. & Liu, Z. (2017). Human efficiency in
Loftus, E.F. & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstruction of auto- detecting and discriminating biological motion. Journal
mobile destruction: An example of the interaction of Vision, 17, 1–14.
between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Lu, S.A., Wickens, C.D., Prinet, J.C., Hutchins, S.D., Sarter,
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589. N. & Sebok, A. (2013). Supporting interruption manage-
Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G. & Burns, H.J. (1978). Semantic ment and multi-modal interface design: Three meta-anal-
integration of verbal information into a visual memory. yses of task performance as a function of interrupting
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning task modality. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
and Memory, 4, 19–31. Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55, 697–726.
Logačev, P. & Vasishth, S. (2016). A multiple-channel model Luan, M. & Li, H. (2017). Good enough – Compromise
of task-dependent ambiguity resolution in sentence com- between desirability and feasibility: An alternative per-
prehension. Cognitive Science, 40, 266–298. spective on satisficing. Journal of Experimental Social
Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automati- Psychology, 70, 110–116.
sation. Psychological Review, 9, 492–527. Luber, B. & Lisanby, S.H. (2014). Enhancement of human
Logan, G.D. (2018). Automatic control: How experts act cognitive performance using transcranial magnetic stim-
without thinking. Psychological Review, 125, 453–485. ulation (TMS). NeuroImage, 85, 961–970.

874 References
Luchins, A.S. (1942). Mechanisation in problem solving: Mace, J.H. (2003). Study-test awareness can enhance priming
The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54 on an implicit memory task: Evidence from a word-
(Article no. 248). completion task. American Journal of Psychology, 116,
Ludwig, K., Sterzer, P., Kathmann, N. & Hesselmann, G. 257–279.
(2016). Differential modulation of visual object process- Macerollo, A., Bose, S., Ricciardi, L., Edwards, M.J. &
ing in dorsal and ventral stream by stimulus visibility. Kilner, J.M. (2015). Linking differences in action
Cortex, 83, 113–123. perception with differences in action execution.
Luk, K.K.S., Xiao, W.S. & Cheung, H. (2012). Cultural Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10,
effects on perspective taking in Chinese-English bilin- 1121–1127.
guals. Cognition, 124, 350–355. MacGregor, J.N., Ormerod, T.C. & Chronicle, E.P. (2001).
Luke, S.G. (2018). Influences on and consequences of par- Information processing and insight: A process model
afoveal preview in reading. Attention, Perception, & of performance on the nine-dot and related problems.
Psychophysics, 80, 1675–1682. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
Luke, S.G. & Christianson, K. (2016). Limits on lexical pre- and Cognition, 27, 176–201.
diction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 88, 22–60. Mack, A., Erol, M., Clarke, J. & Bert, J. (2016). No iconic
Lupyan, G. (2016). Not even wrong: The “It’s just X” fallacy. memory without attention. Consciousness and Cognition,
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 40–41. 40, 1–8.
Lupyan, G. (2017). Changing what you see by changing what MacLeod, A.K. (2016). Prospection, well-being and memory.
you know: The role of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, Memory Studies, 9, 266–274.
8 (Article no. 553). MacLeod, C. & Clarke, P. (2015). The attentional bias mod-
Luria, A.R. (1968). The Mind of a Mnemonist. New York: ification approach to anxiety intervention. Clinical
Basic Books. Psychological Science, 3, 58–78.
Lustig, C., Konkel, A. & Jacoby, L.L. (2004). Which route Macnamara, B.N., Hambrick, D.Z. & Oswald, F.L. (2014).
to recovery? Controlled retrieval and accessibility bias Deliberate practice and performance in music, games,
in retroactive interference. Psychological Science, 15, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis.
729–735. Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618.
Lyn, H., Greenfield, P.M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., Gillespie- Macnamara, B.N., Hambrick, D.Z. & Moreau, D. (2016a).
Lynch, K. & Hopkins, W.D. (2011). Nonhuman pri- How important is deliberate practice? Perspectives on
mates do declare! A comparison of declarative symbol Psychological Science, 11, 355–358.
and gesture use in two children, two bonobos and a Macnamara, B.N., Moreau, D. & Hambrick, D.Z. (2016b).
chimpanzee. Language & Communication, 31, 63–74. The relationship between deliberate practice and per-
Lyn, H., Russell, J.L., Leevens, D.A., Bard, K.A., Boysen, formance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on
S.T., Schaeffer, J.A., et al. (2014). Apes communi- Psychological Science, 11, 333–350.
cate about absent and displaced objects: Methodology McNeil, M.R., Hula, W.D. & Sung, J.E. (2010). The role of
matters. Animal Cognition, 17, 85–94. memory and attention in aphasic language performance.
McClain, R. & Goldrick, M. (2018). The neurocognitive In J. Guendouzi, F. Loncke & M. Williams (eds), The
mechanisms of speech production. In S.L. Thompson- Handbook of Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Processes:
Schill (ed.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Perspectives in communication disorders (pp. 567–592).
Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 3: Language Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
and thought: Developmental and social psychology (4th Macoir, J. & Bernier, J. (2002). Is surface dysgraphia tied to
edn; pp. 319–356). New York: Wiley. semantic impairment? Evidence from a case of semantic
MacDonald, M.C. (2013). How language production dementia. Brain and Cognition, 48, 452–457.
shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in MacPherson, S.E. (2018). Definition: Dual-tasking and multi-
Psychology, 4 (Article no. 226). tasking. Cortex, 106, 313–314.
MacDonald, M.C. (2016). Speak, act, remember: The lan- Mãdebach, A., Jescheniak, J.D., Schriefers, H. & Oppermann,
guage-production basis of serial order and maintenance F. (2011). Ease of processing constrains the activation
in verbal memory. Current Directions in Psychological flow in the conceptual-lexical system during speech plan-
Science, 25, 47–53. ning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
MacDonald, M.C., Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). Memory, and Cognition, 37, 649–660.
Working memory constraints on the processing of syn- Madore, K.P., Szpunar, K.K., Addis, D.R. & Schacter, D.L.
tactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98. (2016). Episodic specificity induction impacts activity in
MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J. & Seidenberg, M.S. a core brain network during construction of imagined
(1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolu- future experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy
tion. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. of Sciences, 113 (Article no. 38).

References 875
Madore, K.P., Thakral, P.P., Beaty, R.E., Addis, D.R. & residents. Journal of the American Medical Association,
Schacter, D.L. (2019). Neural mechanisms of episodic 304, 1198–1203.
retrieval support divergent creative thinking. Cerebral Manassi, M., Liberman, A., Kosovicheva, A., Zhang, K. &
Cortex, 29, 150–166. Whitney, D. (2018). Serial dependence in position occurs
Madsen, H.B. & Kim, J.H. (2016). Ontogeny of memory: at the time of perception. (2018). Serial dependence in
An update on 40 years of work on infantile amnesia. position occurs at the time of perception. Psychonomic
Behavioural Brain Research, 298, 4–14. Bulletin & Review, 25, 2245–2253.
Maffei, C., Capasso, R., Cazzolli, G., Colosimo, C., Mandel, D.R. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational
Dell’Acqua, F., Piludu, F., et al. (2017). Pure word deaf- choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
ness following left temporal damage: Behavioural and 143, 1185–1198.
neuroanatomical evidence from a new case. Cortex, 97, Manning, D., Barker-Mill, S.C., Donovan, T. & Crawford,
240–254. T. (2006). Time-dependent observer errors in pulmo-
Magalhães, P. & White, K.G. (2016). The sunk-cost effect nary nodule detection. British Journal of Radiology, 79,
across species: A review of persistence in a course 342–346.
of action due to prior investment. Journal of the Manns, J.R., Hopkins, R.O. & Squire, L.R. (2003). Semantic
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105, 339–361. memory and the human hippocampus. Neuron, 38,
Magnuson, J.S. & Nusbaum, H.C. (2007). Acoustic differ- 127–133.
ences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accom- Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J. & Kegler, J.L.
modation of talker variability. Journal of Experimental (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, reading comprehension change across media platforms?
391–409. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.
Maguire, E.A., Nannery, R. & Spiers, H.J. (2006). Navigation Marien, H., Custers, R., Hassin, R.R. & Aarts, H. (2012).
around London by a taxi driver with bilateral hippocam- Unconscious goal activation and the hijacking of the
pal lesions. Brain, 129, 2894–2907. executive function. Journal of Personality and Social
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R. & Gibson, E. (2016). A Psychology, 103, 399–415.
meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language produc- Marinelli, L., Quartarone, A., Hallett, M., Frazzitta, G. &
tion. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27. Ghilardi, M.F. (2017). The many facets of motor learn-
Maier, N.R.F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: The solu- ing and their relevance for Parkinson’s disease. Clinical
tion of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Neurophysiology, 128, 1127–1141.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181–194. Marinsek, N.L. & Gazzaniga, M.S. (2016). A split-brain per-
Maiworm, M., Bellantoni, M. & Spence, C. (2012). When spective on illusionism. Journal of Consciousness Studies,
emotional valence modulates audiovisual integration. 23, 149–159.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74, 1302–1311. Mark, V. (1996). Conflicting communicative behaviour in a
Makovski, T. (2017). The open-object illusion: Size percep- split-brain patient: Support for dual consciousness. In
tion is greatly influenced by object boundaries. Attention, S. Hameroff, A. Kaszniak & A. Scott (eds), Toward a
Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 1282–1289. Science of Consciousness: The first Tucson discussions and
Mallow, J., Bernarding, J., Luchtmann, M., Bethmann, A. & debates (pp. 189–196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brechmann, A. (2015). Superior memorisers employ dif- Markovits, H., Brisson, J. & de Chantal, P.-L. (2017). Logical
ferent neural networks for encoding and recall. Frontiers reasoning versus information processing in the dual-
in Systems Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 128). strategy model of reasoning. Journal of Experimental
Mallpress, D.E.W., Fawcett, T.W., Houston, A.I. & Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 72–80.
McNamara, J.M. (2015). Risk attitudes in a changing Markovits, H., Brunet, M.-L., Thompson, V. & Brisson,
environment: An evolutionary model of the fourfold J. (2013). Direct evidence for a dual-process model
pattern of risk preferences. Psychological Bulletin, 122, of deductive inference. Journal of Experimental
364–375. Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39,
Mamede, S., Schmidt, H.G., Rikers, R.M.J.P., Custers, 1213–1222.
E.J.F.M., Splinter, T.A.W. & van Saase, J.L.C.M. Markowitsch, H.J. & Kessler, J. (2000). Massive impair-
(2010a). Conscious thought beats deliberation without ment in executive functions with partial preservation of
attention in diagnostic decision-making: At least when other cognitive functions: The case of a young patient
you are an expert. Psychological Research, 74, 586–592. with severe degeneration of the prefrontal cortex.
Mamede, S., van Gog, T., van den Berge, K., Rikers, Experimental Brain Research, 133, 94–102.
R.M.J.P., van Saase, J.L.C.M., van Guldener, C., et Marques, J.F., Raposo, A. & Almeida, J. (2013). Structural
al. (2010b). Effect of availability bias and reflective rea- processing and category-specific deficits. Cortex, 49,
soning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine 266–275.

876 References
Marques, L.M., Lapenta, O.M., Costa, T.L. & Boggio, P.S. Mathews, A. (2012). Effects of modifying the interpretation of
(2016). Multisensory integration processes underlying emotional ambiguity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
speech perception as revealed by the McGurk illusion. 24, 92–105.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 1115–1129. Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. (2012). What’s magic about magic
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the numbers: Chunking and data compression in short-term
human representation and processing of visual informa- memory. Cognition, 122, 346–362.
tion. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Mattys, S.L. (2004). Stress versus co-articulation: Toward
Marrero, H., Gámez, E. & Díaz, J.M. (2016). Do people an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation.
reason when they accept tricky offers? A case of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
approach and avoidance motivated reasoning. Journal of and Performance, 30, 397–408.
Economic Psychology, 57, 26–38. Mattys, S.L., Brooks, J. & Cooke, M. (2009). Recognising
Marsh, E.J. & Roediger, H.L. (2012). Episodic and autobio- speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic
graphical memory. In A.F. Healy & R.W. Proctor (eds), from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 59,
Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 4: Experimental psychol- 203–243.
ogy (2nd edn; pp. 472–494). New York: Wiley. Mattys, S.L., Davis, M.H., Bradlow, A.R. & Scott, S.K.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1987). Functional parallelism in (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A
spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102. review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 953–978.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1990). Activation, competition, and Mattys, S.L., White, L. & Melhorn, J.F. (2005). Integration of
frequency in lexical access. In G.T.M. Altmann (ed.), multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical frame-
Cognitive Models of Speech Processing (pp. 148–172). work. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 477–500.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. & Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal Maule, A.J. & Hodgkinson, G.P. (2002). Heuristics, biases
structure of spoken language comprehension. Cognition, and strategic decision making. The Psychologist, 15,
6, 1–71. 69–71.
Martin, C.D., Branzi, F.M. & Bar, M. (2018). Prediction is Mauss, I.B., Cook, C.L., Cheng, J.Y.J. & Gross, J.J.
production: The missing link between language produc- (2007). Individual differences in cognitive reappraisal:
tion and comprehension. Scientific Reports, 8 (Article Experiential and physiological responses to an anger
no. 1079). provocation. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
Martin, D.H. & Barry, C. (2012). Writing nonsense: The 66, 116–124.
interaction between lexical and sublexical knowledge in Mayberry, E.J., Sage, K. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2011). At
the priming of non-word spelling. Psychonomic Bulletin the edge of semantic space: The breakdown of coherent
& Review, 19, 691–698. concepts in semantic dementia is constrained by typical-
Martin, R.C., Miller, M. & Vu, H. (2004). Lexical-semantic ity and severity but not modality. Journal of Cognitive
retention and speech production: Further evidence from Neuroscience, 23, 2240–2251.
normal and brain-damaged participants for a phrasal Mayer, K.M., Vuong, G.C. & Thornton, I.M. (2015). Do
scope of planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, people “pop out”? PLoS ONE, 10 (Article no. e0139618).
625–644. Mayor, J., Gomez, P., Chang, F. & Lupyan, G. (2014).
Martinez, A., Anilo-Vento, L., Sereno, M.I., Frank, L.R., Connectionism coming of age: Legacy and future chal-
Buxton, R.B., Dubowitz, D.J., et al. (1999). Involvement lenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article no. 187).
of striate and extrastriate visual cortical areas in spatial Mazzi, C., Bagattini, C. & Savazzi, S. (2016). Blind-sight vs.
attention. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 364–369. degraded-sight: Different measures tell a different story.
Mashour, G.A. & Hudetz, A.G. (2018). Neural correlates of Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article no. 901).
unconsciousness in large-scale brain networks. Trends in McBride, P.M. & Workman, R.A. (2017). Is prospective
Neurosciences, 41, 150–160. memory unique? A comparison of prospective and
Mather, G. (2009). Foundations of Sensation and Perception retrospective memory. Psychology of Learning and
(2nd edn). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Motivation, 67, 213–238.
Mather, G. (2015). Computational approaches to percep- McCabe, D.P., Roediger, H.L., McDaniel, M.A., Balota,
tion: Beyond Marr’s (1982) computational approach to D.A. & Hambrick, D.Z. (2010). The relationship
vision. In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), Cognitive between working memory capacity and executive func-
Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 38–46). tioning: Evidence for a common executive attention con-
London: Sage. struct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222–243.
Mather, M., Cacioppo, J.T. & Kanwisher, N. (2013). How McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation relies on the obscure: A key
fMRI can inform cognitive theories. Perspectives on to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixed-
Psychological Science, 8, 108–113. ness. Psychological Science, 23, 215–218.

References 877
McCarthy, R. & Warrington, E.K. (1984). A two-route model McFall, T.A. (2016). Loss aversion on the links: Penalised pro
of speech production. Brain, 107, 463–485. golfers fall prey to decision bias. International Journal of
McClelland, J.L. (1979). On the time relations of mental Applied Behavioral Economics, 5, 24–40.
processes: An examination of systems of processes in McGlone, M.S. & Manfredi, D.A. (2001). Topic-vehicle
cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330. interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory &
McClelland, J.L. & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model Cognition, 29, 1209–1219.
of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86. McGregor, S.J. & Howes, A. (2002). The role of attack and
McClelland, J.L. & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive defence semantics in skilled players’ memory for chess
activation model of context effects in letter perception. positions. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1209–1219.
Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological McGugin, R.W., van Gulick, A.E., Tamber-Rosenau, B.J.,
Review, 88, 375–407. Ross, D.A. & Gauthier, I. (2015). Expertise effects in
McClelland, J.L., Mirman, D., Bolger, D.J. & Khaitan, P. face-selective areas are robust to clutter and diverted
(2014). Interactive activation and mutual constraint sat- attention but not to competition. Cerebral Cortex, 25,
isfaction in perception and cognition. Cognitive Science, 2610–2622.
38, 1139–1189. McGugin, R.W., Newton, A.T., Gore, J.C. & Gauthier,
McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E. & The PDP Research I. (2014). Robust expertise effects in right FFA.
Group (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Vol. 2. Neuropsychologia, 63, 135–144.
Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: McGugin, R.W., Ryan, K.F., Tamber-Rosenau, B.J. &
MIT Press. Gautheir, I. (2018). The role of experience in the face-
McCormick, C., Claramelli, E., de Luca, F. & Maguire, E.A. selective response in right FFA. Cerebral Cortex, 28,
(2018). Comparing and contrasting the cognitive effects 2071–2084.
of hippocampal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing
damage: A review of human lesion studies. Neuroscience, voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.
374, 295–318. McKeeff, T.J., McGugin, R.W., Tong, F. & Gauthier, I.
McCright, A.M., Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., Shwom, R.L., (2010). Expertise increases the functional overlap between
Brechin, S.R. & Allen, S. (2016). Ideology, capitalism, face and object perception. Cognition, 117, 335–360.
and climate: Explaining public views about climate McKeefry, D.J., Burton, M.P., Vakrou, C., Barrett, B.T. &
change in the United States. Energy Research & Social Morland, A.B. (2008). Induced deficits in speed percep-
Science, 21, 180–189. tion by transcranial magnetic stimulation of human cor-
McCrudden, M.T., Barnes, A., McTigue, E.M., Welch, C. & tical areas V5/MT and V3A. Journal of Neuroscience, 28,
MacDonald, E. (2017). The effect of perspective-taking 6848–6857.
on reasoning about strong and weak belief-relevant McKone, E., Kanwisher, N. & Duchaine, B.C. (2007). Can
arguments. Thinking & Reasoning, 23, 115–133. generic expertise explain special processing for faces?
McDaniel, M.A., LaMontagne, P., Beck, S.M., Scullin, M.K. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 8–15.
& Braver, T.S. (2013). Dissociable neural routes to suc- McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.
cessful prospective memory. Psychological Science, 24, Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
1791–1800. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (2017). Adults with poor reading
McDaniel, M.A., Umanath, S., Einstein, G.O. & Waldum, skills and the inferences they make during reading.
E.R. (2015). Dual pathways to prospective remembering. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 292–309.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3 (Article no. 392). McLaughlin, K., Remy, M. & Schmidt, H.G. (2008). Is ana-
McDermott, J.H. (2009). The cocktail party problem. Current lytic information processing a feature of expertise in
Biology, 19, R1024–R1027. medicine? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13,
McDermott, R., Fowler, J.H. & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the 123–128.
evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The McLeod, P. (1977). A dual-task response modality effect:
Journal of Politics, 70, 335–350. Support for multiprocessor models of attention.
McDonald, J.L. (2008). Differences in the cognitive demands Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29,
of word order, plural, and subject-verb agreement 651–667.
constructions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, McNally, R.J. & Geraerts, E. (2009). A new solution to the
980–984. recovered memory debate. Perspectives on Psychological
McDowell, M. & Jacobs, P. (2017). Meta-analysis of the Science, 4, 126–134.
effect of natural frequencies on Bayesian reasoning. McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a com-
Psychological Review, 143, 1273–1312. prehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (ed.),
McEachrane, M. (2009). Emotion, meaning, and appraisal The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 51
theory. Theory & Psychology, 19, 33–53. (pp. 297–384). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

878 References
McNerney, M.W., Goodwin, K.A. & Radvansky, G.A. Melnikoff, D.E. & Bargh, J.A. (2018). The mythical number
(2011). A novel study: A situation model analysis of two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 280–293.
reading times. Discourse Processes, 48, 453–474. Melo, M., Scarpin, D.J., Amaro, E., Passos, R.B.D., Sato,
McQueen, J.M. & Huettig, F. (2012). Changing only the prob- J.R., Friston, K.J., et al. (2012). How doctors generate
ability that spoken words will be distorted changes how diagnostic hypotheses: A study of radiological diagno-
they are recognised. Journal of the Acoustical Society of sis with functional magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS
America, 131, 509–517. ONE, 6 (Article no. e28752).
McQueen, J.M. (1991). The influence of the lexicon on pho- Mély, D.A., Kim, J., McGill, M., Guo, Y. & Serre, T. (2016).
netic categorisation: Stimulus quality in word-final A systematic comparison between visual cues for bound-
ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human ary detection. Vision Research, 120, 93–107.
Perception & Performance, 17, 433–443. Memon, A., Meissner, C.A. & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive
McRae, K., Jacobs, S.E., Ray, R.D., John, O.P. & Gross, interview: A meta-analytic review and study space anal-
J.J. (2012). Individual differences in reappraisal ability: ysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy and
Links to reappraisal frequency, well-being, and cognitive Law, 16, 340–372.
control. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 2–7. Menneer, T., Cave, K.R. & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of
McVay, J.C. & Kane, M.J. (2012). Drifting from low to search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target
“D’oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wander- similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
ing predict extreme reaction times and executive control 15, 125–139.
errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mennin, D.S., Fresco, D.M., Ritter, M. & Heimberg, R.G.
Memory, and Cognition, 38, 525–549. (2015). An open trial of emotion regulation therapy for
Meador, K.J., Loring, D.W., Lee, G.P., Nichols, M.E., Moore, generalised anxiety disorder and co-occurring depres-
E.E. & Figueroa, R.E. (1997). Level of consciousness and sion. Depression and Anxiety, 32, 614–623.
memory during the intracarotid sodium amobarbital pro- Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions
cedure. Brain and Cognition, 33, 178–188. and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20,
Medimorec, S. & Risko, E.F. (2017). Pauses in written com- 689–700.
position: On the importance of where writers pause. Mercier, H. (2018). A related proposal: An interactionist per-
Reading and Writing, 30, 1267–1285. spective on reason. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41
Meehan, T.P., Bressler, S.L., Tang, W., Astafiev, S.V., (Article no. e53).
Sylvester, C.M., Shulman, G.L., et al. (2017). Top-down Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F. & Trouche, E. (2017).
cortical interactions in visuo-spatial attention. Brain Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best
Structure and Function, 222, 3127–3145. of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52,
Megreya, A.M., Sandford, A. & Burton, A.M. (2013). 1–16.
Matching face images taken on the same day or months Mesgarani, N. & Chang, E.F. (2012). Selective cortical rep-
apart: The limitations of photo ID. Applied Cognitive resentation of attended speaker in multi-talker speech
Psychology, 27, 700–706. perception. Nature, 485, 233–237.
Meiser, T. (2011). Much pain, little gain? Paradigm-specific Messina, I., Sambin, M., Beschoner, P. & Viviani, R. (2016).
models and methods in experimental psychology. Changing views of emotion regulation and neurobiologi-
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 183–191. cal models of the mechanism of action of psychotherapy.
Melby-Lervåg, A., Lyster, S.-A.H. & Hulme, C. (2012). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16,
Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: 571–587.
A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, Mesulam, M.M., Wieneke, C., Hurley, R., Rademaker, A.,
322–352. Thompson, C.K., Weintraub, S., et al. (2013). Words
Melinger, A., Branigan, H.P. & Pickering, M.J. (2014). and objects at the tip of the left temporal lobe in primary
Parallel processing in language production. Language, progressive aphasia. Brain, 136, 601–618.
Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 663–683. Metcalfe, J. & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and
Melloni, L., Molina, C., Pena, M., Torres, D., Singer, W. & noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15,
Rodriguez, E. (2007). Synchronisation of neural activity 238–246.
across cortical areas correlates with conscious percep- Metzner, P., von der Malsberg, T., Vasishth, S. & Rösler, F.
tion. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 2858–2865. (2017). The importance of reading naturally: Evidence
Melloni, L., Schwiedrzik, C.M., Muller, N., Rodriguez, from combined recordings of eye movements and elec-
E. & Singer, W. (2011). Expectations change the sig- tric brain potentials. Cognitive Science, 41, 1232–1263.
natures and timing of electrophysiological correlates Meyer, A.S. & Damian, M.F. (2007). Activation of distrac-
of perceptual awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, tor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm.
1386–1396. Memory & Cognition, 35, 494–503.

