Open Mind最新文献

{"title":"Broadening the Agent Preference Hypothesis Through Experiencers: Eye-Tracking and EEG Evidence of Proto-Agents and Proto-Patients.","authors":"Marta Sánchez-López, Arrate Isasi-Isasmendi, Balthasar Bickel, Mikel Santesteban","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.372","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.372","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the large number of proposed event roles, psycholinguistic evidence supports only two core knowledge categories with distinct processing correlates: agent and patient roles. This evidence aligns with the proto-role approach, which proposes only two proto-roles, proto-agent and proto-patient. Here, we investigate the processing correlates of arguments labeled as \"experiencers\" to determine whether they exhibit specific processing correlates, as agents and patients do, or whether they are subsumed under the proto-agent role category, sharing similar processing correlates with agents and differing from patients. We conducted both eye-tracking and EEG reading tasks, where Spanish speakers were instructed to read intransitive sentences with either agent, experiencer, or patient subjects. In eye-tracking, agents and experiencers elicited longer fixation times and regression counts than patients, in both the verb and post-verb regions. In EEG, we replicated the known N400 component associated with processing patients compared to both agents and experiencers. Crucially, no N400 effect was observed when comparing agents to experiencers. Additionally, patients revealed a power increase in the theta band compared to agents and experiencers, and a power decrease in the low-beta band. These findings replicate previous results supporting a transient preference for agents in language comprehension and suggest that experiencers align with agents in this regard, providing further evidence for the proto-role approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1092-1117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518077/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148832491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Processing Stages for Social Interaction Recognition.","authors":"Manuel Mello, Jérémy Decroix, Céline Spriet, Liuba Papeo","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.378","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.378","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Understanding a social interaction requires-at least-the recognition of social agents (i.e., people), their individual actions, and the relationship between them. In what sequence do these processing steps occur? In three behavioral experiments (<i>n</i> = 184), we presented visual scenes showing bodies