References 879
Meyer, A.S., Huettig, F. & Levelt, W.J.M. (2016). Same, problem helps to solve a problem. Memory & Cognition,
different, or closely related: What is the relationship 45, 221–232.
between language production and comprehension? Miozzo, M., Shuster, V.P. & Fischer-Baum, S. (2018).
Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 1–7. How modality-specific is morphology? Cognitive
Meyer, D.E. & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1971). Facilitation in Neuropsychology, 35, 371–384.
recognising pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence Mirković, J. & MacDonald, M.C. (2013). When singular and
between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental plural are both grammatical: Semantic and morphoph-
Psychology, 90, 227–234. onological effects in agreement. Journal of Memory and
Meyer, K.N., Du, F., Parks, E. & Hopfinger, J.B. (2018). Language, 69, 277–298.
Exogenous vs. endogenous attention: Shifting the Mirman, D., Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Faseyitan,
balance of fronto-parietal activity. Neuropsychologia, O.K., Coslett, H.B., et al. (2015). Neural organisation of
111, 307–316. spoken language revealed by lesion-symptoms mapping.
Mickes, L., Searle-Carlisle, T.M. & Wixted, J.T. (2013). Nature Communications, 6 (Article no. 7762).
Rethinking familiarity: Remember/know judgments in Mirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F. & Britt, A.E. (2017). Taxonomic
free recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 333–349. and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin,
Migo, E.M., Mayes, A.R. & Montaldi, D. (2012). Measuring 113, 499–520.
recollection and familiarity: Improving the remem- Mirman, D., McClelland, L., Holt, L.L. & Magnuson, J.S.
ber/know procedure. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, (2008). Effects of attention on the strength of lexical
1435–1455. influences on speech perception: Behavioural exper-
Milivojevic, B. (2012). Object recognition can be viewpoint iments and computational mechanisms. Cognitive
dependent or invariant – It’s just a matter of time and Science, 32, 398–417.
task. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6 (Article Mischel, W. (2008). The toothbrush problem. APS Observer,
no. 27). 21, 11.
Milivojevic, B., Hamm, J.P. & Corballis, M.C. (2011). About Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S.C. & Kroll, J.F. (2012). When
turn: How object orientation affects categorisation and bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electro
mental rotation. Neuropsychologia, 49, 3758–3767. physiological evidence for inhibition of the native lan-
Milkowski, M. (2016). Explanatory completeness and ideali- guage. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 224–237.
sation in large brain simulations: A mechanistic perspec- Mitchell, D.B. (2006). Nonconscious priming after 17 years.
tive. Synthese, 193, 1457–1478. Psychological Science, 17, 925–929.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus Mitchell, D.J. & Cusack, R. (2016). Semantic and emo-
two: Some limits on our capacity for processing informational content of imagined representations in human
tion. Psychological Review, 63, 81–93. occipito-temporal cortex. Scientific Reports, 6 (Article
Miller, J., Brookie, K., Wales, S., Kaup., B. & Wallace, S. no. 20232).
(2018). Embodied cognition: Is activation of the motor Mitroff, S.R. & Biggs, A.T. (2014). The ultra-rare-item effect:
cortex essential for understanding action verbs? Journal Visual search for exceedingly rare items is highly suscep-
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and tible to error. Psychological Science, 25, 284–289.
Cognition, 44, 335–370. Mittelstädt, V. & Miller, J. (2017). Separating limits on
Miller, J., Ulrich, R. & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality preparation versus online processing in multitask-
of serial and parallel processing in the psychological ing paradigms: Evidence for resource models. Journal
refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
of stimulus onset asymmetries. Cognitive Psychology, 58, Performance, 43, 89–102.
273–310. Mitterer, H. & Mattys, S.L. (2017). How does cognitive load
Milner, A.D. (2012). Is visual processing in the dorsal stream influence speech perception? An encoding hypothesis.
accessible to consciousness? Proceedings of the Royal Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 344–351.
Society B, 279, 2289–2298. Mitterer, H., Reinisch, E. & McQueen, J.M. (2018).
Milner, A.D. (2017). How do the two visual streams inter- Allophones, not phonemes in spoken-word recognition.
act with each other? Experimental Brain Research, 235, Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 77–92.
1297–1308. Miyake, A. & Friedman, N.P. (2012). The nature and organ-
Milner, A.D. & Goodale, M.A. (1995). The Visual Brain in isation of individual differences in executive func-
Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in
Milner, A.D. & Goodale, M.A. (2008). Two visual systems Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.
re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774–785. Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H.,
Minervino, R.A., Olguín, V. & Trench, M. (2017). Promoting Howerter, A. & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diver-
interdomain analogical transfer: When creating a sity of executive functions and their contributions to

880 References
complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Morawetz, C., Holz, P., Bauedwig, J., Treue, S. & Dechent,
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. P. (2007). Split of attentional resources in human visual
Mohamed, T. & Clifton, C. (2011). Processing temporary syn- cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 24, 817–826.
tactic ambiguity: The effect of contextual bias. Quarterly Morcom, A.M. (2016). Mind over memory: Cuing the aging
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1797–1820. brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25,
Moisala, M., Salmela, V., Hietajärvi, L., Salo, E., Carlson, S., 143–150.
Salonen, O., et al. (2016). Media multitasking is associ- Morewedge, C.K. & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative
ated with distractibility and increased prefrontal activ- processes in intuitive judgement. Trends in Cognitive
ity in adolescents and young adults. NeuroImage, 134, Sciences, 14, 435–440.
113–121. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective
Mole, C.D., Jersakova, R. & Kountouriotis, G.K. (2018). cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal
Metacognitive judgements of perceptual-motor steer- of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56–60.
ing performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Morey, C.C. (2018). The case against specialised visual-
Psychology, 71, 2223–2234. spatial short-term memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144,
Mole, C.D., Kountouriotis, G., Billington, J. & Wilkie, 849–883.
R.M. (2016). Optic flow speed modulates guidance level Morgan, C.A., Southwik, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G.A.
control: New insights into two-level steering. Journal & Loftus, E.F. (2013). Misinformation can influence
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events.
Performance, 42, 1818–1838. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 11–17.
Molenberghs, P., Sale, M.V. & Mattingley, J.B. (2012). Is Morgan, P.H. & Patrick, J. (2013). Paying the price works:
there a critical lesion site for unilateral spatial neglect? Increasing goal-state access cost improves problem
A meta-analysis using activation likelihood estimation. solving and mitigates the effect of interruption. Quarterly
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6 (Article no. 78). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 160–178.
Momma, S. & Phillips, C. (2018). The relationship between Moro, V., Berlucchi, G., Lerch, J., Tomaiuolo, F. & Aglioti,
parsing and generation. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, S.M. (2008). Selective deficit of mental visual imagery
233–254. with intact primary visual cortex and visual perception.
Monahan, P.J. (2018). Phonological knowledge and speech Cortex, 44, 109–118.
comprehension. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, Morris, C.D., Bransford, J.D. & Franks, J.J. (1977). Levels of
421–447. processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal
Monti, M.M., Pickard, J.D. & Owen, A.M. (2013). Visual of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
cognition in disorders of consciousness: From V1 to top- Morrison, R.G., Holyoak, K.J. & Truong, B. (2001).
down attention. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1245–1253. Working-memory modularity in analogical reasoning.
Monti, M.M., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Coleman, M.R., Boly, In J.D. Moore & K. Stenning (eds), Proceedings of the
M., Pickard, J.D., Tshibanda, L., et al. (2010). Wilful Twenty-third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
modulation of brain activity in disorders of con- Society (pp. 663–668). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
sciousness. New England Journal of Medicine, 362, Associates.
579–589. Moscovitch, M. (2008). Commentary: A perspective on pro-
Moore, A.T. & Schwitzgebel, E. (2018). The experience of spective memory. In M. Kliegel, M.A. McDaniel &
reading. Consciousness and Cognition, 62, 57–68. G.O. Einstein (eds), Prospective Memory: Cognitive,
Moore, J.W. (2016). What is the sense of agency and does it neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives
matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article no. 1272). (pp. 309–320). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moore, R. (2015). A common intentional framework for Moscovitch, M., Cabeza, R., Winocur, G. & Nadel, L.
ape and human communication. Current Anthropology, (2016). Episodic memory and beyond: The hippocam-
56, 70. pus and neocortex in transformation. Annual Review of
Moore-Berg, S., Karpinski, A. & Plant, E.A. (2017). Quick to Psychology, 67, 105–134.
the draw: How suspect race and socioeconomic status Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G. & Behrmann, M. (1997). What
influences shooting decisions. Journal of Applied Social is special about face recognition? Nineteen experi-
Psychology, 47, 482–491. ments on a person with visual object agnosia and dys-
Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and lexia but normal face recognition. Journal of Cognitive
mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, Neuroscience, 9, 555–604.
67, 263–287. Moser, J.S., Huppert, J.D., Foa, E.B. & Simons, R.F. (2012).
Moors, A. & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoret- Interpretation of ambiguous social scenarios in social
ical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, phobia and depression: Evidence from event-related
297–326. brain potentials. Biological Psychology, 89, 387–397.

References 881
Mosing, M.A., Madison, G., Pedersen, N.L., Kuja-Halkola, genetic variants in FOXP2 are not associated with indi-
R. & Ullén, F. (2014). Practice does not make perfect: vidual differences in language development. PLoS ONE,
No causal effect of music practice on music ability. 11 (Article no. e0152576).
Psychological Science, 25, 1795–1803. Müller, N.G., Bartelt, O.A., Donner, T.H., Villringer, A. &
Moss, J., Kotovsky, K. & Cagan, J. (2011). The effect of inci- Brandt, S.A. (2003). A physiological correlate of the
dental hints when problems are suspended before, during, “zoom lens” of visual attention. Journal of Neuroscience,
or after an impasse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 23, 3561–3565.
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 140–148. Munding, D., Dubarry, A.-S. & Alario, F.X. (2016). On the
Most, S.B. (2013). Settings sights higher: Category-level atten- cortical dynamics of word production: A review of the
tional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness. MEG evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience,
Psychological Research, 77, 139–146. 31, 441–462.
Motley, M.T. (1980). Verifications of “Freudian slips” and Murphy, C., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Watson, D., Karapana
semantic prearticulatory editing via laboratory-induced giotidis, T., Smallwood, J. & Jefferies, E. (2017).
spoonerisms. In V.A. Fromkin (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Fractionating the anterior temporal lobe: MVPA reveals
Performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New differential responses to input and conceptual modality.
York: Academic Press. NeuroImage, 147, 19–31.
Motta, M., Callaghan, T. & Sylvester, S. (2018). Knowing Murphy, G.L. (2011). Models and concepts. In E.M. Pothod
but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the & A.J. Wills (eds), Formal Approaches in Categorisation
endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social (pp. 299–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Science & Medicine, 211, 274–281. Murphy, G. & Greene, C.M. (2017). Load theory behind the
Mottaghy, F.M. (2006). Interfering with working memory in wheel: Perceptual and cognitive load effects. Canadian
humans. Neuroscience, 139, 85–90. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 191–202.
Moulton, P.L., Petros, T.V., Apostal, K.J., Park, R.V., Murphy, G., Groeger, J.A. & Greene, C.M. (2016). Twenty
Ronning, E.A., King, B.M., et al. (2005). Alcohol- years of load theory – Where are we now, and where
induced impairment and enhancement of memory: A test should we go next? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23,
of the interference theory. Physiology & Behavior, 85, 1316–1340.
240–245. Murray, J.D. & Burke, K.A. (2003). Activation and encod-
Moulton, S.T. & Kosslyn, S.M. (2009). Imagining predictions: ing of predictive inferences: The role of reading skill.
Mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Discourse Processes, 35, 81–102.
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Murty, V.P., Ritchey, M., Adcock, R.A. & LaBar, K.S. (2010).
364, 1273–1280. fMRI studies of successful emotional memory encoding:
Mousikou, P., Sadat, J., Lucas, R. & Rastle, K. (2017). A quantitative meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 48,
Moving beyond the monosyllable in models of skilled 3459–3469.
reading: Mega-study of disyllabic non-word reading. Musel, B., Chauvin, A., Guyader, N., Chokron, S. & Perin,
Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 169–192. C. (2012). Is coarse-to-fine strategy sensitive to normal
Moxley, J.H., Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N. & Krampe, R.T. aging? PloS ONE, 7 (Article no. e38493).
(2012). The role of intuition and deliberative thinking Mustanski, B. (2007). The influence of state and trait affect
in experts’ superior tactical decision-making. Cognition, on HIV risk behaviours: A daily diary study of MSM.
124, 72–78. Health Psychology, 26, 618–626.
Moyes, J., Sari-Sarraf, N. & Gilbert, S. (2019). Characterising Muter, P. (1978). Recognition failure of recallable words in
monitoring processes in event-based prospective memory: semantic memory. Memory & Cognition, 6, 9–12.
Evidence from pupillometry. Cognition, 184, 83–95. Naccache, L. (2018). Why and how access consciousness
Mozuraitis, M., Chambers, C.G. & Daneman, M. (2015). can account for phomenal consciousness. Philosophical
Privileged versus shared knowledge about object iden- Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373 (Article no.
tity in real-time referential processing. Cognition, 142, 20170357).
148–165. Naccache, L., Blandin, E. & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious
Mueller, K.D., Koscik, R.L., Hermann, B.P., Johnson, S.C. masked priming depends on temporal attention.
& Turkstra, L.S. (2018). Declines in connected language Psychological Science, 13, 416–424.
are associated with very early mild cognitive impairment: Nachar, R.A., Inaty, E., Bonnin, P.J. & Alayli, Y. (2015).
Results from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Breaking down Captcha using edge corners and fuzzy
prevention. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9 (Article logic segmentation/recognition technique. Security and
no. 437). Communication Networks, 8, 3995–4012.
Mueller, K.L., Murray, J.C., Michaelson, J.J., Christiansen, Nahmais, E. (2015). Why we have free will. Scientific
M.H., Reilly, S. & Tomblin, J.B. (2016). Common American, 312 (January), 77–79.

882 References
Nairne, J.S. (2015a). Encoding and retrieval: Beyond Tulving Neisser, U. (1996). Remembering as doing. Behavioral and
and Thomson’s (1973) encoding specificity. In M.W. Brain Sciences, 19, 203–204.
Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), Cognitive Psychology: Nelson, L.D., Simmons, J. & Simonsohn, U. (2018).
Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 117–132). London: Sage. Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology,
Nairne, J.S. (2015b). The three “Ws” of episodic memory: 69, 511–534.
What, when, and where. American Journal of Psychology, Neumann, M.F., End, A., Luttmann, S., Scheweinberger, S.R.
128, 267–279. & Wiese, H. (2015). The own-age bias in face memory
Nairne, J.S., Thompson, S.R. & Pandeirada, J.N.S. (2007). is unrelated to differences in attention – Evidence
Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances reten- from event-related potentials. Cognitive, Affective &
tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 180–194.
Memory, and Cognition, 33, 263–273. Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving.
Namdar, G., Tzelgov, J., Algom, D. & Ganel, T. (2014). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grasping numbers: Evidence for automatic influence Newell, A., Shaw, J.C. & Simon, H.A. (1958). Elements of a
of numerical magnitude on grip aperture. Psychonomic theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review,
Bulletin & Review, 21, 830–835. 65, 151–166.
Nardo, D., Holland, R., Leff, A.P., Price, C.J. & Crinion, Newell, B.R. (2015). Decision making under risk: Beyond
J.T. (2018). Less is more: Neural mechanisms underly- Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory.
ing anomia treatment in chronic aphasic patients. Brain, In M.W. Eysenck & D. Groome (eds), Cognitive
140, 3039–3054. Psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 162–178).
Nascimento, S.M.C., de Almeida, V.M.N., Fiadeiro, P.T. & London: Sage.
Foster, D.H. (2004). Minimum-variance cone-excitation Newell, B.R. (2011). Recognising the recognition heuristic
ratios and the limits of relational colour constancy. for what it is (and what it’s not). Judgment and Decision
Visual Neuroscience, 21, 337–340. Making, 6, 409–412.
Nascimento, S.M.C., Amano, K. & Foster, D.H. (2016). Newell, B.R., Weston, N.J. & Shanks, D.R. (2003). Empirical
Spatial distributions of local illumination colour in tests of a fast and frugal heuristic: Not everyone “takes-
natural scenes. Vision Research, 120, 39–44. the-best”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Naselaris, T., Olman, C.A., Stansbury, D.E., Ugurbil, K. & Processes, 91, 82–96.
Gallant, J.L. (2015). A voxel-wise encoding model for Newman, I.R., Gibb, M. & Thompson, V.A. (2017). Rule-
early visual areas decodes mental images of remembered based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be
scenes. NeuroImage, 105, 215–228. slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and
Navarrete, G. & Mandel, D.R. (eds) (2016). Improving base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Bayesian reasoning: What works and why? Frontiers in Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1154–1170.
Psychology, 6, 1–207. Newman-Toker, D.E., Kerber, K.A., Hsieh, Y.-H., Pula,
Navarro, D.J. & Perfors, A.F. (2011). Hypothesis genera- J.H., Omron, R., Tehrani, A.S.S., et al. (2013). HINTS
tion, sparse categories, and the positive test strategy. outperforms ABCD2 to screen for stroke in acute con-
Psychological Review, 118, 120–134. tinuous vertigo and dizziness. Academic Emergency
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence Medicine, 20, 987–996.
of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Newsome, M.R. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2006). How falsity
Psychology, 9, 353–383. dispels fallacies. Thinking & Reasoning, 12, 214–234.
Navon, D. & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A criti- Newstead, S.E., Handley, S.J. & Buck, E. (1999). Falsifying
cal evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive mental models: Testing the predictions of theories
Psychology, 44, 193–251. of syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 27,
Nee, D.E., Brown, J.W., Askren, M.K., Berman, M.G., 344–354.
Demiralp, E., Krawitz, A., et al. (2013). A meta-analysis Nguyen, K. & McDaniel, M.A. (2016). The JOIs of text
of executive components of working memory. Cerebral comprehension: Supplementing retrieval practice to
Cortex, 23, 264–282. enhance inference performance. Journal of Experimental
Neely, J.H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical Psychology: Applied, 22, 59–71.
memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation Nicolle, A., Fleming, S.M., Bach, D.R., Driver, J. & Dolan,
and limited capacity attention. Journal of Experimental R.J. (2011). A regret-induced status quo bias. Journal of
Psychology: General, 106, 226–254. Neuroscience, 31, 3320–3327.
Neghavi, H.R. & Nyberg, L. (2005). Common fronto-parietal Niebergall, R., Khayat, P.S., Treue, S. & Martinez-Trujillo,
activity in attention, memory, and consciousness: Shared J.C. (2011). Multifocal attention filters targets from dis-
demands on integration? Consciousness and Cognition, tractors within and beyond primate MT neurons’ recep-
14, 390–425. tive field boundaries. Neuron, 72, 1067–1079.

References 883
Niendam, T.A., Laird, A.R., Kimberly, L.R., Dean, Y.M., Nooteboom, S.G. & Quené, H. (2017). Self-monitoring for
Glahn, D.C. & Carter, C.S. (2012). Meta-analytic evi- speech errors: Two-stage detection and repair with and
dence for a superordinate cognitive control network sub- without auditory feedback. Journal of Memory and
serving diverse executive functions. Cognitive, Affective, Language, 95, 19–35.
and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 241–268. Nørby, S. (2015). Why forget? On the adaptive value of
Nieuwenstein, M.R., Wierenga, T., Morey, R.D., Wicherts, memory loss. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10,
J.M., Blom, T.N., Wagenmakers, E.-J., et al. (2015). On 551–578.
making the right choice: A meta-analysis and large-scale Nordgren, L.F., Bos, M.W. & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). The
replication attempt of the unconscious thought advan- best of both worlds: Integrating conscious and uncon-
tage. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 1–17. scious thought best solves complex decisions. Journal of
Nieuwland, M.S. (2019). Do “early” brain responses reveal Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 509–511.
word form prediction during language comprehension? A Norman, D.A. (1980). Twelve issues for cognitive science.
critical review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Cognitive Science, 4, 1–32.
96, 367–400. Norris, D. (2013). Models of visual word recognition. Trends
Nieuwland, M.S. & van Berkum, J.J.A. (2006a). When peanuts in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 517–524.
fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of d iscourse. Norris, D. (2017). Short-term memory and long-term
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098–1111. memory are still different. Psychological Bulletin, 143,
Nieuwland, M.S. & van Berkum, J.J.A. (2006b). Individual 992–1009.
differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Norris, D. & Kinoshita, S. (2012). Reading through a
Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155–116. noisy channel: Why there’s nothing special about the
Nieuwland, M.S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Neyselaar, E., Segaert, perception of orthography. Psychological Review, 119,
K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., et al. (2018). Large-scale 517–545.
replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic predic- Norris, D., McQueen, J.M. & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual
tion in language comprehension. eLife, 7 (Article no. learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204–238.
e33468). Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., Cutler, A. & Butterfeld, S. (1997).
Nijboer, M., Borst, J., van Rijn, H. & Taatgen, N. (2014). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of con-
Single-task fMRI overlap predicts concurrent multitask- tinuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191–243.
ing interference. NeuroImage, 100, 60–74. Nozari, N. & Novick, J. (2017). Monitoring and control in
Nijboer, M., Borst, J., van Rijn, H. & Taatgen, N. (2016a). language production. Current Directions in Psychological
Contrasting single and multi-component working- Science, 26, 403–410.
memory systems in dual tasking. Cognitive Psychology, Nozari, N., Dell, G.S. & Schwartz, M.F. (2011). Is com-
86, 1–26. prehension necessary for error detection? Cognitive
Nijboer, M., Taatgen, N.A., Brands, A., Borst, J.P. & van Psychology, 63, 1–33.
Rijn, H. (2013). Decision making in concurrent mul- Nurullah, A.S. (2015). Cell phone conversation while driving.
titasking: Do people adapt to task interference? PLoS In Zheng Yan (ed.), Encylopaedia of Mobile Phone
ONE, 8 (Article no. e79583). Behaviour, Vol. III (pp. 1328–1339). Hershey, PA: IGI
Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can Global.
know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Nuttall, H.E., Kennedy-Higgins, D., Hogan, J., Devlin, J.T. &
Review, 84, 231–259. Adank, P. (2016). The effect of speech distortion on the
Nitschke, K., Ruh, N., Kappler, S., Stahl, C. & Kaller, excitability of articulatory motor cortex. NeuroImage,
C.P. (2012). Dissociable stages of problem solving (1): 128, 218–226.
Temporal characteristics revealed by eye-movement Nuzzo, R. (2015). Fooling ourselves. Nature, 526, 182–185.
analyses. Brain and Cognition, 80, 160–169. Nyholm, S. (2018). The ethics of crashes with self-driving
Nodine, C. & Mello-Thoms, C. (2010). The Role of Expertise cars: A roadmap, 1. Philosophy Compass, 13 (Article no.
in Radiologic Image Interpretation: Medical image per- e12507).
ception and techniques. New York: Cambridge University Oaksford, M. (1997). Thinking and the rational analysis of
Press. human reasoning. The Psychologist, 10, 257–260.
Nooteboom, S.G. & Quené, H. (2008). Self-monitoring and Oaksford, M. (2015). Imaging deductive reasoning and the
feedback: A new attempt to find the main cause of lexical new paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9
bias in phonological speech errors. Journal of Memory (Article no. 101).
and Language, 58, 837–861. Oaksford, M. & Hall, S. (2016). On the source of human
Nooteboom, S.G. & Queué, H. (2013). Heft hemisphere: irrationality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 336–344.
Exchanges predominate in segmental speech errors. Oaksford, M., Chater, N., Gerainger, B. & Larkin, J. (1997).
Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 26–38. Optimal data selection in the Reduced Array Selection

884 References
Test (RAST). Journal of Experimental Psychology: & D.D. Preiss (eds), Writing: A mosaic of perspectives
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 441–458. (pp. 125–140). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Oatley, K. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1987). Towards a cognitive Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of
theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 29–50. the writing system: A review of research on writing pro-
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G.D.A., cesses’ co-ordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6,
Conway, A., Cowan, N., et al. (2018). Benchmarks 173–194.
for models of short-term and working memory. Olive, T., Kellogg, R.T. & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual,
Psychological Bulletin, 144, 885–958. and spatial working memory demands during text com-
O’Brien, E.J. & Cook, A.E. (2014). Knowledge activation, position. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669–687.
integration, and validation during narrative text compre- Olive, T. & Passerault, J.-M. (2012). The visuospatial dimen-
hension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49. sion of writing. Written Communication, 29, 326–344.
O’Brien, E.J. & Cook, A.E. (2016). Coherence threshold and Oliveri, M. & Caltagirone, C. (2006). Suppression of extinc-
the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of com- tion with TMS in humans: From healthy controls to
prehension. Discourse Processes, 53, 326–338. patients. Behavioural Neurology, 17, 163–167.
O’Brien, G.E., McCloy, D.R., Kubota, E.C. & Yeatman, J.D. Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H. & Kaakinen, J.K. (2016). Individual
(2018). Reading ability and phoneme categorisation. differences in the processing of written sarcasm and
Scientific Reports, 8 (Article no. 16842). metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal
Ochsner, K.N., Ray, R.R., Hughes, B., McRae, K., Cooper, of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
J.C., Weber, J., et al. (2009). Bottom-up and top-down Cognition, 42, 433–450.
processes in emotion generation: Common and dis- Öllinger, M., Jones, G. & Knoblich, G. (2014). The dynamics
tinct neural mechanisms. Psychological Science, 20, of search, impasse, and representational change provide
1322–1331. a coherent explanation of difficulty in the nine-dot
O’Craven, K., Downing, P. & Kanwisher, N. (1999). fMRI problem. Psychological Research, 78, 266–275.
evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Olson, A., Halloran, E. & Romani, C. (2015a). Target/error
Nature, 401, 584–587. overlap in jargonaphasia: The case for a one-source
Odinot, G., Wolters, G. & van Koppen, P.J. (2009). model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the
Eyewitness memory of a supermarket robbery: A case special status of correct responses. Cortex, 73, 158–179.
study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law Olson, J.A., Amlani, A.A., Raz, A. & Rensink, R.A. (2015b).
and Human Behavior, 33, 506–514. Influencing choice without awareness. Consciousness and
Oeberst, A. & Blank, H. (2012). Undoing suggestive influence Cognition, 37, 225–236.
on memory: The reversibility of the eyewitness misinfor- Olson, J.A., Landry, M., Appourchaux, K. & Raz, A. (2016).
mation effect. Cognition, 125, 141–159. Simulated thought insertion: Influencing the sense of
Oehler, A., Wendt, S., Wedlich, F. & Horn, M. (2018). agency using deception and magic. Consciousness and
Investors’ personality influences investment decisions: Cognition, 43, 11–26.
Experimental evidence on extraversion and neuroticism. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproduc-
Journal of Behavioral Finance, 19, 30–48. ibility of psychological science. Science, 349 (Article no.
Oh, H., Beck, J.M., Zhu, P., Sommer, M.A., Ferrari, S. & aac4716).
Egner, T. (2016). Satisficing in split-second decision Ophir, E., Nass, C. & Wagner, A.D. (2009). Cognitive control
making is characterised by strategic cue discounting. in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Association of Sciences, 106, 15583–15587.
and Cognition, 42, 1937–1956. Oppenheimer, D.M. (2004). Spontaneous discounting of
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information processing explanations availability in frequency judgment tasks. Psychological
of insight and related phenomena. In M.T. Keane & Science, 15, 100–105.
K.J. Gilhooly (eds), Advances in the Psychology Oppenheimer, D.M. & Monin, B. (2009). Investigations in spo
of Thinking (Vol. 1; pp. 1–44). London: Harvester ntaneous discounting. Memory & Cognition, 37, 608–614.
Wheatsheaf. Orchard-Mills, E., Van der Burg, E. & Alais, D. (2016). Cross-
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep Learning: How the mind overrides modal correspondence between auditory pitch and visual
experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. elevation affects temporal ventriloquism. Perception, 45,
Olguin, A., Bekinschtein, T.A. & Bozic, M. (2018). Neural 409–424.
encoding of attended continuous speech under different O’Reilly, R.C., Wyatte, D., Herd, S., Mingus, B. & Jilk, D.J.
types of interference. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (2013). Recurrent processing during object recognition.
30, 1606–1619. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (Article no. 124).
Olive, T. (2012). Writing and working memory: A summary of Ortega, J., Montañes, P., Barnhart, A. & Kuhn, G. (2018).
theories and findings. In E.L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino Exploiting failures in metacognition through magic:

References 885
Visual awareness as a source of visual metacognition in Alzheimer’s disease: A case study of Iris Murdoch’s
bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 65, 152–168. writing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 136–144.
Osiurak, F. & Badets, A. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Paller, K.A. (2017). Sleeping in a brave new world:
Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Opportunities for improving learning and clinical out-
Psychological Review, 123, 534–568. comes through targeted memory reactivation. Current
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y. & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affor- Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 532–537.
dance? 40 years later. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Palmer, S.E. (1975). The effects of contextual scenes on the
Reviews, 77, 403–417. identification of objects. Memory & Cognition, 3, 519–526.
Osman, M., Wilkinson, L., Beigi, M., Castaneda, C.S. & Palmer, S.E. & Rock, I. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organ-
Jahanshahi, M. (2008). Patients with Parkinson’s disease isation: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic
learn to control complex systems via procedural as Bulletin & Review, 1, 29–55.
well as non-procedural learning. Neuropsychologia, 46, Palmeri, T.J., Love, B.C. & Turner, B.M. (2017). Model-
2355–2363. based cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Mathematical
Otworowska, M., Blokpoel, M., Sweers, M., Wareham, T. & Psychology, 76, 59–64.
van Rooioj, I. (2018). Demons of ecological rationality. Palombo, D.J., Sheldon, S. & Levine, B. (2018). Individual
Cognitive Science, 42, 1057–1065. differences in autobiographical memory. Trends in
Oudman, E., Nijboer, T.C.W., Postma, A., Wijnin, J.W. & Van Cognitive Sciences, 22, 583–597.
der Stigchel, S. (2015). Procedural learning and memory Pan, S.C. & Rickard, T.C. (2018). Transfer of test-
rehabilitation in Korsakoff’s syndrome – A review of the enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.
literature. Neuropsychological Review, 25, 134–148. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 710–756.
Overgaard, M. & Mogensen, J. (2015). Reconciling current Panouillères, M.T.N., Boyles, R., Chesters, J., Watkins,
approaches to blindsight. Consciousness and Cognition, K.E. & Möttonen, R. (2018). Facilitation of
32, 33–40. motor excitability during listening to spoken sen-
Overgaard, M., Fehl, K., Mouridsen, K., Bergholt, B. & tences is not modulated by noise or semantic
Cleermans, K. (2008). Seeing without seeing? Degraded coherence. R.M., Stark, C.E.L., Cortex, 103, 44–54.
conscious vision in a blindsight patient. PLoS One, 3 Papageorgiou, C. (2006). Worry and rumination: Styles
(Article no. e3028). of persistent negative thinking in anxiety and depres-
Owen, A.M. (2013). Detecting consciousness: a unique role sion. In G.L.C. Davey & A. Wells (eds), Worry and its
for neuroimaging. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, Psychological Disorders: Theory, assessment, and treat-
109–133. ment (pp. 21–40). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Pachur, T. & Spaar, M. (2015). Domain-specific prefer- Papagno, C., Comi, A., Riva, M., Bizzi, A., Vernice, M.,
ences for intuition and deliberation in decision making. Casarotti, A., et al. (2017). Mapping the brain network
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, of the phonological loop. Human Brain Mapping, 38,
303–311. 3011–3024.
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R. & Steinmann, F. (2012a). How do Papesh, M.H. & Goldinger, S.D. (2014). Infrequent iden-
people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, tity mismatches are frequently undetected. Attention,
or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 1335–1349.
18, 314–330. Papesh, M.H., Heisick, L.L. & Warner, K.A. (2018). The per-
Pachur, T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Murphy, R.O. & sistent low-prevalence effect in unfamiliar face-matching:
Hertwig, R. (2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allo- The roles of feedback and criterion shifting. Journal of
cation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24, 416–430.
General, 147, 147–169. Papo, D. (2015). How can we study reasoning in the brain?
Pachur, T., Todd, P.M., Gigerenzer, G., Schooler, L.J. & Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 222).
Goldstein, D.G. (2012b). When is the recognition heu- Pappas, Z. & Mack, A. (2008). Potentiation of action by
ristic an adaptive tool? In P.M. Todd, G. Gigerenzer undetected affordant objects. Visual Cognition, 16,

& ABC Research Group (eds), Ecological Rationality: 892–915.
Intelligence in the world (pp. 113–143). Oxford: Oxford Parker, S.M. & Serre, T. (2015). Unsupervised invariance
University Press. learning of transformation sequences in a model of
Painter, D.R., Dwyer, M.F., Kamke, M.R. & Mattingley, object recognition yield selectivity for non-accidental
J.S. (2018). Stimulus-driven cortical hyperexcitability in properties. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 9
individuals with Charles Bonnet hallucinations. Current (Article no. 115).
Biology, 28, 3475–3480. Parker, E.S., Cahill, L. & McGaugh, J.L. (2006). A case of
Pakhomov, S., Chacon, D., Wicklund, M. & Gundel, J. unusual autobiographical remembering. Neurocase, 12,
(2011). Computerised assessment of syntactic complexity 35–49.

886 References
Parketny, J., Towler, J. & Eimer, M. (2015). The activation semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews
of visual face memory and explicit face recogni- Neuroscience, 8, 976–987.
tion are delayed in developmental prosopagnosia. Patterson, R., Fournier, L., Pierce, B., Winterbottom, M.
Neuropsychologia, 75, 538–547. & Tripp, L. (2009). Modelling the dynamics of rec-
Parkinson, B. (2001). Putting appraisal in context. In K.R. ognition-primed decision making. Proceedings of the
Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (eds), Appraisal 9th International Conference on Naturalistic Decision
Processes in Emotion: Theory, methods, research. Oxford: Making. London, June.
Oxford University Press. Pauker, E., Itzhak, I., Baum, S.R. & Steinhauer, K. (2011).
Parkinson, B. (2011). How social is the social psychology Effects of cooperating and conflicting prosody in spoken
of emotion? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, English garden path sentences: ERP evidence for the
405–413. boundary deletion hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive
Parkinson, B. (2015). Pushing and pulling the boundaries Neuroscience, 23, 2731–2751.
of emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 93–98. Paulo, R.M., Albuquerque, P.B. & Bull, R. (2016). The
Parkinson, B. & Manstead, A.S.R. (2015). Current emotion enhanced cognitive interview: Expressions of uncer-
research in social psychology: Thinking about emotions tainty, motivation and its relation with report accuracy.
and other people. Emotion Review, 7, 371–380. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 366–381.
Parks, C.M. (2013). Transfer-appropriate processing in rec- Paulo, R.M., Albuquerque, P.B., Vitorino, F. & Bull, R.
ognition memory: Perceptual and conceptual effects on (2017). Enhancing the cognitive interview with an alter-
recognition memory depend on task demands. Journal native procedure to witness-compatible questioning:
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Category clustering recall. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23,
Cognition, 39, 1280–1286. 967–982.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Pavan, A., Ghin, F., Donato, R., Campana, G. & Mather,
Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244. G. (2017). The neural basis of form and form-motion
Pastötter, B. & Bäuml, K-H.T. (2016). Reversing the testing integration from static and dynamic translational Glass
effect by feedback: Behavioural and electrophysiologi- patterns: A rTMS investigation. NeuroImage, 157,

cal evidence. Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16, 555–560.
473–488. Pavlova, M.A., Erb, M., Hagberg, G.E., Loureiro, J., Sokolov,
Patal, E.Z., Gadian, D.G., Cooper, J.M., Dziecial, A.M., A.N. & Scheffer, K. (2017). “Wrong way up”: Temporal
Mishkin, M. & Vargha-Khadem, F. (2015). Extent of and spatial dynamics of the networks for body motion
hippocampal atrophy predicts degree of deficit in recall. processing at 9.4 T. Cerebral Cortex, 27, 5318–5330.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, Payne, B.K. (2006). Weapon bias: Split-second decisions
12830–12833. and unintended stereotyping. Current Perspectives in
Patihis, L., Frenda, S.J., LePort, A.K.R., Petersen, N., Psychological Science, 15, 287–291.
Nichols, R.M., Stark, C.E.L., et al. (2013). False memo- Payne, J. (1976). Task complexity and contingent process-
ries in highly superior autobiographical memory individ- ing in decision making: An information search and
uals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
110, 20947–20952. Performance, 16, 366–387.
Patsenko, E.G. & Altmann, E.M. (2010). How planful is Payne, S.J. & Duggan, G.B. (2011). Giving up problem
routine behaviour? A selective-attention model of perfor- solving. Memory & Cognition, 39, 902–913.
mance in the Tower of Hanoi. Journal of Experimental Paynter, C.A., Kotovsky, K. & Reder, L.M. (2010). Problem-
Psychology: General, 139, 95–116. solving without awareness: An ERP investigation.
Pattamadilok, C., Perre, L. & Ziegler, J.C. (2011). Beyond Neuropsychologia, 48, 3137–3144.
rhyme or reason: ERPs reveal task-specific activation of Pearson, J. & Kosslyn, S.M. (2015). The heterogeneity of
orthography on spoken language. Brain and Language, mental representation: Ending the imagery debate.
116, 116–124. Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences, 112,
Patterson, K. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (1999). Selective dis- 10089–10092.
orders of reading? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, Pearson, J., Clifford, C.W.G. & Tong, F. (2008). The func-
235–239. tional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception.
Patterson, K. & Plaut, D.C. (2009). “Shallow draughts intox- Current Biology, 18, 982–986.
icate the brain”: Lessons from cognitive science for cog- Peckham, A.D., McHugh, R.K. & Otto, M.W. (2010). A
nitive neuropsychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, meta-analysis of the magnitude of biased attention in
39–58. depression. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 1135–1142.
Patterson, K., Nestor, P.J. & Rogers, T.T. (2007). Where Pedrazzini, E., Schnider, A. & Ptak, R. (2017). A neuro-
do you know what you know? The representation of anatomical model of space-based and object-centred

References 887
processing in spatial neglect. Brain Structure and and evaluation of CDP++ in French. Journal of Memory
Function, 222, 3605–3613. and Language, 72, 98–115.
Pellicano, A., Borghi, A.M. & Binkofski, F. (2017). Editorial: Persaud, N. & Cowey, A. (2008). Blindsight is unlike normal
Bridging the theories of affordances and limb apraxia. conscious vision: Evidence from an exclusion task.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11 (Article no. 148). Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1050–1055.
Peltier, C. & Becker, M.W. (2016). Decision processes in Persaud, N. & Lau, H. (2008). Direct assessment of qualia in
visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal a blindsight participant. Consciousness and Cognition, 17,
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and 1046–1049.
Performance, 42, 1466–1478. Persaud, N. & McLeod, P. (2008). Wagering demonstrates
Penaloza, A.A. & Calvillo, D.P. (2012). Incubation pro- subconscious processing in a binary exclusion task.
vides relief from artificial fixation in problem solving. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 565–575.
Creativity Research Journal, 24, 338–344. Persaud, N., Davidson, M., Maniscalco, B., Mobbs, D.,
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, Passingham, R.E., Cowey, A., et al. (2011). Awareness-
H.L., et al. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation related activity in prefrontal and parietal cortices in
between reading and working memory. Psychological blindsight reflects more than superior visual perfor-
Bulletin, 144, 48–76. mance. NeuroImage, 58, 605–611.
Penhune, V.B. & Steele, C.J. (2012). Parallel contributions Persuh, M. & Melara, R.D. (2016). Barack Obama Blindness
of cerebellar, striatal and M1 mechanisms to motor (BOB): Absence of visual awareness to a single
sequence learning. Behavioural Brain Research, 226, object. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10 (Article
579–591. no. 118).
Pennycook, G. & Thompson, V.A. (2012). Reasoning with Pessoa, L. (2017). A network model of the emotional brain.
base rates is routine, relatively effortless, and context Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 257–371.
dependent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 528–534. Peters, M.A.K., Ro, T. & Lau, H. (2016). Who’s afraid of
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J.A. & Koehler, D.J. (2015). What response bias? Neuroscience of Consciousness, 1 (Article
makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of no. niw001).
analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. Petrone, C., Truckenbrodt, H., Wellmann, C., Holzgrefe-
Perenin, M.-T. & Vighetto, A. (1988). Optic ataxia: A spe- Lang, J., Wartenburger, I. & Höhle, B. (2017). Prosodic
cific disruption in visuomotor mechanisms. 1. Different boundary cues in German: Evidence from the pro-
aspects of the deficit in reaching for objects. Brain, 111, duction and perception of bracketed lists. Journal of
643–674. Phonetics, 61, 71–92.
Peretz, I. & Coltheart, M. (2003). Modularity of music pro- Pezdek, K. (2003). Event memory and autobiographical
cessing. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 688–691. memory for the events of September 11, 2001. Applied
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1033–1045.
of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, Phillips, W.J., Hine, D.W. & Thorsteinsson, E.B. (2010).
18, 22–37. Implicit cognition and depression: A meta-analysis.
Perfors, A.F. & Navarro, D.J. (2009). Confirmation bias is Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 691–709.
rational when hypotheses are sparse. Proceedings of the Piai, V., Riès, S.K. & Swick, D. (2016). Lesions to lateral pre-
31st. Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, frontal cortex impair lexical interference control in word
Amsterdam, 2741–2746. production. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article
Perkins, A.M., Leonar, A.M., Ettinger, U., Weaver, K., no. 721).
Dalton, J.A., Mehta, M.A., et al. (2013). A dose of ruth- Piantadosi, S.T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2012). The commu-
lessness: Interpersonal moral judgment is hardened by nicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition,
the anti-anxiety drug lorazepam. Journal of Experimental 122, 280–291.
Psychology: General, 142, 612–620. Pickel, K.L. (2009). The weapon focus effect on memory for
Perry, A., Stiso, J., Chang, E.F., Lin, J.J., Parvizi, J. & female versus male perpetrators. Memory, 17, 664–678.
Knight, R.T. (2018). Mirroring in the human brain: Pickering, M.J. & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while compre-
Deciphering the spatial-temporal patterns of the human hending language: A theory and review. Psychological
mirror neuron system. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 1039–1048. Bulletin, 144, 1002–1044.
Perry, C., Ziegler, J.C. & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremen- Pickering, M.J. & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of
tal modelling in the development of computational the- language production and comprehension. Behavioral and
ories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Brains Sciences, 36, 329–347.
Review, 114, 273–315. Pilkington, E., Keidel, J., Kendrick, L.T., Saddy, J.D., Sage,
Perry, C., Ziegler, J.C. & Zorzi, M. (2014). When silent letters K. & Robson, H. (2017). Sources of phoneme errors in
say more than a thousand words: An implementation repetition: Perseverative, neologistic, and lesion patterns

888 References
in jargon aphasia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11 Pleskac, T.J. (2012). Comparability effects in probability judg-
(Article no. 225). ments. Psychological Science, 23, 848–854.
Pilz, K.S., Roggeveen, A.B., Creighton, S.E., Bennett, P.J. Pobric, G., Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2010a).
& Sekuler, A.B. (2012). How prevalent is object-based Amodal semantic representations depend on both ante-
attention? PloS ONE, 7 (Article no. e30693). rior temporal lobes: Evidence from repetitive transcranial
Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: W.W. magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1336–1342.
Norton. Pobric, G., Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2010b).
Pinna, D., Porcheddu, D. & Deiana, K. (2016). From group- Category-specific versus category-general semantic
ing to coupling: A new perceptual organisation in vision, impairment induced by transcranial magnetic stimula-
psychology, and biology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 tion. Current Biology, 20, 964–968.
(Article no. 1051). Poeppel, D. & Monahan, P.J. (2011). Feedforward and feed-
Pinto, J. (2006). Developing body representations: A review back in speech perception: Revisiting analysis by synthe-
of infants’ responses to biological-motion displays. In sis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 935–951.
G. Knoblich, M. Grosjean, J. Thornton & M. Shiffrar Pohl, R.F., Michalkiewicz, M., Erdfelder, E. & Hilbig, B.E.
(eds), Perception of the Human Body from the Inside Out (2017). Use of the recognition heuristic depends on the
(pp. 305–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press. domain’s recognition validity, not on the recognition
Pinto, Y., Neville, D.A., Otten, M., Corballis, P.M., Lamme, validity of selected sets of objects. Memory & Cognition,
V.A.F., de Haan, E.H.F., et al. (2017). Split brain: 45, 776–791.
Divided perception but undivided consciousness. Brain, Poldrack, R.A. & Yarkoni, T. (2016). From brain maps to cog-
140, 1231–1237. nitive ontologies: Informatics and the search for mental
Pirogovsky-Turk, E., Filoteo, J.V., Litvan, I. & Harrington, structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 587–612.
D.L. (2015). Structural MRI correlates of episodic Poldrack, R.A., Baker, C., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K.J.,
memory processes in Parkinson’s disease without mild Matthews, P.M., Munafo, M.R., et al. (2017). Scanning
cognitive impairment. Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, 5, the horizon: Towards transparent and reproducible neu-
971–981. roimaging research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18,
Pisella, L., Binkofski, F., Lasek, K., Toi, L. & Rossetti, Y. 115–126.
(2006). No double dissociation between optic ataxia Pope, D.G. & Schweitzer, M.E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods loss
and visual agnosia: Multiple sub-streams for multi- averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, compe-
ple visuo-manual integrations. Neuropsychologia, 44, tition, and high stakes. American Economic Review, 101,
2734–2748. 129–157.
Pitts, M.A., Lutsyshyna, L.A. & Hillyard, S.A. (2018). The Pope, S.M., Meguerditchian, A. & Hopkins, W.D. (2015).
relationship between attention and consciousness: An Baboons (Papio papio), but not humans, break cogni-
expanded taxonomy and implications for no-report par- tive set in a visuo-motor task. Animal Cognition, 18,
adigms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1339–1346.
B, 373 (Article no. 21070348). Popov, V., Ostarek, M. & Tenison, C. (2018). Practices and
Pitts, M.A., Lutsyshyna, L.A. & Hillyard, S.A. (2019). Reply pitfalls in inferring neural representations. NeuroImage,
to Montemayor and Halajian. Philosophical Transactions 174, 340–351.
of the Royal Society B, 374 (Article no. 20190003). Popper, K.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Plait, P. (2016). A fantastic optical illusion: Just another brick London: Hutchinson.
in the wall? Retrieved from www.slate.com/blogs/bad_ Posner, M.I. (1980). Orienting of attention. The VIIth
astronomy/2016/05/18/sometimes_a_cigar_isn_t_just_ Sir Frederic Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of
a_cigar.html. Experimental Psychology, 32A, 3–25.
Planton, S., Jucla, M. Roux, F.-E. & Démonet, J.-F. (2013). Postle, B.R. (2006). Working memory as an emergent prop-
The “handwriting brain”: A meta-analysis of neuroim- erty of the mind and brain. Neuroscience, 139, 23–38.
aging studies of motor versus orthographic processes. Pourtois, G., Vanlessen, N., Bakic, J. & Paul, K. (2017).
Cortex, 49, 2772–2787. Modulatory effects of positive mood on cognition:
Planton, S., Longcamp, M., Péran, P., Démonet, J.-F. & Lessons from attention and error monitoring. Current
Jucla, M. (2017). How specialised are writing-specific Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 495–501.
brain regions? An fMRI study of writing, drawing and Power, M. & Dalgleish, T. (2008). Cognition and Emotion:
oral spelling. Cortex, 88, 66–80. From order to disorder (2nd edn). Hove, UK: Psychology
Plaut, D.C., McClelland, J.L., Seidenberg, M.S. & Patterson, Press.
K.E. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word Pozzulo, J.D., Crescini, C. & Panton, T. (2008). Does meth-
reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular odology matter in eyewitness identification research?
domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115. The effect of live versus video exposure on eyewitness

References 889
identification of accuracy. International Journal of Law Quinlan, T., Loncke, M., Leijten, M. & Van Waes, L.
and Psychiatry, 31, 430–437. (2012). Coordinating the cognitive processes of writing:
Prado, J., Chadha, A. & Booth, J.R. (2011). The brain The role of the monitor. Written Communication, 29,
network for deductive reasoning: A quantitative meta- 345–368.
analysis of 28 neuroimaging studies. Journal of Cognitive Quiroga, R.Q., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C. & Fried, I.
Neuroscience, 23, 3483–3497. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons
Prass, M., Grimsen, C., König, M. & Fahle, M. (2013). Ultra- in the human brain. Nature, 435, 1102–1107.
rapid object categorisation: Effect of level, animacy and Rabovsky, M., Hansem, S.S. & McClelland, J.L. (2018).
context. PloS ONE, 8 (Article no. e68051). Modelling the N400 brain potential as change in a
Prebble, S.C., Addis, D.R. & Tippett, L.J. (2013). Auto probabilistic representation of meaning. Nature Human
biographical memory and sense of self. Psychological Behaviour, 2, 693–705.
Bulletin, 139, 815–840. Rabin, J., Houser, B., Talbert, C. & Patel, R. (2016). Blue-
Precht, L., Keinath, A. & Krems, J.F. (2017). Identifying the black or white-gold? Early stage processing and the
main factors contributing to driving errors and traffic colour of “The Dress”. PLoS ONE, 11 (Article no.
violations – Results from naturalistic driving data. e 0161090).
Transportation Research Part F, 49, 49–92. Race, E., Burke, K. & Verfaellie, A. (2019). Repetition
Principe, A., Calabria, M., Campo, A.T., Cruzat, J., Conesa, priming in amnesia: Distinguishing associative learning
G., Costa, A., et al. (2017). Whole network, temporal at different levels of abstraction. Neuropsychologia, 122,
and parietal lobe contributions to the earliest phases of 98–104.
language production. Cortex, 95, 238–247. Radach, R. & Kennedy, A. (2013). Eye movements in
Prull, M.W. & Yockelson, M.B. (2013). Ault age-related reading: Some theoretical context. Quarterly Journal of
differences in the misinformation effect for context- Experimental Psychology, 66, 429–452.
consistent and context-inconsistent objects. Applied Radomsky, A.S., Dugas, M.J., Alcolado, G.M. & Lavoie,
Cognitive Psychology, 27, 384–395. S.L. (2014). When more is less: Doubt, repetition,
Purcell, J.J., Jiang, X. & Eden, G.F. (2017). Shared memory, metamemory, and compulsive checking in
orthographic neuronal representations for spelling and OCD. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 59, 30–39.
reading. NeuroImage, 147, 554–567. Radonjić, A. & Brainard, D.H. (2016). The nature of instruc-
Purdon, C. (2018). There is a lot more to compulsions than tional effects in colour constancy. Journal of Experimental
meets the eye. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 15, 291–298. Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42,
Putnam, A.L., Sungkhasettee, V.W. & Roediger, H.L. (2017). 847–865.
When misinformation improves memory: The effects Radvansky, G.A. & Zacks, J.M. (2011). Event perception.
of recollecting change. Psychological Science, 28, 36–46. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2,
Puvvada, K.C. & Simon, J.Z. (2017). Cortical representations 608–620.
of speech in a multi-talker auditory scene. Journal of Raghunathan, R. & Pham, M.T. (1999). All negative moods
Neuroscience, 37, 9189–9196. are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and
Pyc, M.A. & Rawson, K.A. (2010). Why testing improves sadness on decision making. Organizational Behavior and
memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, Human Decision Processes, 79, 56–77.
330, 335. Ragni, M. & Knauff, M. (2013). A theory and a computa-
Pyc, M.A. & Rawson, K.A. (2012). Why is test-restudy prac- tional model of spatial reasoning with preferred mental
tice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the media- models. Psychological Review, 120, 561–588.
tor shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Ragni, M., Kola, I. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2018). On select-
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 737–746. ing evidence to test hypotheses: A theory of selection
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 779–796.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157–238. Rahnev, D. & Denison, R. (2018). Suboptimality in percep-
Qian, Z., Garnsey, S. & Christianson, K. (2018). A compari- tual decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41,
son of online and offline measures of good-enough pro- 1–66.
cessing in garden-path sentences. Language, Cognition Raichle, M.E. (2015). The brain’s default mode network.
and Neuroscience, 33, 227–254. Annual Review in Neuroscience, 38, 433–447.
Qu, W., Dai, M., Zhao, W., Zhang, K. & Ge, Y. (2016). Raizada, R.D.S. & Poldrack, R.A. (2007). Selective amplifica-
Expressing anger is more dangerous than feeling angry tion of stimulus differences during categorical processing
when driving. PloS ONE, 11 (Article no. e0156948). of speech. Neuron, 56, 726–740.
Quamme, J.R., Yonelinas, A.P. & Norman, K.A. (2007). Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means
Effect of unitisation on associative recognition in of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21,
amnesia. Hippocampus, 17, 192–200. 89–102.

890 References
Rakow, T. & Sylark, W.J. (2018). Judgement heuris- Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J. & Clifton, C. (2012).
tics. In L.J. Ball & V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge Psychology of Reading (2nd edn). Hove, UK: Psychology
International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning Press.
(pp. 451–471). Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Rayner, K., White, S.J., Johnson, R.L. & Liversedge, S.P.
Ramsey, L.E., Siegel, J.S., Baldassarre, A., Metcalf, N.V., (2006). Reading words with jubmled lettres – There is a
Zinn, K., Shulman, G.L., et al. (2016). Normalisation cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192–193.
of network connectivity in hemispatial neglect recovery. Reber, A.S. (1993). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge:
Annals of Neurology, 80, 127–141. An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Oxford
Ramsey, R. (2018). What are reaction time indices of auto- University Press.
matic imitation measuring? Consciousness and Cognition, Reber, P.J. (2013). The neural basis of implicit learning
65, 240–254. and memory: A review of neuropsychological and
Ranft, A., Golkowski, D., Kiel, T., Riedl, V., Kohl, neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2026–2042.
P., Rohrer, G., et al. (2016). Neural correlates of Reber, P.J., Knowlton, J.R. & Squire, L.R. (1996).
sevoflurance- induced unconsciousness identified by Dissociable properties of memory systems: Differences in
simultaneous functional magnetic resonance imaging the flexibility of declarative and non-declarative knowl-
and electroencephalography. Anesthesiology, 125, edge. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110, 861–871.
861–872. Recanzone, G.H. & Sutter, M.L. (2008). The biological basis
Rao, K.V. & Baddeley, A. (2013). Raven’s matrices and of audition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 119–142.
working memory: A dual-task approach. Quarterly Redelmeier, C., Koehler, D.J., Liberman, V. & Tversky, A.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1881–1887. (1995). Probability judgment in medicine: Discounting
Raposo, A. & Marques, J.F. (2013). The contribution of fron- unspecified alternatives. Medical Decision Making, 15,
to-parietal regions to sentence comprehension: Insights 227–230.
from the Moses illusion. NeuroImage, 83, 431–437. Redfern, A.S. & Benton, C.P. (2017). Expressive faces confuse
Rapp, B. & Lipka, K. (2011). The literate brain: The relation- identity. i-Perception, 8 (Article no. 2041669517731115).
ship between spelling and reading. Journal of Cognitive Rees, G. (2007). Neural correlates of the contents of visual
Neuroscience, 23, 1180–1197. awareness in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the
Rapp, B., Epstein, C. & Tainturier, M.-J. (2002). The Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, 362, 877–886.
integration of information across lexical and sublexical Reeves, A.J., Amano, K. & Foster, D.H. (2008). Colour
processes in spelling. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, constancy: Phenomenal or projective? Perception &
1–29. Psychophysics, 70, 219–228.
Rapp, B., Fischer-Baum, S. & Miozzo, M. (2015). Modality Regier, T. & Xu, Y. (2017). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
and morphology: What we write may not be what we and inference under uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary
say. Psychological Science, 26, 892–902. Reviews – Cognitive Science, 8 (Article no. UNSP e1440).
Rashal, E., Yeshurun, Y. & Kimchi, R. (2017). Attentional Rego, S., Avantes, J. & Magalhães, P. (2018). Is there a
requirements in perceptual grouping depend on the pro- sunk-cost effect in committed relationships? Current
cesses involved in the organisation. Attention, Perception Psychology, 37, 508–519.
& Psychophysics, 79, 2073–2087. Reichle, E.D. (2015). Computational models of reading: A
Rastle, K. & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Masked phonologi- primer. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 271–284.
cal priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they Reichle, E.D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D.L. & Rayner, K.
matter? Cognitive Psychology, 53, 97–145. (1998). Towards a model of eye movement control in
Raven, J., Raven, C. & Court, J.H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 4: Reingold, E.M., Reichle, E.D., Glaholt, M.G. & Sheridan,
The advanced progressive matrices. San Antonio, TX: H. (2012). Direct lexical control of eye movements in
Harcourt Assessment. reading: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation
Ray, C. & Huntsinger, J.R. (2017). Feeling and thinking: durations. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 177–206.
An affect-as-cognitive feedback account. Social and Reingold, E.M., Sheridan, H. & Reichle, E.D. (2015). Direct
Personality Psychology Compass, 11 (Article no. e12314). lexical and non-lexical control of fixation duration in
Rayner, K. & Clifton, C. (2009). Language processing in reading. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (eds), Oxford
reading and speech perception is fast and incremen- Handbook of Reading (pp. 261–276). Oxford: Oxford
tal: Implications for event related potential research. University Press.
Biological Psychology, 80, 4–9. Reiss, J.P., Campbell, D.W., Leslie, W.D., Paulus, M.P.,
Rayner, K., Li, X.S. & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Extending the Stroman, P.W., Polimeni, J.O., et al. (2005). The role of
E-Z model of eye-movement control to Chinese readers. the striatum in implicit learning: A functional magnetic
Cognitive Science, 31, 1021–1033. resonance imaging study. NeuroReport, 16, 1291–1295.

References 891
Remez, R.E., Ferro, D.F., Dubowski, K.R., Meer, J., Broder, Riddoch, M.J., Humphreys, G.W., Hickman, J.C., Daly, A.
R.S. & Davids, M.L. (2010). Is desynchrony tolerance & Colin, J. (2006). I can see what you are doing: Action
adaptable in the perceptual organisation of speech? familiarity and affordance promote recovery from
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 2054–2058. extinction. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 583–605.
Renna, M.E., Quintero, J.M., Soffer, A., Pino, M., Ader, L., Riege, A.H. & Tiegen, K.H. (2017). Everybody will win, and
Fresco, D.M., et al. (2018). A pilot study of emotion all must be hired: Comparing additivity neglect with
regulation therapy for generalised anxiety and depres- the non-selective superiority bias. Journal of Behavioral
sion: Findings from a diverse sample of young adults. Decision Masking, 30, 95–106.
Behavior Therapy, 49, 403–418. Riès, S.K. (2016). Serial versus parallel neurobiological pro-
Renoult, L., Tanguay, A., Beaudry, M., Tavakoli, P., cesses in language production: Comment on Munding,
Rabipour, S., Campbell, K., et al. (2016). Personal Dubarry, and Alario (2015). Language, Cognition and
semantics: Is it distinct from episodic and semantic Neuroscience, 31, 476–479.
memory? An electrophysiological study of memory for Rigoli, F., Przzulo, G., Dolan, R. & Friston, K. (2017). A
autobiographical facts and repeated events in honour of goal-directed Bayesian framework for categorization.
Shlomo Bentin. Neuropsychologia, 83, 242–256. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. 408).
Rens, N., Bode, B., Burianová, H. & Cunnington, R. (2017). Rimmele, U., Davachi, L. & Phelps, E.A. (2012). Memory
Proactive recruitment of fronto-parietal and salience for time and place contributes to enhanced confidence
networks for voluntary decisions. Frontiers in Human in memories for emotional events. Emotion, 12, 834–846.
Neuroscience, 11 (Article no. 610). Rinck, M. & Becker, E.S. (2005). A comparison of attentional
Rensink, R.A., O’Regan, J.K. & Clark, J.J. (1997). To see or biases and memory biases in women with social phobia
not to see? The need for attention to perceive changes in and major depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373. 114, 62–74.
Resnik, K., Bradbury, D., Barnes, G.R. & Leff, A.P. (2014). Ritchie, S.J. (2017). Review of “The Rationality Quotient:
Between thought and expression, a magnetoencepha- Toward a test of rational thinking” (K.E. Stanovich,
lography study of the “tip-of-the-tongue” phenomenon. R.F. West & M.E. Toplak). Intelligence, 61, 46.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2210–2223. Rizio, A.A. & Dennis, N.A. (2013). The neural correlates of
Reverberi, C., Shallice, T., D’Agostini, S., Skrap, M. & cognitive control: Successful remembering and inten-
Bonatti, L.L. (2009). Cortical bases of elementary deduc- tional forgetting. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25,
tive reasoning: Inference, memory and meta-deduction. 297–312.
Neuropsychologia, 47, 1107–1111. Rizio, A.A. & Dennis, N.A. (2017). Recollection after inhibi-
Reverberi, D.J., Toraldo, A., D’Agostino, S. & Skrap, M. tion: The effects of intentional forgetting on the neural
(2005). Better with (lateral) prefrontal cortex? Insight correlates of retrieval. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 1–8.
problems solved by frontal patients. Brain, 128, Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. (2016). The mirror mechanism:
2882–2890. A basic principle of brain function. Nature Reviews
Rhys, C.S., Ulbrich, C. & Ordin, M. (2013). Adaptation to Neuroscience, 17, 757–765.
aphasia: Grammar, prosody and interaction. Clinical Robbins, T., Anderson, E., Barker, D., Bradley, A.,
Linguistics & Phonetics, 27, 46–71. Fearneyhough, C., Henson, R., et al. (1996). Working
Rice, G.E., Lambon Ralph, M.A. & Hoffman, P. (2015). memory in chess. Memory & Cognition, 24, 83–93.
The roles of left versus right anterior temporal lobes Roberts, J., Burkitt, J.J., Willemse, B., Ludzki, A., Lyons, J.,
in conceptual knowledge: An ALE meta-analysis of 97 Elliott, D., et al. (2013). The influence of target context
functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 25, and early and late vision on goal-directed reaching.
4374–4391. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 525–532.
Richards, B.A. & Frankland, P.W. (2017). The persistence Robertson, D.J., Noyes, E., Dowsett, A.J., Jenkins, R. &
and transience of memory. Neuron, 94, 1071–1084. Burton, A.M. (2016). Face recognition by Metropolitan
Richler, J.J., Cheung, O.S. & Gauthier, I. (2011). Holistic pro- police super-recognisers. PLoS ONE, 11 (Article no.
cessing predicts face recognition. Psychological Science, e0150036).
22, 464–471. Robertson, I.H., Mattingley, J.B., Rorden, C. & Driver, J.
Richter, T. & Späth, P. (2006). Recognition is used as one (1998). Phasic alerting of neglect patients overcomes their
cue among others in judgment and decision making. spatial deficit in visual awareness. Nature, 395, 169–172.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory Robertson, S.I. (2017). Problem Solving: Perspectives from cog-
& Cognition, 32, 150–162. nition and neuroscience (2nd edn). London: Routledge.
Rickard, T.C. & Pan, S.C. (2018). A dual memory theory of Robin, J. (2018). Spatial scaffold effects in event memory and
the testing effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, imagination. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Cognitive
847–869. Science, 9 (Article no. e1462).

892 References
Robin, J. & Moscovitch, M. (2017). Details, gist and schema: Rohde, M., van Dam, L.C.J. & Ernst, M.O. (2016).
Hippocampal-neocortical interactions underlying recent Statistically optimal multisensory cue integration: A
and remote episodic and spatial memory. Current practical tutorial. Multisensory Research, 29, 279–317.
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 17, 114–123. Rolls, E.T. & Mills, W.P.C. (2018). Non-accidental properties,
Robin, J., Wynn, J. & Moscovitch, M. (2016). The spatial metric invariance, and encoding by neurons in a model
scaffold: The effects of spatial context on memory for of ventral stream visual object recognition, VisNet.
events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 152, 20–31.
Memory, and Cognition, 42, 308–315. Rorden, C., Hjaltason, H., Fillmore, P., Fridriksson, J.,
Robinson, B.L. & McAlpine, D. (2009). Gain control mech- Kjartansson, O., Magnusdottir, S., et al. (2012).
anisms in the auditory pathway. Current Opinion in Allocentric neglect strongly associated with egocentric
Neurobiology, 19, 402–407. neglect. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1151–1157.
Robinson, G.A., Butterworth, B. & Cipolotti, L. (2015). Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M.
“My mind is doing it all”: No “brake” to stop speech & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural
generation in jargon aphasia. Cognitive and Behavioral categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
Neurology, 28, 229–241. Rose, N.S., Craik, F.I.M. & Buchsbaum, B.R. (2015). Levels
Robison, M.W. & Unsworth, N. (2018). Cognitive and of processing in working memory: Differential involve-
contextual correlates of spontaneous and deliberate ment of fronto-temporal networks. Journal of Cognitive
mind-wandering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Neuroscience, 27, 522–532.
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 44, 85–98. Rose, S.B., Aristei, S., Melinger, A. & Abdel Rahman, R.
Rock, P.B., Harris, M.G. & Yates, T. (2006). A test of (2019). The closer they are, the more they interfere:
the tau-dot hypothesis of braking control. Journal Semantic similarity of word distractors increases com-
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and petition in language production. Journal of Experimental
Performance, 32, 1479–1484. Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45,
Rodriguez, L.-F., Gutierrez-Garcia, J.O. & Ramos, F. (2016). 753–763.
Modelling the interaction of emotion and cognition Rosenbaum, R.S., Kõhler, S., Schacter, D.L., Moscovitch,
in autonomous agents. Biologically Inspired Cognitive M., Westmacott, R., Black, S.E., et al. (2005). The case
Architectures, 17, 57–70. of KC: Contributions of a memory-impaired person to
Roediger, H.L. (2008). Relativity of remembering: Why the memory theory. Neuropsychologia, 43, 989–1021.
laws of memory vanished. Annual Review of Psychology, Rosenbloom, P.S., Laird, J.E. & Lebiere, C. (2017). Précis of
59, 225–254. “A standard model of the mind”. Advances in Cognitive
Roediger, H.L. (2010). Reflections on intersections between Systems, 5, 1–4.
cognitive and social psychology: A personal exploration. Rosenholtz, R. (2016). Capabilities and limitations of
European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 189–205. peripheral vision. Annual Review of Vision Science, 2,
Roediger, H.L. & McDermott, K.B. (2013). Two types of 437–457.
event memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Rosenholtz, R. (2017a). What modern vision science reveals
Sciences, 110, 20856–20857. about the awareness puzzle: Summary-statistic encoding
Roediger, H.L. & Gallo, D.A. (2001). Levels of processing: plus decision limits underlie the richness of visual per-
Some unanswered questions. In M. Naveh-Benjamin, ception and its quirky failures. Vision Sciences Society
M. Moscovitch & H.L. Roediger (eds), Perspectives on Symposium on Summary Statistics and Awareness, St.
Human Memory and Cognitive Aging (pp. 28–47). New Pete Beach, FL, preprint arXiv:1706.02764.
York: Psychology Press. Rosenholtz, R. (2017b). Capacity limits and how the
Rogers, B. (2016). Revisiting motion parallax as a source of visual system copes with them. Electronic Imaging, 14,
3-D information. Perception, 45, 1267–1278. 8–23.
Rogers, B. & Graham, M.E. (1979). Motion parallax as an Rosenholtz, R., Huang, J. & Ehinger, K.A. (2012). Rethinking
independent cue for depth perception. Perception, 8, the role of top-down attention in vision: Effects attrib-
125–134. utable to a lossy representation in peripheral vision.
Rogers, T.T. & Patterson, K. (2007). Object categorisations: Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (Article no. 13).
Reversals and explanations of the basic-level advan- Rosenholtz, R., Sharan, L. & Park, E. (2016). Why don’t we
tage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, see the gorilla? Looking in the wrong places, attending
451–469. to the wrong stuff, or doing the wrong task? Journal of
Rohde, H. & Ettlinger, M. (2012). Integration of pragmatic Vision, 16, 43.
and phonetic cues in spoken word recognition. Journal Rosenthal, G., Sporns, O. & Avidan, G. (2017). Stimulus-
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and dependent dynamic reorganisation of the human face
Cognition, 38, 967–983. processing network. Cerebral Cortex, 27, 4823–4834.

References 893
Ross, C.T. (2015). A multi-level Bayesian analysis of racial implications for the police service. The Psychologist, 4,
bias in police shootings at the county-level in the 398–400.
United States, 2011–2014. PLoS ONE, 10 (Article Rubin, D.C. & Berntsen, D. (2003). Life scripts help to main-
no. e0141854). tain autobiographical memories of highly positive, but
Ross, D.A., Tamber-Rosenau, B.J., Palmeri, T.J., Zhang, not negative, events. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1–14.
J.D., Xu, Y.D. & Gauthier, I. (2018). High-resolution Rubin, D.C. & Schulkind, M.D. (1997). The distribution of
functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals config- important and word-cued autobiographical memories in
ural processing of cars in right anterior fusiform face 20-, 35-, and 70-year-old adults. Psychology of Aging, 12,
area of car exprts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30, 524–535.
973–984. Rubin, D.C. & Wenzel, A.E. (1996). One hundred years
Ross, D.F., Ceci, S.J., Dunning, D. & Toglia, M.P. (1994). of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention.
Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When Psychological Bulletin, 103, 734–760.
a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Rubin, D.C., Wetzler, S.E. & Nebes, R.D. (1986).
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918–930. Autobiographical memory across the life span. In D.C.
Rossetti, Y. & Pisella, A. (2018). Optic ataxia: Beyond the Rubin (ed.), Autobiographical Memory (pp. 202–222).
dorsal stream cliché. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
151, 225–247. Rubin, G.D., Roos, J.E., Tall, M., Harrawood, B., Bag, S.,
Rossetti, Y., Pisella, L. & McIntosh, R.D. (2017). Rise and Ly, D.L., Seaman, D.M., et al. (2015). Characterising
fall of the two visual systems theory. Annals of Physical search, recognition, and decision in the detection of lung
and Rehabilitation Medicine, 60, 130–140. nodules on CY scans. Radiology, 274, 276–286.
Rossion, B. & Curran, T. (2010). Visual expertise with pic- Rubin, R.D., Brown-Schmidt, S., Duff, M.C., Tranel, D. &
tures of cars correlates with RT magnitude of the car Cohen, N.J. (2011). How do I remember that I know
inversion effect. Perception, 39, 173–183. you know that I know? Psychological Science, 22,
Rossit, S., Harvey, M., Butler, S.H., Szymanek, L., Morand, 1574–1582.
S., Monaco, S. & McIntosh, R.D. (2018). Impaired Ruffieux, N., Ramon, M., Lao, J., Colombo, F., Stacchi, L.,
peripheral reaching and on-line corrections in patient Borruat, F.-X., et al. (2016). Residual perception of bio-
DF: Optic ataxia with visual form agnosia. Cortex, 98, logical motion in cortical blindness. Neuropsychologia,
84–101. 93, 301–311.
Rothkirch, M. & Hesselmann, G. (2017). What we talk about Rumelhart, D.E. & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of
when we talk about unconscious processing – A plea knowledge in memory. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro
for best practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. & W.E. Montague (eds), Schooling and the Acquisition
835). of Knowledge (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Rounis, E., Maniscalco, B., Rothwell, J.C., Passingham, R.E. Erlbaum Associates.
& Lau, H. (2010). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic Rumelhart, D.E., McClelland, J.L. & The PDP Research
stimulation to the prefrontal cortex impairs metacog- Group (eds) (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing,
nitive visual awareness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
165–175. Rummel, J., Einstein, G.O. & Rampey, H. (2012).
Roussel, M., Lhommée, E., Narme, P., Czernecki, V., LeGall, Implementation-intention encoding in a prospective
D., Krystkowiak, P., et al. (2017). Dysexecutive syn- memory task enhances spontaneous retrieval of inten-
drome in Parkinson’s disease: The GREFEX study. tions. Memory, 20, 803–817.
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 24, 496–507. Rummel, J., Smeekens, B. & Kane, M.J. (2017). Dealing
Roux, S. & Bonin, P. (2016). “RED” matters when naming with prospective memory demands while performing
“CAR”: The cascading activation of non-target prop- an ongoing task: Shared processing, increased on-task
erties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, focus, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Memory, and Cognition, 42, 475–488. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 43, 1047–1062.
Rowe, M.L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to soci- Rusconi, E., Ferri, F., Viding, E. & Mithener-Nissen, T.
oeconomic status, knowledge of child development and (2015). XRIndex: A brief screening tool for individual
child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, differences in security threat detection in x-ray images.
185–205. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 439).
Rowland, C.A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on Rustemeier, M., Schwabe, L. & Bellebaum, C. (2013). On
retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. the relationship between learning strategy and feedback
Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1463. processing in the weather prediction task – Evidence

Roy, D.F. (1991). Improving recall by eyewitnesses through from event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 51,
the cognitive interview: Practical applications and 695–703.

894 References
Rusting, C.L. & DeHart, T. (2000). Retrieving positive mem- Sampson, M. & Faroqui-Shah, Y. (2011). Investigation
ories to regulate negative mood: Consequences for of self-monitoring in fluent aphasia with jargon.
mood-congruent memory. Journal of Personality and Aphasiology, 25, 505–528.
Social Psychology, 78, 737–752. Samuel, A.G. (2011). Speech perception. Annual Review of
Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J.C. & Remington, R.W. (2009). How Psychology, 62, 49–72.
strategic is the central bottleneck: Can it be overcome Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R.J. (1988). Status quo bias
by trying harder? Journal of Experimental Psychology: in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1,
Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1368–1384. 7–59.
Ryskin, R., Futrell, R., Kiran, S. & Gibson, E. (2018). Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Posavac, S.S., Behrends, A.A., Moore,
Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the envi- S.M. & Uchino, B.N. (2015). Why a confirmation strat-
ronment. Cognition, 181, 141–150. egy dominates psychological science. PLoS ONE, 10
Ryu, J. & Lee, S.-H. (2018). Stimulus-tuned structure of cor- (Article no. e01138197).
related fMRI activity in human visual cortex. Cerebral Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Biondi, F., Behrends,
Cortex, 28, 693–712. A.A. & Moore, S.M. (2016a). Cell-phone use diminishes
Sabri, M., Humphries, C., Verber, M., Mangalathu, J., self-awareness of impaired driving. Psychonomic Bulletin
Desai, A., Binder, J.R., et al. (2013). Perceptual demand & Review, 23, 617–623.
modulates activation of human auditory cortex in Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Biondi, F., Behrends,
response to task-irrelevant sounds. Journal of Cognitive A.A., Ward, N. & Watson, J.M. (2016b). Why drivers
Neuroscience, 25, 1553–1562. use cell phones and support legislation to restrict this
Sadeh, T., Ozubko, J.D., Winocur, G. & Moscovitch, M. practice. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 92, 22–33.
(2016). Forgetting patterns differentiate between two Sanborn, A.N. & Chater, N. (2016). Bayesian brains
forms of memory representation. Psychological Science, without probabilities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20,
27, 810–820. 883–893.
Sadeh, T., Shohamy, D., Levy, D.R., Reggev, N. & Maril, A. Sand, K., Habekost, T., Petersen, A. & Starrfelt, R. (2016).
(2011). Cooperation between the hippocampus and the The word superiority effect in central and peripheral
striatum during episodic encoding. Journal of Cognitive vision. Visual Cognition, 24, 293–303.
Neuroscience, 23, 1597–1608. Sandberg, K., Timmermans, B., Overgaard, M. & Cleeremans,
Saenen, L., Heyvaert, M., van Dooren, W. & Onghena, P. A. (2010). Measuring consciousness: Is one measure
(2015). Inhibitory control in a notorious brain teaser: better than the others? Consciousness and Cognition, 19,
The Monty Hall dilemma. ZDN Mathematics Education, 1069–1078.
47, 837–848. Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M. (2005). The
Sævland, W. & Norman, E. (2016). Studying different tasks emergence of grammar: Syntactic structure in a new lan-
of implicit learning across multiple test sessions con- guage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
ducted on the web. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article of the United States of America, 102, 2661–2665.
no. 808). Sanocki, T., Bowyer, K.W., Heath, M.D. & Sarkar, S. (1998).
Sakreida, K., Effnert, I., Thill, S., Menz, M.M., Jirak, D., Are edges sufficient for object recognition? Journal
Eickhoff, C.R., et al. (2016). Affordance process- of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &
ing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream sub- Performance, 24, 340–349.
pathways. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, Santangelo, V., Cavallina, C., Colucci, P., Santori, A., Macri,
80–112. S., McGaugh, J.L. & Campolongo, P. (2018). Enhanced
Sala, G. & Gobet, F. (2017). Experts’ memory superiority for brain activity associated with memory access in highly
domain-specific random material generalizes across fields superior autobiographical memory. Proceedings of the
of expertise: A meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 45, National Academy of Sciences, 115, 7795–7800.
183–193. Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C.C. & Tobler, P.N.
Sala, G., Foley, J.P. & Gobet, F. (2017). The effects of chess (2016). Cognitive biases associated with medical deci-
instruction on pupils’ cognitive and academic skills: sions: A systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics
State of the art and theoretical challenges. Frontiers in and Decision Making, 16 (Article no. 138).
Psychology, 8 (Article no. 238). Sari, D.A., Koster, E.H.W., Pourtois, G. & Derakshan, N.
Salvucci, D.D. & Taatgen, N.A. (2008). Threaded cogni- (2016). Training working memory to improve atten-
tion: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. tional control in anxiety: A proof-of-principle study
Psychological Review, 115, 101–130. using behavioural and electrophysiological measures.
Salvucci, D.D. & Taatgen, N.A. (2011). Toward a unified Biological Psychology, 121, 203–212.
view of cognitive control. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, Sarri, M., Ruff, C.C., Rees, G. & Driver, J. (2010). Neural
227–230. correlates of visual extinction or awareness in a series of

References 895
patients with right temporo-parietal damage. Cognitive Schenk, T. & McIntosh, R.D. (2010). Do we have independ-
Neuroscience, 1, 16–25. ent visual streams for perception and action? Cognitive
Sato, K. & Matsushima, K. (2006). Effects of audience aware- Neuroscience, 1, 52–62.
ness on procedural text writing. Psychological Reports, Scherer, K.R. & Ellsworth, P.C. (2009). Appraisal theories. In
99, 51–73. D. Sander & K.R. Scherer (eds), The Oxford Companion
Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: to Emotion and the Affective Sciences (pp. 45–49).
Wiley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savelsbergh, G.J.P., Pijpers, J.R. & van Santvoord, A.A.M. Scherer, L.D., Shaffer, V.A., Caverly, T., Scherer, A.M.,
(1993). The visual guidance of catching. Experimental Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Kullgren, J.T., et al. (2018).
Brain Research, 93, 148–156. The role of the affect heuristic and cancer anxiety in
Savitsky, K., Keysar, B., Epley, N., Carter, T. & Swanson, responding to negative information about medical tests.
A. (2011). The closeness-communication bias: Increased Psychology & Health, 33, 292–312.
egocentrism among friends versus strangers. Journal of Scherman, A.Z. (2013). Cultural life script theory and the
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 269–273. reminiscence bump: A re-analysis of seven studies across
Saygin, A.P. (2007). Superior temporal and premotor brain cultures. Nordic Psychology, 65, 103–119.
areas necessary for biological motion perception. Brain, Schiffer, F., Zaidel, E., Bogen, J. & Chasan-Taber, S.
130, 2452–2461. (1998). Different psychological status in the two hem-
Scalici, F., Caltagirone, C. & Caresimo, G.A. (2017). The ispheres of two split-brain patients. Neuropsychiatry,
contribution of different prefrontal cortex regions to Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 11, 151–156.
recollection and familiarity: A review of fMRI data. Schmidt, J.R. & Thompson, V.A. (2008). “At least one”
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 240–251. problem with “some” formal reasoning paradigms.
Schacter, D.L. & Addis, D.R. (2007). The cognitive neurosci- Memory & Cognition, 36, 217–239.
ence of constructive memory: Remembering the past and Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Fantino, M., Mammarella, I.C. &
imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Cornoldi, C. (2013). Spatial representations in blind
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 773–786. people: The role of strategies and mobility skills. Acta
Schacter, D.L. & Church, B.A. (1995). Implicit memory in Psychologica, 142, 43–50.
amnesic patients: When is auditory priming spared? Schmidtmann, G., Jennings, B.J. & Kingdom, F.A.A. (2015).
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Shape recognition: Convexities, concavities and things in
1, 434–442. between. Scientific Reports, 5 (Article no. 17142).
Schacter, D.L., Addis, D.R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V.C., Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and auto-
Spreng, R.N. & Szpunar, K.K. (2012). The future of matic human information processing: I. Detection,
memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
Neuron, 76, 677–694. Schnuerch, R., Kreitz, C., Gibbons, H. & Memmert, D. (2016).
Schacter, D.L. & Madore, K.P. (2016). Remembering the past Not quite so blind: Semantic processing despite inatten-
and imagining the future: Identifying and enhancing the tional blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
contribution of episodic memory. Memory Studies, 9, Human Perception and Performance, 42, 459–463.
245–255. Scholte, H.S., Wittreveen, S.C., Soekreijse, H. & Lamme,
Schacter, D.L. & Tulving, E. (1994). What are the memory V.A.F. (2006). The influence of inattention on the neural
systems of 1994? In D.L. Schacter & E. Tulving (eds), correlates of scene segregation. Brain Research, 1076,
Memory Systems (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, MA: MIT 106–115.
Press. Schotter, E.R., Angela, B. & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal
Schacter, D.L., Church, B.A. & Bolton, E. (1995). Implicit processing in reading. Attention, Perception &
memory in amnesic patients: Impairment of voice-specific Psychophysics, 74, 5–35.
impairment priming. Psychological Science, 6, 20–25. Schouten, D.I., Pereira, S.I.R., Tops, M. & Louzada, F.M.
Schad, D.J. & Engbert, R. (2012). The zoom lens of attention: (2017). State of the art on targeted memory reactivation:
Simulating shuffled versus normal text reading using the Sleep your way to enhanced cognition. Sleep Medicine
SWIFT model. Visual Cognition, 20, 391–421. Reviews, 32, 123–131.
Schartau, P.E.S., Dalgleish, T. & Dunn, B.D. (2009). Seeing Schraagen, J.M. (2018). Naturalistic decision making. In L.J.
the bigger picture: Training in perspective broadening Ball & V.A. Thompson (eds), Routledge International
reduces self-reported affect and psychophysiological Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 487–501).
response to distressing films and autobiographical mem- Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
ories. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 15–27. Schulz, D.P.A., Sahani, M. & Carandini, M. (2015). Five
Schechter, E. (2012). The switch model of split-brain con- key factors determining pairwise correlations in visual
sciousness. Philosophical Psychology, 25, 203–226. cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114, 1022–1033.

896 References
Schumacher, E.H., Seymour, T.L., Glass, J.M., Fencsik, D.E., Scullin, M.K., McDaniel, M.A., Dasse, M.N., Lee, J.H.,
Lauber, E.J., Kieras, D.E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect Kurinac, C.A., Tami, C., et al. (2018). Thought probes
time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the during prospective memory encoding: Evidence for
central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, perfunctory processes. PLoS ONE, 13 (Article no.
101–108. e0198646).
Schwark, J., Sandry, J., MacDonald, J. & Dolgov, I. (2012). Scullin, M.K., McDaniel, M.A., Shelton, J.T. & Lee, J.H.
False feedback increases detection of low-preva- (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective
lence targets in visual search. Attention, Perception & memory: monitoring difficulty or different retrieval pro-
Psychophysics, 74, 1583–1589. cesses? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubormirsky, S., Memory, and Cognition, 36, 736–749.
White, K. & Lehman, D.R. (2002). Maximising versus Scullin, M.K., Kurinec, C.A. & Nguyen, K. (2017). The effects
satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of of implementation intention strategies on prospective
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197. memory cue encoding. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
Schwartz, B.L. & Hashtroudi, S. (1991). Priming is independ- 29, 929–938.
ent of skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Scully, I.D., Napper, L.E. & Hupbach, A. (2017). Does reacti-
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1177–1187. vation trigger episodic memory change? A meta-analysis.
Schwartz, J., Chapman, G., Brewer, N. & Bergus, G. (2004). Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 142, 99–107.
The effects of accountability on bias in physician deci- Searston, R.A., Tangen, J.M. & Eva, K.W. (2016). Putting
sion making: Going from bad to worse. Psychonomic bias into context: The role of familiarity in identification.
Bulletin & Review, 11, 173–178. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 50–64.
Schwarz, N. & Clore, G.L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and Sebastianelli, L., Saltuari, L. & Nardone, R. (2017). How the
judgements of well-being – Informative and directive brain can rewire itself after an injury: The lesson from
functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and hemispherectomy. Neural Regeneration Research, 12,
Social Psychology, 45, 513–523. 1426–1427.
Schwartz, S., Vuilleumier, P., Hutton, C., Marouta, A., Sedgwick, H.A. & Gillam, B. (2017). A non-modular approach
Dolan, R.J. & Driver, J. (2005). Modulation of fMRI to visual space perception. Ecological Psychology, 29,
responses by load at fixation during task-irrelevant stim- 72–94.
ulation in the peripheral visual field. Cerebral Cortex, 15, Segaert, K., Weber, K., de Lange, F.P., Petersson, K.M.
770–786. & Hagoort, P. (2013). The suppression of repe-
Schwartz, Z.P. & David, S.V. (2018). Focal suppression of tition enhancement: A review of fMRI studies.
distractor sounds by selective attention in auditory Neuropsychologia, 51, 59–66.
cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 323–339. Sekeres, M.J., Bonasia, K., St-Laurent, M., Pishdadian, S.,
Schweinberger, S.R. & Soukup, G.R. (1998). Asymmetric Winocur, G., Grady, C., et al. (2016). Recovering and
relationships among perceptions of facial identity,
preventing loss of detailed memory: Differential rates of
emotion and facial speech. Journal of Experimental forgetting for detail types in episodic memory. Learning
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, and Memory, 23, 72–82.
1748–1765. Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Őzyűrek, A. (2004). Children creat-
Schweizer, T.A., Kan, K., Hung, Y., Tam, F., Naglie, G. & ing core properties of language: Evidence from emerging
Graham, S.J. (2013). Brain activity during driving with sign language in Nicaruagua. Science, 305, 1779–1782.
distraction: An immersive fMRI study. Frontiers in Seo, M.-G. & Barrett, L.F. (2007). Being emotional during
Human Neuroscience, 7 (Article no. 53). decision making – Good or bad? An empirical investiga-
Schweppe, J., Grice, M. & Rummer, R. (2011). What models tion. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 923–940.
of verbal working memory can learn from phonological Seymour, K., Clifford, C.W.G., Logothetis, N.K. & Bartels,
theory: Decomposing the phonological similarity effect. A. (2009). The coding of color, motion and their con-
Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 256–269. junction in the human visual cortex. Current Biology, 19,
Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J. & Dutke, S. (2017). The testing 177–183.
effect in the psychology classroom: A meta-analytic pers Seymour, K.J., Williams, M.A. & Rich, A.N. (2016). The
pective. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16, 179–196. representation of colour across the human visual
Scott-Phillips, T.C. (2015). Nonhuman primate communica- cortex: Distinguishing chromatic signals contributing to
tion, pragmatics, and the origins of language. Current object form versus surface colour. Cerebral Cortex, 26,
Anthropology, 56, 56–66. 1997–2008.
Scoville, W.B. & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory Shallice, T. (2015). Cognitive neuropsychology and its vicis-
after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, situdes: The fate of Caramazza’s axioms. Cognitive
Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 20, 11–21. Neuropsychology, 32, 385–411.
References 897
Shallice, T. & Cipiolotti, L. (2018). The prefrontal cortex Shelton, J.T. & Scullin, M.K. (2017). The dynamic interplay
and neurological impairments of active thought. Annual between bottom-up and top-down processes support-
Review of Psychology, 69, 157–180. ing prospective remembering. Current Directions in
Shallice, T. & Warrington, E.K. (1970). Independent func- Psychological Science, 26, 352–358.
tioning of verbal memory stores: A neuropsychological Shen, W., Olive, J. & Jones, D. (2008). Two protocols com-
study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, paring human and machine phonetic discrimination per-
261–273. formance in conversational speech. INTERSPEECH,
Shallice, T. & Warrington, E.K. (1974). The dissociation 1630–1633.
between long-term retention of meaningful sounds and Shen, W., Tung, Y., Yuan, Y., Zhan, H., Liu, Luo, J., et al.
verbal material. Neuropsychologia, 12, 553–555. (2018). Feeling the insight: Uncovering somatic markers
Shamma, S.A., Elhilali, M. & Micheyl, C. (2011). Temporal of the “aha” experience. Applied Psychophysiology and
coherence and attention in auditory scene analysis. Biofeedback, 43, 13–21.
Trends in Neurosciences, 34, 114–123. Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., Radu, P., Blechert, J. &
Shanks, D.R. (2010). Learning: From association to cogni- Gross, J.J. (2014). Emotion regulation choice: A con-
tion. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 273–301. ceptual framework and supporting evidence. Journal of
Shanks, D.R. (2017). Regressive research: The pitfalls of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 163–181.
post hoc data selection in the study of unconscious Sheridan, H. & Reichle, E.D. (2016). An analysis of the time
mental processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, course of lexical processing during reading. Cognitive
752–775. Science, 40, 522–553.
Shanks, D.R. & St. John, M.F. (1994). Characteristics of dis- Sheridan, H. & Reingold, E.M. (2013). A further examination
sociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain of the lexical-processing stages hypothesised by the E-Z
Sciences, 17, 367–394. Reader model. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics,
Sharan, L., Park, E. & Rosenholtz, R. (2016). Difficulty 75, 407–414.
detecting changes in complex scenes depends in part Sheridan, H. & Reingold, E.M. (2017a). Chess players’ eye
upon the strengths and limitations of peripheral vision. movements reveal rapid recognition of complex visual
Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of patterns: Evidence from a chess-related visual search
Technology, Cambridge, MA. task. Journal of Vision, 4, 1–12.
Share, D.L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading Sheridan, H. & Reingold, E.M. (2017b). The holistic processing
research and practice: The perils of over-reliance on account of visual expertise in medical image perception:
an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. 1620).
584–615. Shevell, S.K. & Martin, P.R. (2017). Colour opponency:
Sharot, T. & Yonelinas, A.P. (2008). Differential time- Tutorial. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 34,
dependent effects of emotion on recollective experience 1099–1110.
and memory for contextual information. Cognition, 106, Shifferman, E. (2015). More than meets the fMRI: The unethi-
538–547. cal apotheosis of neuroimages. Journal of Cognition and
Sharot, T., Martorella, E.A., Delgado, M.R. & Phelps, E.A. Neuroethics, 3, 57–116.
(2007). How personal experience modulates the neural Shiffrar, M. & Thomas, J.P. (2013). Beyond the scientific
circuitry of memories of September 11. Proceedings of objectification of the human body: Differentiated
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of analyses of human motion and object motion. In M.

America, 104, 389–394. Rutherford and V. Kuhlmeier (eds), Social Perception:
Sharpe, D. (1997). Of apples and oranges, file drawers and Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and
garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go intention (pp. 83–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/
away. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 881–901. Bradford Books.
Sheffer, L., Loewen, P.J., Soroka, S., Walgrave, S. & Sheafer, Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and auto-
T. (2018). Non-representative representatives: An exper- matic human information processing: II. Perceptual
imental study of the decision making of elected politi- learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
cians. American Political Science Review, 112, 302–321. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Shelton, J.R. & Weinrich, M. (1997). Further evidence of a dis- Shimizu, R.E., Wum A.D., Samra, J.K. & Knowlton, B.J.
sociation between output phonological and orthographic (2017). The impact of cerebellar transcranial direct
lexicons: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, current stimulation (tDCS) on learning fine-motor
105–129. sequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
Shelton, J.T. & Christopher, E.A. (2016). A fresh pair of B, 372 (Article no. 20160050).
eyes on prospective memory monitoring. Memory & Shiota, M.N., Campos, B., Oveis, C., Hertenstein, M.J.,
Cognition, 44, 837–845. Simon-Thomas, E. & Keltner, D. (2017). Beyond

898 References
happiness: Building a science of discrete positive emo- of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
tions. American Psychologist, 72, 617–643. of America, 105, 809–813.
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T.L. & Engle, R.W. (2016). Working Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D. & Simonsohn, U. (2018). False-
memory capacity and fluid intelligence: Maintenance and positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
disengagement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 13, 255–259.
771–799. Simmons, S.M., Hicks, A. & Caird, J.K. (2016). Safety-critical
Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G. & Bechara, A. (2005). The dark side event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured
of emotion in decision making: When individuals with in naturalistic driving studies: A systematic review and
decreased emotional reactions make more advantageous meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 67,
decisions. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 85–92. 161–169.
Shomstein, S., Lee, J. & Behrmann, M. (2010). Top-down and Simon, D., Krawczyk, D.C. & Holyoak, K.J. (2004).
bottom-up attentional guidance: Investigating the role Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction.
of the dorsal and ventral parietal cortices. Experimental Psychological Science, 15, 331–336.
Brain Research, 206, 197–208. Simon, H.A. (1945). Theory of games and economic behav-
Shrem, T., Murray, M.M. & Deouell, L.Y. (2017). Auditory- iour. American Sociological Review, 50, 558–560.
visual integration modulates location-specific repetition Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and rational. New
suppression of auditory responses. Psychophysiology, 54, York: Wiley.
1663–1675. Simon, H.A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychol-
Shrout, P.E. & Rodgers, J.L. (2018). Psychology, science, and ogy of problem solving. In H.A. Simon (ed.), Mind and
knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from Cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy
the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, (pp. 22–40). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
487–510. Press.
Sides, A., Osherson, D., Bonni, N. & Viale, R. (2002). On the Simon, H.A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183,
reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory & Cognition, 482–488.
30, 191–198. Simon, H.A. (1990). Invariants of human behaviour. Annual
Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y. & Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalising Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.
screen inferiority – Does the medium, screen versus Simons, D.J. & Chabris, C.F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst:
paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events.
Metacognition Learning, 11, 15–33. Perception, 28, 1059–1074.
Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H. & Ackerman, R. Simons, D.J. & Chabris, C.F. (2011). What people believe
(2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on about how memory works: A representative survey of
screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning the US population. Public Library of Science One, 6
and Instruction, 51, 61–73. (Article no. e22757).
Siebert, M., Markowitsch, H.J. & Bartel, P. (2003). Amygdala, Simonson, I. & Staw, B.M. (1992). De-escalation strategies: A
affect and cognition: Evidence from 10 patients with comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to
Urbach-Wiethe disease. Brain, 126, 2627–2637. losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Siegel, E.H., Sands, M.K., Van den Noortgate, W., Condon, 77, 419–426.
P., Chang, Y., Dy, J., et al. (2018). Emotion fingerprints Sinai, M.J., Ooi, T.L. & He, Z.J. (1998). Terrain influ-
or emotion populations? A meta-analytic investigation of ences the accurate judgment of distance. Nature, 395,
autonomic features of emotion categories. Psychological 497–500.
Bulletin, 144, 343–393. Singer, W. & Gray, C.M. (1995). Visual feature integration
Siegert, R., Weatherall, M., Taylor, K.D. & Abernethy, D. and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annual Review
(2008). A meta-analysis of performance on simple span of Neuroscience, 18, 555–586.
and more complex working memory tasks in Parkinson’s Singmann, H., Klauer, K.C. & Beller, S. (2016). Probabilistic
disease. Neuropsychology, 22, 450–461. conditional reasoning: Disentangling form and content
Sigurdardottir, H.M., Fridriksdottir, L.E., Gudjonsdottir, S. with the dual-source model. Cognitive Psychology, 88,
& Kristjánsson, A. (2018). Cognition, 175, 157–168. 61–87.
Silbert, L.J., Honey, C.J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D. & Hasson, Sio, U.N. & Ormerod, T.C. (2009). Does incubation enhance
U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the produc- problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological
tion and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Bulletin, 135, 94–120.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, Sio, U.N. & Ormerod, T.C. (2015). Incubation and cueing
E4687–E4696. effects in problem-solving: Set aside the difficult prob-
Simion, F., Regolin, L. & Bulf, H. (2008). A predisposition lems but focus on the easy ones. Thinking & Reasoning,
for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings 21, 113–129.

References 899
Sitek, E.J., Narozanska, E., Barczak, A., Jasinska-Myga, B., Smith, C.N., Jeneson, A., Frascino, J.C., Kiswan, C.B.,
Harciarek, M., Chodakowska-Zebrowska, M., et al. Hopkins, R.O. & Squire, L.R. (2014). When recogni-
(2014). Agraphia in patients with frontotemporal demen- tion memory is independent of hippocampal function.
tia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 with Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
P301L MAPT mutation: Dysexecutive, aphasic, apraxic United States of America, 111, 9935–9940.
or spatial phenomenon? Neurocase, 20, 69–86. Smith, E.E. & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. New York: from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5–42.
Appleton-Century-Crofts. Smith, E.R. & O’Brien, E.J. (2012). Tracking spatial infor-
Skinner, E.I. & Femandes, M.A. (2007). Neural correlates of mation during reading: A cue-based process. Memory &
recollection and familiarity: A review of neuroimaging Cognition, 40, 791–801.
and patient data. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2163–2179. Smith, R. & Lane, R.D. (2015). The neural basis of one’s
Skipper, J.I., Devlin, J.T. & Lametti, D.R. (2017). The own conscious and unconscious emotional states.
hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 1–29.
Review of the role of the motor system in speech percep- Smith, R., Alkozei, A., Bao, J. & Kilgore, W.D.S. (2018).
tion. Brain & Language, 164, 77–105. Successful goal-directed memory suppression is asso-
Slevc, L.R., Martin, R.C., Hamilton, A.C. & Joanisse, M.F. ciated with increased inter-hemispheric co-ordination
(2011). Speech perception, rapid temporal processing, between right and left fronto-parietal control networks.
and the left hemisphere: A case study of unilateral pure Psychological Reports, 121, 93–111.
word deafness. Neuropsychologia, 49, 216–230. Smith, R.E., Hunt, R.R., McVay, J.C. & McConnell,
Slevc, L.R. & Okala, B.M. (2015). Processing structure in M.D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective
language and music: A case for shared reliance on
memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental
cognitive control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33,
637–652. 734–746.
Slezak, P. (1991). Can images be rotated and inspected? A Smith, T.J., Lamont, P. & Henderson, J.M. (2012). The penny
test of the pictorial medium theory. Program of the drops: Change blindness at fixation. Perception, 41,
Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science 490–492.
Society, Chicago, IL, 55–60. Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J. & Meeter, M. (2018).
Slezak, P. (1995). The “philosophical” case against visual OB-1-reader: A model of word recognition and eye
imagery. In T. Caelli, P. Slezak & R. Clark (eds), movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125,
Perspectives in Cognitive Science: Theories, experiments 969–984.
and foundations (pp. 237–271). New York: Ablex. Snyder, J.J. & Bischof, W.F. (2010). Knowing where we’re
Sliwinska, M.W. & Pitcher, D. (2018). TNS demonstrates that heading – When nothing moves. Brain Research, 1323,
both right and left superior temporal sulci are impor- 127–138.
tant for facial expression recognition. NeuroImage, 183, Snyder, K.M., Ashitaka, Shimada, H., Ulrich, J.E. & Logan,
394–400. G.D. (2014). What skilled typists don’t know about
Sliwinska, M.W., Khadilkar, M., Campbell-Ratcliffe, J., the QWERTY keyboard. Attention, Perception &
Quevenco, F. & Devlin, J.T. (2012). Early and sustained Psychophysics, 76, 162–171.
supramarginal gyrus contributions to phonological Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J.E., Carlyon, R.P. & Davis, M.D. (2014).
processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (Article no. 161). Top-down influences of written text on perceived clarity
Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Y., Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, of degraded speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
C. & Fox, C.R. (2004). Typical versus atypical unpack- Human Perception and Performance, 40, 186–199.
ing and superadditive probability judgment. Journal Sokol-Hessner, P., Camerer, C.F. & Phelps, E.A. (2013).
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases
Cognition, 30, 573–582. amygdala responses to losses. Social Cognitive and
Small, D.A. & Lerner, J.S. (2008). Emotional policy: Personal Affective Neuroscience, 8, 341–350.
sadness and anger shape judgments about a welfare case. Sokolov, A.A., Zeidman, P., Erb, M., Ryvlin, P., Friston,
Political Psychology, 29, 149–168. K.J. & Pavlova, M.A. (2018). Structural and effective
Smith, C.A. & Lazarus, R.S. (1993). Appraisal components, brain connectivity underlying biological motion detec-
core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition & tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
Emotion, 7, 233–269. the United States of America, 115, E12034–E12042.
Smith, C.N., Frascino, J.C., Hopkins, R.O. & Squire, L.R. Solé, R.V. & Seoane, L.F. (2015). Ambiguity in language net-
(2013). The nature of anterograde and retrograde works. Linguistic Review, 32, 5–35.
memory impairment after damage to the medial tempo- Söllner, A. & Bröder, A. (2016). Toolbox or adjustable
ral lobe. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2709–2714. spanner? A critical comparison of two metaphors for

900 References
adaptive decision making. Journal of Experimental Sperber, D. & Girotto, V. (2002). Use or misuse of the selec-
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, tion task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby.
215–237. Cognition, 85, 277–290.
Solomon, S.H. & Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2017). Finding fea- Sperling, G. (1960). The information that is available in brief
tures, figuratively. Brain & Language, 174, 61–71. visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 74,
Song, J.-H. (2017). Abandoning and modifying one action 1–29.
plan for alternatives. Philosophical Transactions of the Sperry, R.W. (1968). Hemisphere deconnection and unity in
Royal Society B, 372 (Article no. 20160195). conscious awareness. American Psychologist, 23, 723–733.
Song, J.-H. & Nakayama, K. (2008). Target selection in visual Spiers, H.J., Maguire, E.A. & Burgess, N. (2001).
search as revealed by movement trajectories. Vision Hippocampal amnesia. Neurocase, 7, 357–382.
Research, 48, 853–861. Spiers, M.V. (2016). The head trauma amnesia cure.
Soni, M., Lambon Ralph, M.A., Noonan, K., Ehsan, S., Neurology, 86, 2291–2294.
Hodgson, C. & Woollams, A.M. (2009). “L” is for tiger: Spille, C. & Meyer, B.T. (2014). Identifying the human-ma-
Effects of phonological (mis)cueing on picture naming chine differences in complex binaural scenes: What
in semantic aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, can be learned from our auditory system. 15th Annual
538–547. Conference of the International Speech Communication
Soni, M., Lambon Ralph, M.A. & Woollams, A.M. (2011). association (Interspeech 2014), Singapore, Vols. 1–4,
“W” is for bath: Can associative errors be cued? Journal 626–630.
of Neuolinguistics, 24, 445–465. Squire, L.R. & Dede, A.J.O. (2015). Conscious and uncon-
Sörqvist, P. (2010). High working memory capacity attenu- scious memory systems. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives
ates the deviation effect but not the duplex-mechanism in Biology, 7 (Article no. a021667).
account of auditory distraction. Memory & Cognition, Squire, L.R., Genzel, L., Wixted, J.T. & Morris, R.G. (2015).
38, 651–658. Memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives
Sörqvist, P., Dahlstrom, Ő., Karlsson, T. & Rönnberg, J. in Biology, 7 (Article no. a021766).
(2016). Concentration: The neural underpinnings of how Squire, L.R., Slater, P.C. & Chace, P. (1975). Retrograde
cognitive load shields against distraction. Frontiers in amnesia temporal gradient in very long-term memory
Human Neuroscience, 10 (Article no. 221). following electroconvulsive therapy. Science, 187, 77–79.
Sotiropoulos, A. & Hanley, J.R. (2017). Developmental St. Jacques, P.L., Kragel, P.A. & Rubin, D.C. (2011).
surface and phonological dyslexic in both Greek and Dynamic neural networks supporting memory retrieval.
English. Cognition, 168, 205–216. NeuroImage, 57, 608–616.
Soto, D. & Silvanto, J. (2014). Reappraising the relationship St-Laurent, M., Moscovitch, M. & McAndrews, M.P. (2016).
between working memory and conscious awareness. The retrieval of perceptual memory details depends on
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 520–525. right hippocampal integrity and activation. Cortex, 84,
Soto-Faraco, S. & Alsius, A. (2009). Deconstructing the 15–33.
McGurk-MacDonald illusion. Journal of Experimental Stagg, C.J. & Nitsche, M.A. (2011). Physiological basis
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, of transcranial direct current stimulation. The
580–587. Neuroscientist, 17, 37–53.
Sowden, S. & Catmur, C. (2015). The role of the right tempo- Stagg, C.J., Antal, A. & Nitsche, M.A. (2018). Physiology of
ro-parietal junction in the control of imitation. Cerebral transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of ECT,
Cortex, 25, 1107–1113. 34, 144–152.
Spanel, K., Wagner, K., Geiger, M.J., Ofer, I., Schulze- Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (2013). Analogy.
Bonhage, A. & Metternich, B. (2018). Flashbulb Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reason
memories: Is the amygdala central: An investigation of ing-analogy/.
patients with amygdalar damage. Neuropsychologia, 111, Stange, J.P., Hamlat, E.J., Hamilton, J.L., Abramson, L.Y.
163–171. & Alloy, L.B. (2013). Overgeneral autobiographical
Spelke, E.S., Hirst, W.C. & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of memory, emotional maltreatment, and depressive symp-
divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230. toms in adolescence: Evidence of a cognitive vulnerabili-
Spence, C. (2012). Drive safely with neuroergonomics. ty-stress interaction. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 201–208.
Psychologist, 25, 664–667. Stanley, D.J. & Spence, J.R. (2014). Expectations for replica-
Spence, C., Parise, C. & Chen, Y.-C. (2011). The Colavita tions: Are yours realistic? Perspectives on Psychological
visual dominance effect. In M.M. Murray and Science, 9, 305–318.
M. Wallace (eds), Frontiers in the Neural Bases of Stanley, T.D., Carter, E.C. & Doucouliagos, H. (2018). What
Multisensory Processes (pp. 523–550). Boca Raton, FL: meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psycho-
CRC Press. logical research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1325–1346.

References 901
Stanovich, K.E. (2012). On the distinction between ration- Steinborn, M.B. & Huestegge, L. (2017). Phone conversation
ality and intelligence: Implications for understanding while processing information: Chronometric analysis of
individual differences in reasoning. In K.J. Holyoak & load effects in everyday-media multi-tasking. Frontiers in
R.G. Morrison (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking Psychology, 8 (Article no. 896).
and Reasoning (pp. 433–455). Oxford: Oxford University Steinhauer, K. & Friederici, A.D. (2001). Prosodic bound-
Press. aries, comma rules, and brain responses: The closure
Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Why humans are (sometimes) less positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for pro-
rational than other animals: Cognitive complexity and sodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of
the axioms of rational choice. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 267–295.
1–26. Steinmetz, K.R.M., Knight, A.G. & Kensinger, E.A. (2016).
Stanovich, K.E. (2016). The comprehensive assessment of Neutral details associated with emotional events
rational thinking. Educational Psychologist, 51, 23–34. are encoded: Evidence from a cued recall paradigm.
Stanovich, K.E. & Toplak, M.E. (2011). Defining features Cognition and Emotion, 30, 1352–1360.
versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 Stephens, R.G., Dunn, J.C. & Hayes, B.K. (2018). Are there
processing. Mind & Society, 11, 3–13. two processes in reasoning? The dimensionality of induc-
Stanovich, K.E. & West, R.F. (2007). Natural myside bias is tive and deductive inferences. Psychological Review, 125,
independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 218–244.
13, 225–247. Sternberg, R.J. (2011). Understanding reasoning: Let’s
Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. & Toplak, M.E. (2013). Myside describe what we really think about. Behavioral and
bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Brain Sciences, 34, 269–270.
Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264. Steyvers, M. & Hemmer, P. (2012). Reconstruction from
Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical probability on eye move- memory In naturalistic environments. In B.H. Ross
ments in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpre- (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56,
tation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 311–327. 126–144.
Staudigl, T., Vollmar, C., Noachtar, S. & Hanslmayr, S. Stivers, T., Enfield, N.J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M.,
(2015). Temporal-pattern similarity analysis reveals the Heinemann, T., et al. (2009). Universals and cultural
beneficial and detrimental effects of context reinstate- variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of
ment on human memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
5373–5384. America, 106, 10587–10592.
Steblay, N.K. & Dysart, J.E. (2016). Repeated eyewit- Storm, J.F., Boly, M., Casali, M., Olcese, U., Pennartz, C.M.A.
ness identification procedures with the same suspect. & Wilke, M. (2017). Consciousness regained: Disen
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, tangling mechanisms, brain systems, and behavioural
284 –289. responses. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 10882–10893.
Steblay, N.K. & Phillips, J.D. (2011). The not-sure response Strand, J.F., Brown, V.A., Brown, H.E. & Berg, J.J. (2018).
option in sequential lineup practice. Applied Cognitive Keep listening: Grammatical context reduces but does
Psychology, 25, 768–774. not eliminate activation of unexpected words. Journal
Steblay, N.K., Dysart, J.E. & Wells, G.L. (2011). Seventy- of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A Cognition, 44, 962–973.
meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Strayer, D.L. & Drews, F.A. (2007). Cell-phone induced
Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139. driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological
Steblay, N.K., Wells, G.L. & Douglass, A.B. (2014). The eye- Science, 16, 128–131.
witness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Strayer, D.L. & Fisher, D.L. (2016). SPIDER: A framework
Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public for understanding driver distraction. Human Factors, 58,
Policy and Law, 20, 1–18. 5–12.
Steblay, N.M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A Strayer, D.L., Watson, J.M. & Drews, F.A. (2011). Cognitive
meta-analytic review of line-up instruction effects. Law distraction while multitasking in the automobile. The
and Human Behavior, 21, 283–298. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 29–58.
Steel, K.A., Baxter, D., Dogramaci, S., Cobley, S. & Ellem, E. Strick, M., Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W, Sjoerdsma, A. & Van
(2016). Can biological motion research provide insight Baaren, R.B. (2011). A meta-analysis on unconscious
on how to reduce friendly fire incidents? Psychonomic thought effects. Social Cognition, 29, 738–762.
Bulletin & Review, 23, 1429–1439. Strijkers, K., Costa, A. & Pulvermüller, F. (2017). The cor-
Steiger, A. & Kühberger, A. (2018). A meta-analytic tical dynamics of speaking: Lexical and phonological
re-
appraisal of the framing effect. Zeitschrift für knowledge simultaneously recruit the frontal and tem-
Psychologie, 226, 45–55. poral cortex within 200 ms. NeuroImage, 163, 206–219.

902 References
Strobach, T., Antonenko, D., Abarrin, M., Escher, M., Flöel, Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C. & Ferreira, F. (2008).
A. & Schubert, T. (2018). Modulation of dual-task Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence
control with right prefrontal transcranial direct current from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 36,
stimulation. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 227–241. 201–216.
Strobach, T., Liepelt, R., Pashler, H., Frensch, P.A. & Swets, B., Jacovina, M.E. & Gerrig, R.J. (2013). Effects of
Schubert, T. (2013). Effects of extensive dual-task prac- conversational pressures on speech planning. Discourse
tice on processing stages in simultaneous choice tasks. Processes, 50, 23–51.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 900–920. Sylvester, C.M., Corbetta, M., Raichle, M.E., Rodebaugh,
Strong, S.L., Silson, E.H., Gonws, A.D., Morland, A.R. & T.L., Schlaggar, B.L., Sheline, Y.I., et al. (2012).
McKeefry, D.J. (2017). Differential processing of the Functional network dysfunction in anxiety and anxiety
direction and focus of expansion of optic flow stimuli in disorders. Trends in Neurosciencces, 35, 528–535.
areas MST and V3A of the human visual cortex. Journal Szczepanski, S. & Knight, R.T. (2014). Insights into human
of Neurophysiology, 117, 2209–2217. behaviour from lesions to the prefrontal cortex. Neuron,
Studer, B., Manes, F., Humphreys, G., Robbins, T.W. & 83, 1002–1018.
Clark, L. (2015). Risk-sensitive decision-making in Taatgen, N.A. (2011). Threaded cognition, a model of
patients with posterior parietal and ventromedial pre- human multitasking. Talk at Interdisciplinary Workshop
frontal cortex injury. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 1–9. on Cognitive Neuroscience, Educational Research and
Stupple, E.J.N. & Ball, L.J. (2008). Belief-logic conflict reso- Cognitive Modelling, March. Delmenhorst, Germany.
lution in syllogistic reasoning: Inspection-time evidence Taatgen, N.A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive
for a parallel-process model. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, skills. Psychological Review, 120, 439–471.
168–181. Taatgen, N.A., van Vugt, M.K., Borst, J.P. & Melhorn, K.
Stupple, E.J.N., Ball, L.J. & Ellis, D. (2013). Matching bias (2016). Cognitive modelling at ICCM: State of the art
in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process and future directions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8,
account from response times and confidence ratings. 259–263.
Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 54–77. Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Banakou, D., Bianchi-Berthouze, N.
Stuss, D.T. (2011). Functions of the frontal lobes: Relation & Slater, M. (2018). Embodiment in a child-like talking
to executive functions. Journal of the International virtual body influences object size perception, self-iden-
Neuropsychological Society, 17, 759–765. tification, and subsequent real speaking. Scientific
Stuss, D.T. & Alexander, M.P. (2007). Is there a dysexecu- Reports, 8 (Article no. 4854).
tive syndrome? Philsophical Transactions of the Royal Talarico, J.M. & Rubin, D.C. (2003). Confidence, not con-
Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 362, sistency, characterises flashbulb memories. Psychological
901–915. Science, 14, 455–461.
Sulin, R.A. & Dooling, D.J. (1974). Intrusion of a thematic Talarico, J.M., Berntsen, D. & Rubin, D.C. (2009). Positive
idea in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental emotions enhance recall of peripheral details. Cognition
Psychology, 103, 255–262. & Emotion, 23, 380–398.
Summerfield, C. & Li, V. (2018). Perceptual sub optimality: Tambini, A., Rimmele, U., Phelps, E.A. & Davachi, L.
Bug or feature? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e22, 39. (2017). Emotional brain states carry over and enhance
Suri, G., Whittaker, K. & Gross, J.J. (2015). Launching reap- future memory formation. Nature Neuroscience, 20,
praisal: It’s less common than you might think. Emotion, 271–278.
15, 73–77. Tamietto, M. & Morrone, M.C. (2016). Visual plasticity:
Suter, R.S., Pachur, T. & Hertwig, R. (2016). How affect Blindsight bridges anatomy and function in the visual
shapes risky choice: Distorted probability weighting system. Current Biology, 26, R70–R73.
versus probability neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Tamietto, M., Castelli, L., Vighetti, S., Perozzo, P.,
Making, 29, 437–449. Geminiani, G., Weiskrantz, L., et al. (2009). Unseen
Svenson, O., Salo, I. & Lindholm, T. (2009). Post-decision facial and bodily expressions trigger fast emotional reac-
consolidation and distortion of facts. Judgment and tions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
Decision Making, 4, 397–407. the United States of America, 106, 17661–17666.
Svoboda, E., McKinnon, M.C. & Levine, B. (2006). The func- Tanaka, J.W. & Taylor, M.E. (1991). Object categories and
tional neuroanatomy of autobiographical memory: A expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?
meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2189–2208. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 121–149.
Sweller, J. & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specific- Tang, D. & Schmeichel, B.J. (2014). Stopping anger and
ity on means-ends analysis and learning. Journal anxiety: Evidence that inhibitory control predicts neg-
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & ative emotional responding. Cognition & Emotion, 28,
Cognition, 8, 463–474. 132–142.

References 903
Tanguay, A.N., Benton, L., Romio, L., Steens, C., Davidson, Thagard, P. (2011). Critical thinking and informal logic:
P.S.R. & Renoult, L. (2018). The ERP correlates of Neuropsychological perspectives. Informal Logic, 31,
self-knowledge: Are assessments of one’s past, present, 152–170.
and future traits closer to semantic or episodic memory? Thakral, P.P., Kensinger, E.A. & Slotnick, S.D. (2016).
Neuropsychologia, 110, 65–83. Familiarity and priming are mediated by overlapping
Tarenskeen, S., Broersma, M. & Geurts, B. (2015). neural substrates. Brain Research, 1632, 107–118.
Overspecification of colour, pattern, and size: Salience, Theeuwes, J., Mathot, S. & Grainger, J. (2014). Object-centred
absoluteness, and consistency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 and IOR. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 76,
(Article no. 1703). 2249–2255.
Tarr, M.J. & Hayward, W.G. (2017). The concurrent encoding Thibaut, M., Tran, T.-H.-C., Szaffarczyk, S. & Boucart, M.
of viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint- dependent infor- (2018). Impact of age-related macular degeneration on
mation in visual object recognition. Visual Cognition, 25, object searchers in realistic panoramic scenes. Clinical
108–121. and Experimental Optometry, 101, 372–379.
Tassy, S., Ouillier, O., Duclos, Y., Coulon, O., Mancini, J., Thomas, B.C., Croft, K.E. & Tranel, D. (2011). Harming
Deruelle, C., et al. (2012). Disrupting the right prefron- king to save strangers: Further evidence for abnormally
tal cortex alters moral judgment. Social and Affective utilitarian moral judgments after ventromedial pre-
Neuroscience, 7, 282–288. frontal damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23,
Taylor, C.T., Cross, K. & Amir, N. (2016). Attentional 2186–2196.
control moderates the relationship between social Thomas, C. & Didierjean, A. (2016). Magicians fix your mind:
anxiety symptoms and attentional disengagement from How unlikely solutions block obvious ones. Cognition,
threatening information. Journal of Behavior Therapy 154, 169–173.
and Experimental Psychiatry, 50, 68–76. Thomas, L.E. & Lleras, A. (2009). Swinging into thought:
Taylor, J.A., Wojaczynski, G.J. & Ivry, R.B. (2014). Trial- Directed movement guides insight in problem solving.
by-trial analysis of intermanual transfer during visuo- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 719–723.
motor adaptation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106, Thompson, J. & Parasuraman, R. (2012). Attention, biological
3157–3172. motion, and action recognition. NeuroImage, 59, 4–13.
Taylor, T., Roman, L., McFeaters, K., Romoser, M., Thompson, M.B. & Tangen, J.M. (2014). The nature of exper-
Borowsky, A., Merritt, D.J., et al. (2015). Cell phone con- tise in fingerprint matching: Experts can do a lot with a
versations impede latent hazard anticipation while driving, little. PLoS ONE, 9 (Article no. e114759).
with partial compensation by self-regulation in more Thompson, M.B., Tangen, J.M. & McCarthy, D.J. (2014).
complex driving scenarios. Amherst: Arbella Insurance Human matching performance of genuine crime
Human Performance Lab, University of Massachusetts. scene latent fingerprints. Law and Human Behavior, 38,
Techer, F., Jallais, C., Corson, Y., Moreau, F., Ndiaye, D., 84–93.
Piechnick, B., et al. (2017). Attention and driving Thompson, V.A., Evans, J.St.B.T. & Campbell, J.I.C. (2013a).
performance modulations due to anger state:
Matching bias on the selection task: It’s fast and feels
Contribution of electroenchephalograpic data. Neuro good. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 431–452.
science Letters, 636, 134–139. Thompson, V.A., Pennycook, G., Trippas, D. & Evans,
Tentori, K., Chater, N. & Crupi, V. (2016). Judging the prob- J.St.B.T. (2018). Do smart people have better intui-
ability of hypotheses versus the impact of evidence: tions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147,
Which form of inductive accurate and time-consistent? 945–961.
Cognitive Science, 40, 758–778. Thompson, V.A., Turner, J.A.P. & Pennycook, G. (2011).
Tentori, K., Crupi, V. & Russo, S. (2013). On the determi- Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive
nants of the conjunction fallacy: Probability versus Psychology, 63, 107–140.
inductive confirmation. Journal of Experimental Thompson, V.A., Turner, J.A.P., Pennycook, G., Ball,
Psychology: General, 142, 235–255. L.J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., et al. (2013b). The role of
Terzi, A., Koedijk, K., Noussair, C.N. & Pownall, R. (2016). answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacogni-
Reference point heterogeneity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 tive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128,
(Article no. 1347). 237–251.
Tetlock, P.E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for Thomsen, D.K. (2015). Autobiographical periods: A review
judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and central components of a theory. Review of General
and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. Psychology, 19, 294–310.
Tetlock, P.E. & Boettger, R. (1994). Accountability ampli- Thornton, T.L. & Gilden, D.L. (2007). Parallel and serial
fies the status quo effect when change creates victims. processes in visual search. Psychological Review, 114,
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 1–23. 71–103.

904 References
Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17,
in the human visual system. Nature, 381, 520–522. 450–461.
Tierney, A., Dick, F., Deutsch, D. & Sereno, M. (2013). Toplak, M.E., West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. (2011). The
Speech versus song: Multiple pitch-sensitive areas Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance
revealed by a naturally occurring musical illusion. on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39,
Cerebral Cortex, 23, 249–254. 1275–1289.
Tierney, A., Patel, A.D. & Breen, M. (2018). Acoustic Toplak, M.E., West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. (2014).
foundations of the speech-to-song illusion. Journal of Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion
Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 888–904. of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning,
Tijtgat, P., Mazyn, L., De Laey, C. & Lenoir, M. (2008). The 20, 147–168.
contribution of stereo vision to the control of braking. Toplak, M.E., West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. (2017). Real-
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 719–724. world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases
Tindle, R. & Longstaff, M.G. (2015). Writing, reading, and tasks in a community sample. Journal of Behavioral
listening differentially overload working memory per- Decision Making, 30, 541–554.
formance across the serial position curve. Advances in Trabasso, T. & Sperry, L.L. (1985). Causal relatedness and
Cognitive Psychology, 11, 147–155. importance of story events. Journal of Memory and
Tindle, R. & Longstaff, M.G. (2016). Investigating the lower Language, 24, 595–611.
level demands of writing: Handwriting movements Tranel, D., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H. & Brandt, J.P.
interfere with immediate verbal serial recall. Journal of (1994). Sensori-motor skill learning in amnesia:
Cognitive Psychology, 28, 443–461. Additional evidence for the neural basis of non-
Toba, M.N., Migliaccio, R., Batrancourt, B., Bourlon, C., declarative memory. Learning and Memory, 1, 165–179.
Duret, C., Pradat-Diehl, P., et al. (2018a). Common Trapp, S. & Bar, M. (2015). Prediction, context, and com-
brain networks for distinct deficits in visual neglect: A petition in visual recognition. Annals of the New York
combined structural and tractography MRI approach. Academy of Sciences, 1339, 190–198.
Neuropsychologia, 115, 167–178. Travaglia, A., Bisaz, R., Sweet, E.S., Blitzer, R.D. & Alberini,
Toba, M.N., Rabuffetti, M., Duret, C., Pradat-Diehl, P., C.M. (2016). Infantile amnesia reflects a developmen-
Gainotti, G. & Bartolomeo, P. (2018b). Component defi- tal critical period for hippocampal learning. Nature
cits of visual neglect: “Magnetic” attraction of attention Neuroscience, 19, 1225–1233.
vs. impaired spatial working memory. Neuropsychologia, Travers, E., Rolison, J.J. & Feeney, A. (2016). The time course
109, 52–62. of conflict on the Cognitive Reflection Test. Cognition,
Todorović, D. (2009). The effect of the observer vantage point 150, 109–118.
on perceived distortions in linear perspective images. Traxler, M.J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation,
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 183–193. Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends
Toffolo, M.B.J., van den Hout, M.A., Radomsky, A.S. & in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611.
Engelhard, I.M. (2016). Check, check, double check: Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell: Phonology and beyond.
Investigating memory deterioration within multiple ses- Cognitive Neuropsychology, 34, 83–93.
sions of repeated checking. Journal of Behavior Therapy Treiman, R. & Kessler, B. (2016). Choosing between alter-
and Experimental Psychiatry, 53, 59–67. native spellings of sounds: The role of context. Journal
Toli, A., Webb, T.L. & Hardy, G.E. (2016). Does forming of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
implementation intentions help people with mental Cognition, 42, 1154–1159.
health problems to achieve goals? A meta-analysis of Treisman, A.M. (1964). Verbal cues, language, and meaning
experimental studies with clinical and analogue samples. in selective attention. American Journal of Psychology,
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 69–90. 77, 206–219.
Tollestrup, P.A., Turtle, J.W. & Yuille, J.C. (1994). Actual Treisman, A.M. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object
victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
analysis. In D.F. Ross, J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia (eds), Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 353,
Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current trends and develop- 1295–1306.
ments (pp. 144–160). New York: Wiley. Treisman, A.M. & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention
Tolman, E.C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. to ear and eye. In S. Kornblum (ed.), Attention and
Psychological Review, 55, 189–208. Performance, Vol. IV (pp. 101–117). London: Academic
Tong, F. & Pratte, M.S. (2012). Decoding patterns of human Press.
brain activity. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 483–509. Treisman, A.M. & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integra-
Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M. & Koch, C. (2016). tion theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12,
Integrated information theory: From consciousness to 97–136.

References 905
Treisman, A.M. & Riley, J.G.A. (1969). Is selective attention Tsang, S.N.H. & Chan, A.H.S. (2018). Tracking and discrete
selective perception or selective response: A further test. dual-task performance for different visual spatial stim-
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 27–34. ulus-response mappings with focal and ambient vision.
Tremblay, P. & Dick, A.S. (2016). Broca and Wernicke are Applied Ergonomics, 67, 39–49.
dead, or moving past the classic model of language neu- Tsano, S.H. & Sharma, T. (2018). Rod monochromatism
robiology. Brain & Language, 162, 60–71. (achromatopsia). Atlas of Inherited Retinal Diseases
Trench, M., Olguín, V. & Minervino, R. (2016). Seek, and Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1085,
ye shall find: Differences between spontaneous and 119–123.
voluntary analogical retrieval. Quarterly Journal of Tsarfaty, R., Seddah, D., Kübler, S. & Nivre, J. (2013).
Experimental Psychology, 69, 696–712. Parsing morphologically rich languages: Introduction to
Tresilian, J.R. (1999). Visually timed action: Time-out for the Special Issue. Computational Models, 39, 15–22.
“tau”? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 407–408. Tsujii, T. & Watanabe, S. (2009). Neural correlates of
Tressoldi, P.E., Sella, F., Coltheart, M. & Umiltà, C. (2012). dual-task effect on belief-bias syllogistic reasoning: A
Using functional neuroimaging to test theories of cog- near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain Research, 1287,
nition: A selective survey of studies from 2007 to 2011 118–125.
as a contribution to the Decade of the Mind initiative. Tubau, E., Aguilar-Lleyda, D. & Johnson, E.D. (2015).
Cortex, 48, 1247–1250. Reasoning and choice in the Monty Hall Dilemma
Triesch, J., Ballard, D.H. & Jacobs, R.A. (2002). Fast tem- (MHD): Implications for improving Bayesian reasoning.
poral dynamics of visual cue integration. Perception, 31, Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 353).
421–434. Tuckey, M.R. & Brewer, N. (2003a). How schemas affect
Trippas, D., Handley, S.J. & Verde, M.F. (2013). The SDT eyewitness memory over repeated retrieval attempts.
model of belief bias: Complexity, time and cogni- Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 785–800.
tive ability mediate the effects of believability. Journal Tuckey, M.R. & Brewer, N. (2003b). The influence of
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on
Cognition, 39, 1393–1402. eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental
Trippas, D., Handley, S.J., Verde, M.F. & Morsanyi, K. Psychology: Applied, 9, 101–118.
(2016). Logic brightens my day: Evidence for implicit Tullett, A.M. & Inzlicht, M. (2010). The voice of self-control:
sensitivity to logical validity. Journal of Experimental Blocking the inner voice increases impulsive responding.
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, Acta Psychologica, 135, 252–256.
1448–1457. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E.
Trippas, D., Pennycook, G., Verde, M.F. & Handley, S.J. Tulving & W. Donaldson (eds), Organisation of Memory
(2015). Better but still biased: Analytic cognitive style (pp. 381–403). London: Academic Press.
and belief bias. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 431–445. Tulving, E. (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and
Trippas, D., Thompson, V.A. & Handley, S.J. (2017). When levels of processing. In L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (eds),
fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel- Levels of Processing in Human Memory (pp. 405–428).
processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition, 45, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
539–552. Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain.
Troiani, V., Price, E.T. & Schultz, R.T. (2014). Unseen fearful Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1–25.
faces promote amygdala guidance of attention. Social, Turano, M.T., Marzi, T. & Viggiano, M.P. (2016). Individual
Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 133–140. differences in face processing captured by ERPs.
Trouche, E., Johansson, P., Hall, L. & Mercier, H. (2016). International Journal of Psychophysiology, 101, 1–8.
The selective laziness of reasoning. Cognitive Science, 40, Turner, R. (2016). Uses, misuses, new uses and fundamental
2122–2136. limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in cognitive
Trout, J.D. (2001). The biological basis of speech: What to science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
infer from talking to the animals. Psychological Review, B – Biological Sciences, 371 (Article no. 20150349).
108, 523–549. Tustin, K. & Hayne, H. (2016). Early memories come in
Troy, A.S., Shallcross, A.J., Brunner, A. & Friedman, R. small packages: Episodic memory in young children and
(2018). Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects adults. Developmental Psychobiology, 58, 852–865.
on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of
Emotion, 18, 58–74. choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.
Troy, A.S., Shallcross, A.J. & Mauss, I.B. (2013). A per- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncer-
son-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: tainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.
Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions
on the context. Psychological Science, 24, 2505–2514. and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

906 References
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intu- Ullén, F., Hambrick, D.Z. & Mosing, M.A. (2016).
itive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability Rethinking expertise: A multifactorial gene-environment
judgment. Psychological Review, 91, 293–315. interaction model of expert performance. Psychological
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in pros- Bulletin, 142, 427–446.
pect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Uncapher, M.R. & Wagner, A.D. (2018). Minds and brains
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. of media multitaskers: Current findings and future
Tversky, A. & Koehler, D.J. (1994). Support theory: A directions. Proceedings of the National Association of
non-extensional representation of subjective probability. Sciences, 115, 9889–9896.
Psychological Review, 101, 547–567. Unsworth, N. & McMillan, B.D. (2013). Mind wandering and
Tversky, A. & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice reading comprehension: Examining working memory
under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309. capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience.
Twedt, E. & Parfitt, P.R. (2018). Perception. In S. Dunn (ed.), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology (pp. 1–12). Oxford: and Cognition, 39, 832–842.
Oxford University Press. Unsworth, N., Brewer, G.A. & Spillers, G.J. (2013). Focusing
Tweney, R.D., Doherty, M.E., Worner, W.J., Pliske, D.B., the search: Proactive and retroactive interference and
Mynatt, C.R., Gross, K.A., et al. (1980). Strategies for the dynamics of free recall. Journal of Experimental
rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39,
Experimental Psychology, 32, 109–123. 1742–1756.
Tyler, C.W. (2015). The vault of perception: Are straight lines Unsworth, N., Redick, T.S., Spillers, G.J. & Brewer, G.A.
seen as curved? Art & Perception, 3, 117–137. (2012). Variation in working memory capacity and cog-
Tyler, L.K., Voice, J. & Moss, H.E. (2000). The interaction nitive control: Goal maintenance and micro-adjustments
of meaning and sound in spoken word recognition. of control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 320–326. 65, 326–355.
Tyszka, J.M., Kennedy, D.P., Adolphs, R. & Paul, L.K. Urbanski, M., Bréchemier, M.-L., Garcin, B., Bendetowicz,
(2011). Intact bilateral resting-state networks in the D., de Schotten, M.T., Foulon, C., et al. (2016).
absence of the corpus callosum. Journal of Neuroscience, Reasoning by analogy requires the left frontal pole:
31, 15154–15162. Lesion-deficit mapping and clinical implications. Brain,
Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Josse, G., Crivello, F. & Mazoyer, B. 139, 1783–1799.
(2004). Interindividual variability in the hemispheric Uttal, W.R. (2012). Reliability in Cognitive Neuroscience: A
organisation for speech. NeuroImage, 21, 422–435. meta-meta analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Uchino, B.N., Thoman, D. & Byerly, S. (2010). Inference Vadillo, M.A., Konstantinis, E. & Shanks, D.R.
patterns in social psychology: Looking back as we move (2016). Underpowered samples, false negatives, and
forward. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20, unconscious learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
417–427. 23, 87–102.
Ucros, C.G. (1989). Mood-state-dependent memory: A Vahdat, S., Fogel, S., Benali, H. & Doyon, J. (2017).
meta-analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 3, 139–167. Network-wide reorganization of procedural memory
Uddén, J., Ingvar, M., Hagoort, P. & Petersson, K.M. (2017). during NREM sleep revealed by fMRI. eLIFE, 6 (Article
Broca’s region: A causal role in implicit processing no. e24987).
of grammars with crossed non-adjacent dependences. Vaina, L.M. (1998). Complex motion perception and its defi-
Cognition, 164, 188–198. cits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, 494–502.
Uddin, L.Q. (2013). Complex relationships between structural Vaina, L.M., Lemaya, M., Beinfanga, D.C., Choia, A. &
and functional brain complexity. Trends in Cognitive Nakayama, K. (1990). Intact “biological motion” and
Sciences, 17, 600–602. “structure from motion” in a patient with impaired
Uddin, L.Q., Rayman, J. & Zaidel, E. (2005). Split-brain motion mechanisms: A case study. Visual Neuroscience,
reveals separate but equal self-recognition in the two 5, 353–359.
cerebral hemispheres. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, Valentine, T., Pickering, A. & Darling, S. (2003).
633–640. Characteristics of eyewitness identification that
Uddin, S., Heald, S.L.M., Van Hedger, S.C., Klos, S. & predict the outcome of real line-ups. Applied Cognitive
Nusbaum, H.C. (2018). Understanding environmental Psychology, 17, 969–993.
sounds in sentence context. Cognition, 172, 134–143. Valero-Cabré, A., Amengual, J.L., Stengel, C., Pascal-Leone,
Ueno, T., Meteyard, L., Hoffman, P. & Murayama, K. A. & Coubard, O.A. (2017). Transcranial magnetic stim-
(2018). The ventral anterior temporal lobe has a neces- ulation in basic and clinical neuroscience: A comprehen-
sary role in exception word reading. Cerebral Cortex, 28, sive review of fundamental principles and novel insights.
3035–3045. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 381–404.
References 907
Vallée-Tourangeau, F., Euden, G. & Hearn, V. (2011). process of academic writing. Written Communication, 34,
Einstellung defused: Interactivity and mental set. 280–305.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, van der Weiden, A., Ruys, K.I. & Aarts, H. (2013). A matter
1889–1895. of matching: How goals and primes affect self-agency
van Atteveldt, N., Murray, M.M., Thut, G. & Schroeder, experiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
C.E. (2014). Multisensory integration: Flexible use of General, 142, 954–966.
general operations. Neuron, 81, 1240–1253. Van Dyke, J.A., Johns, C.L. & Kukona, A. (2014). Low
Van Belle, G., Busigny, T., Lefèvre, P., Joubert, S., Felician, working memory capacity is only spuriously related to
O., Gentile, F. & Rossion, B. (2011). Impairment of poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403.
holistic face perception following right ocipito-tem- van Gaal, S. & Lamme, V.A.F. (2012). Unconscious high-
poral damage in prosopagnosia: Converging evi- level information processing: Implication for neurobio-
dence from gaze-contingency. Neuropsychologia, 49, logial theories of consciousness. The Neuroscientist, 18,
3145–3150. 287–301.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M., Zwitserlood, P., van Gaal, S., Ridderinkhof, K.R., Scholte, H.S. & Lamme,
Kooijman, V. & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating V.A.F. (2010). Unconscious activation of the pre-
upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs frontal no-go network. Journal of Neuroscience, 30,
and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 4143–4150.
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443–467. van Gompel, R.P.G., Pickering, M.J. & Traxler, M.J. (2000).
Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambigu-
J., Crombez, G. & Koster, E.H.W. (2014). A review of ity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller
current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias & J. Pytte (eds), Reading as a Perceptual Process
on fear and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 682–721. (pp. 621–648). Oxford: Elsevier.
van den Berg, A.V. & Brenner, E. (1994). Why two eyes are van Gompel, R.P.G. & Traxler, M.J. (2001). Re-analysis in
better than one for judgments of heading. Nature, 371, sentence processing: Evidence against constraint-based
700–702. and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language,
Van den Brink, D., Van Berkum, J.J.A., Bastiaansen, M.C.M., 43, 225–258.
Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M., Buitelaar, J.K., et al. (2012). van Harreveld, F., Wagenmakers, F.J. & van der Maas,
Empathy matters: ERP evidence for inter-individual dif- H.L.J. (2007). The effects of time pressure on chess skills:
ferences in social language processing. Social Cognitive An investigation into fast and slow responses under-
and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 173–183. lying expert performance. Psychological Research, 71,
van den Broek, P. & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive pro- 591–597.
cesses in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, van Kesteren, M.T.R., Fernández, G., Norris, D.G. &
reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental rep-
Hermans, E.J. (2010). Persistent schema-dependent
resentations. Discourse Processes, 54, 360–372. hippocampal-neocortical connectivity during memory
Vandenbroucke, A.R.E., Fahrenfort, J.J., Meuwese, J.D.I., encoding and post-encoding rest in humans. Proceedings
Scholte, H.S. & Lamme, V.A.F. (2016). Prior knowledge of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107,
about objects determines neural colour representation in 7550–7555.
human visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 1401–1408. Vanlancker-Sidtis, D. (2004). When only the right hemisphere
Van den Hout, M. & Kindt, M. (2004). Obsessive-compulsive is left: Studies in language and communication. Brain
disorder and the paradoxical effects of persevera- and Language, 91, 199–211.
tive behaviour on experienced uncertainty. Journal of Vanlessen, N., De Raedt, R., Koster, E.H.W. & Pourtois, G.
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 35, (2016). Happy heart, smiling eyes: A systematic review
165–181. of positive mood effects on broadening of visuospatial
van der Hoort, B., Guterstam, A. & Ehrsson, H.H. (2011). attention. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 68,
Being Barbie: The size of one’s own body determines 816–837.
the perceived size of the world. PLoS ONE, 6 (Article Vannuscorps, G., Andres, M. & Pillon, A. (2013). When
no. e20195). does action comprehension need motor involve-
van der Schuur, W.A., Baumgartner, S.E., Sumter, S.R. & ment? Evidence from upper limb aplasia. Cognitive
Valkenburg, P.M. (2015). The consequences of media Neuropsychology, 30, 253–283.
multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Vannuscorps, G., Dricot, L. & Pillon, A. (2016). Persistent
Behavior, 53, 204–215. sparing of action conceptual processing in spite of
Van der Steen, S., Samuelson, D. & Thomson, J.M. (2017). increasing disorders of action production: A case
The effect of keyboard-based word processing on stu- against motor embodiment of action concepts. Cognitive
dents with different working memory capacity during the Neuropsychology, 33, 191–209.

908 References
van Orden, G.C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound and Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W. & d’Ydewalle, G. (2005). A
reading. Memory & Cognition, 14, 371–386. dual-process specification of causal conditional reason-
van Petten, C. & Luka, B.J. (2012). Prediction during ing. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 239–278.
language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP
Vesia, M. & Crawford, J.D. (2012). Specialisation of
components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, reach function in human posterior parietal cortex.
83, 176–190. Experimental Brain Research, 221, 1–18.
van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E. & Parks, M. Vetter, P., Grosbras, M.-H. & Muckli, L. (2015). TMS over
(1999). Time course of word identification and semantic V5 disrupts motion prediction. Cerebral Cortex, 25,
integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental 1052–1059.
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, Vidal-Piñeiro, D., Sneve, M.H., Storsve, A.B., Roe, J.M.,
394–417. Walhovd, K.B. & Fhell, A.M. (2018). Neural correlates
van Polanen, V. & Davare, M. (2015). Interactions between of durable memories across the adult lifespan: Brain
dorsal and ventral streams for controlling skilled grasp. activity at encoding and retrieval. Neurobiology of Aging,
Neuropsychologia, 79, 186–191. 60, 20–33.
van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P. & Brown, C.M. (1998). Brain Viggiano, M.P., Giovannelli, F., Borgheresi, A., Feurra, M.,
activity during speaking: From syntax to phonology in Berardi, N., Pizzorusso, T., et al. (2008). Disruption
40 milliseconds. Science, 280, 572–574. of the prefrontal cortex function by rTMS produces
van Velzen, M.H., Nanetti, L. & de Deyn, P.P. (2014). Data a category-specific enhancement of the reaction times
modelling in corpus linguistics: How low can we go? during visual object identification. Neuropsychologia, 46,
Cortex, 55, 192–201. 2725–2731.
Vaquero, L., Hartmann, K., Ripollés, P., Rojo, N., Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T. & Garrett, M.F. (1997).
Sierpowska, J., Francois, C., et al. (2016). Structural Grammatical gender is on the top of Italian tongues.
neuroplasticity in expert pianists depends on the age of Psychological Science, 8, 314–317.
musical training onset. NeuroImage, 126, 106–119. Virtue, S., Schutzenhofer, M. & Tomkins, B. (2017).
Varakin, D.A., Levin, D.T. & Collins, K.M. (2007). Hemispheric processing of predictive inferences during
Comparison and representation failures both cause real- reading: The influence of negatively emotional valenced
world change. Perception, 36, 737–749. stimuli. Laterality, 22, 455–472.
Vargha-Khadem, F., Gadian, D.G., Watkins, K.E., Visted, E., Vollestad, J., Nielsen, M.B. & Schanche, E. (2018).
Connelly, A., Van Paesschen, W. & Mishkin, M. Emotion regulation in current and remitted depression:
(1997). Differential effects of early hippocampal patho A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in
logy on episodic and semantic memory. Science, 277, Psychology, 8 (Article no. 756).
376–380. Viviani, R. (2013). Emotion regulation, attention to emotion,
Vasilev, M.R. & Angele, B. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects and the ventral attentional network. Frontiers in Human
from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A Neuroscience, 7 (Article no. 746).
critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Võ, M.L.-H. & Wolfe, J.M. (2012). When does repeated search
Bulletin & Review, 24, 666–689. in scenes involve memory? Looking at versus looking for
Vendetti, M.S., Starr, A., Johnson, E.L., Modavi, K. & objects in scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Bunge, S.A. (2017). Eye movements reveal optimal strat- Human Perception and Performance, 38, 23–41.
egies for analogical reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 Volden, J. (2017). Autism spectrum disorder. In L. Cummings
(Article no. 932). (ed.), Research in Clinical Pragmatics: Perspectives in
Vergauwe, E. & Langerock, N. (2017). Attentional refreshing Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 11, 59–83.
of information in working memory: Increased immediate Volz, L.J. & Gazzaniga, M.S. (2017). Interaction in isolation:
accessibility of just-refreshed representations. Journal of 50 years of insights from split-brain research. Brain, 140,
Memory and Language, 96, 23–35. 2051–2060.
Vergauwe, E., Barrouillet, P. & Camos, V. (2009). Visual Volz, L.J., Hillyard, S.A., Miller, M.B. & Gazzaniga, M.S.
and spatial working memory are not dissociated after (2018). Unifying control over the body: Consciousness
all: A time-based resource-sharing account. Journal and cross-cueing in split-brain patients. Brain, 141
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and (Article no. e15).
Cognition, 35, 1012–1028. Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games
Verleger, R., Binkofski, F., Friedrich, M., Sedlmeier, P. & and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Kömpf, D. (2011). Anarchic-hand syndrome: ERP University Press.
reflections of lost control over the right hemisphere. Vossel, S., Geng, J.J. & Fink, G.R. (2014). Dorsal and ventral
Brain and Cognition, 77, 138–150. attention system: Distinct neural circuits but collabora-
tive roles. The Neuroscientist, 20, 150–159.

References 909
Vousden, J.I. & Maylor, E.A. (2006). Speech errors across the a profoundly ambiguous stimulus in the colour domain:
lifespan. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 48–77. “The dress”. Journal of Vision, 17, 1–14.
Vranić, A., Jelić, M. & Tonković, M. (2018). Functions of Walsh, J.J., McNally, M., Shariah, A., Butt, A.A. & Eysenck,
autobiographical memory in younger and older adults. M.W. (2015). Interpretive bias, repressive coping,
Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (Article no. 219). and trait anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 28,
Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J.L., Clarke, K., Husain, M., Driver, 617–633.
J. & Dolan, R.J. (2002a). Neural response to emotional Walter, S., Keitel, C. & Müller, M.M. (2016). Sustained
faces with and without awareness: Event-related fMRI splits of attention within versus across visual hemi-
in a parietal patient with visual extinction and spatial fields produce distinct spatial gain profiles. Journal of
neglect. Neuropsychologia, 40, 2156–2166. Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 111–124.
Vuilleumier, P., Schwartz, S., Clarke, K., Husain, M. & Walton, D. (2010). Why fallacies appear to be better argu-
Driver, J. (2002b). Testing memory for unseen visual ments than they are. Informal Logic, 30, 159–184.
stimuli in patients with extinction and spatial neglect. Walton, D. (2017). The slippery slope argument in the ethical
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 875–886. debate on genetic engineering of humans. Science and
Wachtel, P.L. (1973). Psychodynamics, behaviour therapy and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1507–1528.
the implacable experimenter: An inquiry into the consist- Wang, M., Rieger, M.O. & Hens, T. (2017). The impact of
ency of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, culture on loss aversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision
324–334. Making, 30, 270–281.
Wagemans, J., Elder, J.H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S.E., Wang, P., Gauthier, I. & Cottrell, G. (2016). Are face and
Peterson, M.A., Singh, M., et al. (2012a). A century of object recognition independent? A neurocomputa-
Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual tional modelling exploration. Journal of Cognitive
grouping and figure-ground organisation. Psychological Neuroscience, 28, 558–574.
Bulletin, 138, 1172–1217. Wang, S., Fukuchi, M., Koch, C. & Tsuchiya, N. (2012).
Wagemans, J., Feldman, J., Gepshtein, S., Kimchi, R., Spatial attention is attracted in a sustained fashion
Poemerantz, J.R. & van der Helm, P.A. (2012b). A toward singular points in the optic flow. PLoS ONE, 7
century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II. (Article no. e41040).
Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Wang, X.T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human
Bulletin, 138, 1218–1252. choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts.
Wagman, J.B., Caputo, S.E. & Suffregen, T.A. (2016). Cognition, 60, 31–63.
Hierarchical nesting of affordances in a tool use task. Wang, Y. & Xuebing, L. (2017). Temporal course of implicit
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception emotion regulation during a priming-identify task: An
and Performance, 42, 1627–1642. ERP study. Scientific Reports, 7 (Article no. 41941).
Wagner, A.D., Schacter, D.L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, Ward, E.J. & Scholl, B.J. (2015). Inattentional blindness
W., Maril, A.M., Dale, B.R., et al. (1998). Building reflects limitations on perception, not memory: Evidence
memories: Remembering and forgetting of verbal expe- from repeated failures of awareness. Psychonomic
riences as predicted by brain activity. Science, 281, Bulletin & Review, 22, 722–727.
1188–1191. Ward, J. (2006). The Student’s Guide to Cognitive
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J.D. & Schriefers, H. (2010). On Neuroscience. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
the flexibility of grammatical advance planning: Effects Ward, J. (2015). The Student’s Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience
of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal (3rd edn). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Waris, O., Soveri, A., Ahti, M., Hoffing, R.C., Ventus,
Cognition, 36, 423–440. D., Jaeggi, S.M., et al. (2017). A latent factor analysis
Wagoner, B. (2013). Bartlett’s concept of schema in recon- of working memory measures using large-scale data.
struction. Theory & Psychology, 23, 553–575. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (Article no. 1062).
Waldum, E.R. & McDaniel, M.A. (2016). Why are you late? Warren, D.E., Jones, S.H., Diff, M.C. & Tranel, D. (2014).
Investigating the role of time management in time- False recall is reduced by damage to the ventrome-
based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental dial prefrontal cortex: Implications for understanding
Psychology: General, 145, 1049–1061. the neural correlates of schematic memory. Journal of
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. London: J. Cape. Neuroscience, 34, 7677–7682.
Wallis, G. (2013). Toward a unified model of face and object Warren, R.M. & Warren, R.P. (1970). Auditory illusions and
recognition in the human visual system. Frontiers in confusions. Scientific American, 223, 30–36.
Psychology, 4 (Article no. 497). Watanabe, K. & Funahashi, S. (2018). Toward an under-
Wallisch, P. (2017). Illumination assumptions account for standing of the neural mechanisms underlying dual-task
individual differences in the perceptual interpretation of performance: Contribution of comparative approaches

910 References
using animal models. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Wegner, D.M. (2003). The mind’s best trick: How we experi-
Reviews, 84, 12–28. ence free will. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 65–69.
Waters, E.A. (2008). Feeling good, feeling bad, and feeling at Wegner, D.M. & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causa-
risk: A review of incidental affect’s influence on likeli- tion: Sources of the experience of free will. American
hood estimates of health hazards and life events. Journal Psychologist, 54, 480–492.
of Risk Research, 11, 569–595. Weibert, K., Harris, R.J., Mitchell, A., Byrne, H., Young,
Waters, F., Collerton, D., Ffytche, D.H., Jardri, R., Pins, D., A.W. & Andrewsm T.J. (2016). An image-invariant
Dudley, R., et al. (2014). Visual hallucinations in the psy- neural response to familiar faces in the human medial
chosis spectrum and comparative information from neu- temporal lobe. Cortex, 84, 34–42.
rodegenerative disorders and eye disease. Schizophrenia Weidema, J.L., Roncaglia-Denissen, M.P. & Honing, H.
Bulletin, 40, S233–S245. (2016). Top-down perception and categorisation of iden-
Watkins, E., Moulds, M. & Mackintosh, B. (2005). tical pitch contours in speech and music. Frontiers in
Comparisons between rumination and worry in a Psychology, 7 (Article no. 817).
non-clinical population. Behaviour Research and Weingarten, E., Chen, Q., McAdams, M., Hepler, J., Yi, J. &
Therapy, 43, 1577–1585. Albarracín, D. (2016). From primed concepts to action:
Watson, D. (2009). Differentiating the mood and anxiety dis- A meta-analysis of the behavioural effects of incidentally
orders: A quadripartite model. Annual Review of Clinical presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 472–497.
Psychology, 5, 221–247. Weisberg, R.W. (2018). Problem solving. In L.J. Ball & V.A.
Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual struc- Thompson (eds), Routledge International Handbook of
ture of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235. Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 607–623). Abingdon, Oxon:
Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviourist sees it. Routledge.
Psychological Review, 20, 158–177. Weiskrantz, L. (1980). Varieties of residual experience.
Watson, J.B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of language Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32,
mechanisms? British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87–104. 365–386.
Watson, T.L. & Robbins, R.A. (2014). The nature of holistic Weiskrantz, L. (1997). Consciousness: Lost and found: A neu-
processing in face and object recognition: Current opin- ropsychological exploration. Oxford: Oxford University
ions. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (Article no. 3). Press.
Watt, C.A. & Kennedy, J.E. (2017). Options for prospective Weiskrantz, L. (2010). Looking Back: blindsight in hindsight.
meta-analysis and introduction of registration-based The Psychologist, 23, 356–358.
prospective meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 Weiskrantz, L., Warrington, E.K., Sanders, M.D. & Marshall,
(Article no. 2030). J. (1974). Visual capacity in the hemianopic field follow-
Webb, M.E., Little, D.R. & Cropper, S.J. (2016a). Insight ing a restricted occipital ablation. Brain, 97, 709–728.
is not in the problem: Investigating insight in problem Weiss, N., Mardo, E. & Avidan, G. (2016). Visual exper-
solving across task types. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 tise for horses in a case of congenital prosopagnosia.
(Article no. 1424). Neuropsychologia, 83, 63–75.
Webb, T.L., Miles, E. & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with Welch, R.B. & Warren, D.H. (1980). Immediate perceptual
feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological
derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Bulletin, 88, 638–667.
Psychological Bulletin, 138, 775–808. Weller, J.A., Levin, I.P., Shiv, B. & Bechara, A. (2007).
Webb, T.W. & Graziano, M.S.A. (2015). The attention Neural correlates of adaptive decision making for risky
schema theory: A mechanistic account of subjective gains and losses. Psychological Science, 18, 958–964.
awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article no. 500). Wells, G.L., Steblay, N.K. & Dysart, J.E. (2015). Double-
Webb, T.W., Kean, H.H. & Graziano, M.S.A. (2016b). blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: An exper-
Effects of awareness on the control of attention. Journal imental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 842–851. procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 1–14.
Weber, A. & Crocker, M.W. (2012). On the nature of semantic Wen, T., De-Cyuan, L. & Hsieh, S. (2018). Connectivity pat-
constraints on lexical access. Journal of Psycholinguistic terns in cognitive control networks predict naturalistic
Research, 41, 195–214. multitasking ability. Neuropsychologia, 114, 198–202.
Webster, M.A. (2016). Individual differences in colour Wen, X., Liu, Y. & Ding, M. (2012). Causal interactions in
vision. In A.J. Eliot, M.D. Fairchild & A. Franklin attention networks predict behavioural performance.
(eds), Handbook of Colour Psychology (pp. 187–215). Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 1284–1292.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werner-Seidler, A., Hitchcock, C., Bevan, A., McKinnon, A.,
Webster, R.J. (2015). Does disruptive camouflage conceal Gillard, J., Dahm, T., et al. (2018). A cluster randomised
edges and features? Current Zoology, 61, 708–717. controlled platform trial comparing group MEmory

References 911
specificity training (MEST) to group psychoeducation Wilkins, N.J. & Rawson, K.A. (2011). Controlling retrieval
and supportive counselling (PSC) in the treatment of during practice: Implications for memory-based theories
recurrent depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, of automaticity. Journal of Memory and Language, 65,
105, 1–9. 208–221.
Wessel, J.R., Haider, H. & Rose, M. (2012). The transition Wilkinson, L. & Shanks, D.R. (2004). Intentional control
from implicit to explicit representations in incidental and implicit sequence learning. Journal of Experimental
learning: More evidence from high-frequency EEG cou- Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30,
pling. Experimental Brain Research, 217, 153–162. 354–369.
White, D., Kemp, R.I., Jenkins, R., Matheson, M. & Burton, Wilkinson, L., Khan, Z. & Jahanshahi, M. (2009). The role of
A.M. (2014). Passport officers’ errors in face matching. the basal ganglia and its cortical connections in sequence
PLoS ONE, 9 (Article no. e103510). learning: Evidence from implicit and explicit sequence
Whitwell, R.L. & Goodale, M.A. (2017). Real and illusory learning in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 47,
issues in the illusion debate (Why two things are some- 2564–2573.
times better than one): Commentary on Kopiske et al. Williams, C.R., Cook, A.E. & O’Brien, E.J. (2018). Validating
(2016). Cortex, 88, 205–209. semantic illusions: Competition between context and
Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. New York: Wiley. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1414–1429.
Whyte, E.M. & Nelson, K.E. (2015). Trajectories of pragmatic Williams, J.H.G. (2013). The mirror or portrait neuron
and nonliteral language development in children with system – Time for a more organic model of action-
autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Communication coding? Cortex, 49, 2962–2963.
Disorders, 54, 2–14. Williams, J.M.G., Watts, F.N., MacLeod, C.M. & Mathews,
Wickens, C.D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. A. (1997). Cognitive Psychology and Emotional Disorders
Parasuraman & D.R. Davies (eds), Varieties of Attention (2nd edn). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
(pp. 63–101). London: Academic Press. Williford, J.R. & von der Heydt, R. (2016). Figure-ground
Wickens, C.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental work- organisation in visual cortex for natural scenes. eNeuro,
load. Human Factors, 50, 449–455. 3, 1–16.
Wieber, F., Thuermer, J.L. & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2015). Wilmer, J.B. (2017). Individual differences in face recog-
Promoting the translation of intentions into action by nition: A decade of discovery. Current Directions in
implementation intentions: Behavioural effects and phys- Psychological Science, 26 (Article no. 225230).
iological correlates. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9 Wilmer, J.B., Germine, L., Chabris, C.F., Chatterjee, G.,
(Article no. 395). Williams, M., Loken, E., Nakayama, K. & Duchaine,
Wiese, H., Wolff, N., Steffens, M.C. & Schweinberger, S.R. B. (2010). Human face recognition ability is highly her-
(2013). How experience shapes memory for faces: An itable. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
event-related potential study on the own-age bias. U.S.A., 107, 5238–5241.
Biological Psychology, 94, 369–379. Wilson, M.D., Farrell, S., Visser, T.A.W. & Loft, S. (2018).
Wig, G.S., Grafton, S.T., Demos, K.E. & Kelley, W.M. Remembering to execute deferred tasks in simulated air
(2005). Reductions in neural activity underlie behav- traffic control: The impact of interruptions. Journal of
ioural components of repetition priming. Nature Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24, 360–379.
Neuroscience, 8, 1228–1233. Wilson, M.P. & Garnsey, S.M. (2009). Making simple sen-
Wild, C., Davis, M.H. & Johnsrude, J.S. (2012). The percep- tences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sen-
tual clarity of speech modulates activity in primary audi- tences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392.
tory cortex: fMRI evidence of interactive processes in Winawer, J. & Witthoft, N. (2015). Human V4 and ventral
speech perception. NeuroImage, 60, 1490–1502. occipital retinotopic maps. Visual Neuroscience, 32,
Wilf, M., Holmes, N.P., Schwartz, I. & Makin, T.R. (2013). 1–13.
Dissociating between object affordances and spatial Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M.C., Wu, L., Wade, A.R.
compatibility effects using early response components. & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of
Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (Article no. 591). language on colour discrimination. Proceedings of the
Wilkie, R.M. & Wann, J.P. (2006). Judgements of path, not National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
heading, guide locomotion. Journal of Experimental America, 104, 7780–7785.
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, Windmann, S. (2004). Effects of sentence context and expec-
88–96. tation on the McGurk illusion. Journal of Memory and
Wilkie, R.M., Kountouriotis, G.K. & Merat, N. (2010). Using Language, 50, 212–230.
vision to control locomotion: Looking where you want Winer, E.S. & Salem, T. (2016). Reward devaluation: Dot-
to go. Experimental Brain Research, 204, 539–547. probe meta-analytic evidence of avoidance of positive

912 References
information in depressed persons. Psychological Bulletin, Woollams, A.M. & Patterson, K. (2012). The consequences of
142, 18–78. progressive phonological impairment for reading aloud.
Wing, E.A., Ritchey, M. & Cabeza, R. (2015). Reinstatement Neuropsychologia, 50, 3469–3477.
of individual past events revealed by the similarity of Woollams, A.M., Halai, A. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2018).
distributed activation patterns during encoding and Mapping the intersection of language and reading: The
retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 679–691. neural bases of the primary systems hypothesis. Brain
Winkielman, P., Berridge, K.C. & Wilbarger, J.L. (2005). Structure and Function, 223, 3769–3786.
Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus Woollams, A.M., Lambon Ralph, M.A., Plaut, D.C. &
angry faces influence consumption behaviour and Patterson, K. (2007). SD-squared: On the associa-
judgements of value. Personality and Social Psychology tion between semantic dementia and surface dyslexia.
Bulletin, 31, 121–135. Psychological Review, 114, 316–339.
Winlove, C.I.P., Milton, F., Ranson, J., Fulford, J., Woollett, K. & Maguire, E.A. (2009). Navigational exper-
MacKisack, M., Macpherson, F., et al. (2018). The tise may compromise anterograde associative memory.
neural correlates of visual imagery: A co-ordinate-based Neuropsychologia, 44, 1088–1095.
meta-analysis. Cortex, 105, 4–25. Woollett, K. & Maguire, E.A. (2011). Acquiring “the
Wischgoll, A. (2016). Combined training of one cognitive and Knowledge” of London’s layout drives structural brain
one metacognitive strategy improves academic writing changes. Current Biology, 21, 2109–2114.
skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article no. 187). Woollett, K., Spiers, H.J. & Maguire, E.A. (2009). Talent
Withagen, R., de Poel, H.J., Araujo, D. & Pepping, G.-J. in the taxi: A model system for exploring expertise.
(2012). Affordances can invite behaviour: Reconsidering Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
the relationship between affordances and agency. New Biological Sciences, 364, 1407–1416.
Ideas in Psychology, 30, 250–258. Wright, D.B. & Loftus, E.F. (2008). Eyewitness memory. In
Wixted, J.T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of for- G. Cohen & M.A. Conway (eds), Memory in the Real
getting. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 235–269. World (3rd edn) (pp. 91–106). Hove, UK: Psychology
Wixted, J.T. & Wells, G.L. (2017). The relationship between Press.
eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new Wright, D.B. & Stroud, J.N. (2002). Age differences in line-up
synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, identification accuracy: People are better with their own
10–65. age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641–654.
Wixted, J.T., Mickes, L., Dunn, J.C., Clark, S.E. & Wells, S. Wright, O., Davies, I.R.L. & Franklin, A. (2015).
(2016). Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifi- Whorfian effects on colour memory are not reliable.
cations from police lineups. Proceedings of the National Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68,
Association of Sciences, 113, 304–309. 745–758.
Woike, B., Gershkovich, I., Piorkowski, R. & Polo, M. Wroe, A.L., Bhan, A., Salkovskis, P. & Bedford, H. (2005).
(1999). The role of motives in the content and structure Feeling bad about immunising our children. Vaccine, 23,
of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and 1428–1433.
Social Psychology, 76, 600–612. Wu, L.L. & Barsalou, L.W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in
Wolfe, J.M., Võ, M.L.-H., Evans, K.K. & Greene, M.R. conceptual combination: Evidence from property gener-
(2011). Visual search in scenes involves selective and ation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173–189.
nonselective pathways. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, Wulff, D.U., Mergenthaler-Canseco, M. & Hertwig, R.
77–84. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learn-
Wolff, P. & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in meta- ing and the description-experience gap. Psychological
phor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35, 1456–1488. Bulletin, 144, 140–176.
Wolff, P. & Holmes, K.J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Wurm, M.F., Ariani, G., Greenlee, M.W. & Lingnau, A.
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 253–265. (2016). Decoding concrete and abstract action rep-
Won, E.J.S. (2012). A theoretical investigation on the attrac- resentations during explicit and implicit conceptual pro-
tion effect using the elimination-by- aspects model cessing. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 3390–3401.
incorporating higher preference for shared features.
Wutzler, A., Becker, R., Lämmler, G., Haverkamp, W. &
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 386–391. Steinhagen-Thiessen, E. (2013). The anticipatory pro-
Wong, C.K. & Read, J.D. (2011). Positive and negative effects portion as an indicator of language impairment in ear-
of physical context reinstatement on eyewitness recall ly-stage cognitive disorder in the elderly. Dementia and
and recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2–11. Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 36, 300–309.
Woods, K.J.P. & McDermott, J.H. (2018). Schema learn- Wynn, V.E. & Logie, R.H. (1998). The veracity of long-term
ing for the cocktail party problem. Proceedings of the memories – Did Bartlett get it right? Applied Cognitive
National Academy of Sciences, 115, E3313–E3322. Psychology, 12, 1–20.

References 913
Xie, Y., Hwang, S. & Pantelous, A.A. (2018). Loss aversion Yoon, J.-S., Ericsson, K.A. & Donatelli, D. (2018). Effects of
around the world: Empirical evidence from pension 30 years of disuse on exceptional memory p erformance.
funds. Journal of Banking and Finance, 88, 52–62. Cognitive Science, 42, 884–903.
Yacoub, R. & Ferrucci, S. (2011). Charles Bonnet syndrome. Yoon, S.O., Duff, M.C. & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2017). Learning
Optometry, 82, 421–427. and using knowledge about what other people do and do
Yang, T.-X., Peng, Z.W., Wang, Y., Geng, F.L., Miao, not know despite amnesia. Cortex, 94, 164–175.
G.-D., Shum, D.H.K., et al. (2015). The nature of Young, A.H. & Hulleman, J. (2013). Eye movements reveal
prospective memory deficit in patients with obsessive- how task difficulty moulds visual search. Journal of
compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 230, 479–486. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Yardley, H., Perlovsky, L. & Bar, M. (2012). Predictions and Performance, 39, 168–190.
incongruency in object recognition: A cognitive neuro- Young, A.W. (2018). Faces, people and the brain: The 45th
science perspective. In D. Weinshall, J. Anemuller & Sir Frederic Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of
L. Vangool (eds), Detection and Identification of Rare Experimental Psychology, 71, 569–594.
Audiovisual Cues, 384, 139–153. Young, A.W. & Bruce, V. (2011). Understanding person per-
Yarkoni, T. & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over ception. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 959–974.
explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine Young, A.W. & Burton, A.M. (2017). Recognising
learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26,
1100–1122. 212–217.
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R.A., Nichols, T.E., Van Essen, D.C. Young, A.W. & Burton, A.M. (2018). Are we face experts?
& Wager, T.D. (2011). Large-scale automated synthesis Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 100–110.
of human functional neuroimaging data. Nature Young, A.W., Hay, D.C. & Ellis, A.W. (1985). The faces
Methods, 8, 665–670. that launched a thousand slips: Everyday difficulties
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R.A., Van Essen, D.C. & Wager, T.D. and errors in recognizing people. British Journal of
(2010). Cognitive neuroscience 2.0: Building a cumula- Psychology, 76, 495–523.
tive science of human brain function. Trends in Cognitive Young, S.G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M.J. & Sacco, D.F.
Sciences, 14, 489–496. (2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition:
Ye, L., Cardwell, W. & Mark, L.S. (2009). Perceiving multi- A critical review of theories of the cross-race effect.
ple affordances for objects. Ecological Psychology, 21, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 116–142.
185–217. Yovel, G. & O’Toole, A.J. (2016). Recognising people in
Yechiam, E. (2018). Acceptable losses: The debatable origins motion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 383–395.
of loss aversion. Psychological Research (Epub 16 April Yurgil, K.A. & Golob, E.J. (2013). Cortical potentials in
2018). an auditory oddball task reflect individual differences
Yechiam, E. & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as media- in working memory capacity. Psychophysiology, 50,
tors of attention: Review and analysis of the unique 1263–1274.
effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, Zachariou, V., Nikas, C.V., Safiullah, Z.N., Gotts, S.J. &
497–518. Ungerleider, L.G. (2017). Spatial mechanisms within the
Yegiyan, N.S. & Lang, A. (2010). Processing central and dorsal visual pathway contribute to the configural pro-
peripheral detail: How content arousal and emotional cessing of faces. Cerebral Cortex, 27, 4124–4138.
tone influence encoding. Media Psychology, 13, 77–99. Zacks, J.M., Speer, N.K., Swallow, K.M., Braver, T.S. &
Yiend, J., Barnicot, K. & Koster, E.H.W. (2013). Attention Reynolds, J.R. (2007). Event perception: A mind-brain
and emotion. In M.D. Robinson, E.R. Watkins & perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 273–293.
E. Harmon-Jones (eds), Handbook of Cognition and Zahn, R., Green, S., Beaumont, H., Burns, A., Moll, J., Caine,
Emotion (pp. 97–116). New York: Guilford Publications. D., et al. (2017). Frontotemporal lobar degeneration and
Yilmaz, E.H. & Warren, W.H. (1995). Visual control of social behaviour: Dissociation between the knowledge of
braking: A test of the “tau-dot” hypothesis. Journal its consequences and its conceptual meaning. Cortex, 93,
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and 107–118.
Performance, 21, 996–1014. Zalla, T., Amsellem, F., Chaste, P., Ervas, F., Leboyer, M. &
Yip, J.A. & Côté, S. (2013). The emotionally intelligent deci- Champagne-Lavau, M. (2014). Individuals with autism
sion maker: Emotion-understanding ability reduces the spectrum disorders do not use social stereotypes in irony
effect of incidental anxiety on risk taking. Psychological comprehension. PLoS ONE, 9 (Article no. e95568).
Science, 24, 48–55. Zander, T., Őllinger, M. & Volz, K.G. (2016). Intuition and
Yonelinas, A.P. & Ritchey, M. (2015). The slow forgetting insight: Two processes that build on each other or fun-
of emotional episodic memories: An emotional binding damentally different? Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (Article
account. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 259–267. no. 1395).

914 References
Zatorre, R.J. (2013). Predispositions and plasticity in music Zihl, J. & Heywood, C.A. (2015). The contribution of LM
and speech learning: Neural correlates and implications. to the neuroscience of movement vision. Frontiers in
Science, 342, 585–589. Integrative Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 6).
Zeidman, P. & Maguire, E.A. (2016). Anterior hippocampus: Zihl, J. & Heywood, C.A. (2016). The contribution of single
The anatomy of perception, imagination and episodic case studies to the neuroscience of vision. Psych Journal,
memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 173–182. 5, 5–17.
Zeki, S. (1993). A Vision of the Brain. Oxford: Blackwell. Zihl, J., von Cramon, D. & Mai, N. (1983). Selective distur-
Zeki, S. (2001). Localisation and globalization in conscious bance of movement vision after bilateral brain damage.
vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 57–86. Brain, 106, 313–340.
Zeki, S. (2005). The Ferrier Lecture 1995. Behind the seen: Zimmer, H.D. (2008). Visual and spatial working memory:
The functional specialisation of the brain in space and From boxes to networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Reviews, 32, 1373–1395.
360, 1145–1183. Zimmermann, F.G.S. & Eimer, M. (2013). Face learning and
Zeki, S. (2015). Area V5 – A microcosm of the visual brain. the emergence of view-independent face recognition: An
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 9 (Article no. 21). event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologiat
Zeki, S. (2016). Multiple asynchronous stimulus- and task- 51, 1320–1329.
dependent hierarchies within the visual brain’s parallel Zogg, J.B., Woods, S.P., Sauceda, J.A., Wiebe, J.S. & Simoni,
processing systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, J.M. (2012). The role of prospective memory in medi-
44, 2515–2527. cation adherence: A review of an emerging literature.
Zeman, A., Dewar, M. & Della Sala, S. (2015). Lives without Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 47–62.
imagery – Congenital aphantasia. Cortex, 73, 378–380. Zuk, J. & Gaab, N. (2018). Evaluating predisposition and
Zetsche, U. & Joormann, J. (2011). Components of inter- training in shaping the musician’s brain: The need for
ference control predict depressive symptoms and a developmental perspective. Annals of the New York
rumination cross-sectionally and at six months fol- Academy of Sciences, 1423, 4–60.
low-up. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Zwaan, R.A. (2014). Embodiment and language compre-
Psychiatry, 42, 65–73. hension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive
Zevin, J.D. & Seidenberg, M.S. (2006). Simulating consistency Sciences, 18, 229–234.
effects and individual differences in non-word naming: A Zwaan, R.A. (2016). Situation models, mental simulations,
comparison of current models. Journal of Memory and and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension.
Language, 4, 145–160. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 1028–1034.
Zhang, H., Eppes, A., Beatty-Martinez, A., Navarro-Torres, Zwaan, R.A. & Madden, C.J. (2004). Updating situation
C. & Diaz, M.T. (2018). Task difficulty modulates models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
brain-behaviour correlations in language production Memory, and Cognition, 30, 283–288.
and cognitive control: Behavioural and fMRI evidence Zwaan, R.A. & Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting mental sim-
from a phonological go/no-go picture-naming para- ulation in language comprehension: Six replication
digm. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18, attempts. PLoS ONE, 7 (Article no. e51382).
964–981. Zwaan, R.A. & van Oostendorp, U. (1993). Do readers con-
Zhang, T.R. & Chan, A.H.S. (2016). The association between struct spatial representations in naturalistic story com-
driving anger and driving outcomes: A meta-analysis of prehension? Discourse Processes, 1, 125–143.
evidence from the past twenty years. Accident Analysis Zwaan, R.A., Langston, M.C. & Graesser, A.C. (1995).
and Prevention, 90, 50–62. Dimensions of situation-model construction in narrative
Zhang, X. & Samuel, A.G. (2018). Is speech recognition auto- comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
matic? Lexical competition, but not initial lexical access, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386–397.
requires cognitive resources. Journal of Memory and Zwaan, R.A., Stanfield, R.A. & Yaxley, R.H. (2002). Langue
Language, 100, 32–50. comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects.
Zhuang, J., Randall, B., Stamatakis, E.A., Marslen-Wilson, Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.
W.D. & Tyler, L.K. (2011). The interaction of lexical Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-
semantics and cohort competition in spoken word semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition,
recognition: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive 32, 25–64.
Neuroscience, 23, 3778–3790.
Ziegler, J.C., Grainger, J. & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Modelling
word recognition and reading aloud. European Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 641–649.

Cognitive Psychology, A Students Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognitive Psychology, A Students Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“This edition of Eysenck and Keane has further enhanced the status of

Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, as a high benchmark that

“The best student’s handbook on cognitive psychology – an indispensable

“I first read Eysenck and Keane’s Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s

“Eysenck and Keane’s popular textbook offers comprehensive coverage of

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 1 28/02/20 2:15 PM

“Unmatched in breadth and scope, it is the authoritative textbook on cog-

“Eysenck and Keane’s Cognitive Psychology provides comprehensive topic

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 2 28/02/20 2:15 PM

The fully updated eighth edition of Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s

● an increased emphasis on neuroscience

Widely regarded as the leading undergraduate textbook in the field of

Michael W. Eysenck is Professor Emeritus in Psychology at Royal

Mark T. Keane is Chair of Computer Science at University College Dublin,

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 3 28/02/20 2:15 PM

Includes access to Primal Pictures’

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 4 28/02/20 2:15 PM

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 5 28/02/20 2:15 PM

ISBN: 978-1-13848-221-0 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by

Visit the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/eysenck.

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 6 28/02/20 2:15 PM

What moves science forward is argument, debate,

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 7 28/02/20 2:15 PM

List of illustrations xiv

1 Approaches to human cognition 1

2 Basic processes in visual perception 43

3 Object and face recognition 94

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 9 28/02/20 2:15 PM

Approaches to object recognition 103

4 Motion perception and action 140

5 Attention and performance 178

6 Learning, memory and forgetting 239

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 10 28/02/20 2:15 PM

7 Long-term memory systems 296

8 Everyday memory 344

9 Speech perception and reading 403

10 Language comprehension 461

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 11 28/02/20 2:15 PM

Individual differences: working memory capacity 487

11 Language production 514

12 Problem solving and expertise 573

13 Judgement and decision-making 622

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 12 28/02/20 2:15 PM

14 Reasoning and hypothesis testing 666

15 Cognition and emotion 715

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 13 28/02/20 2:15 PM

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 14 28/02/20 2:15 PM

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 15 28/02/20 2:15 PM

2.11 The Müller-Lyer illusion 58

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 16 28/02/20 2:15 PM

3.8 High and low spatial frequency versions of a place

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 17 28/02/20 2:15 PM

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 18 28/02/20 2:15 PM

5.11 Performance speed on a detection task as a function of target

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 19 28/02/20 2:15 PM

6.13 (a) Restudy causes strengthening of the memory trace formed

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 20 28/02/20 2:15 PM

7.10 Performance accuracy on tool function and tool manipulation

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 21 28/02/20 2:15 PM

8.10 Examples of Egyptian and UK face-matching arrays 366

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 22 28/02/20 2:15 PM

9.8 (a) Actual eye fixations on the object corresponding to a

9781138482210_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY_PRE_CHAP_1.indd 23 28/02/20 2:15 PM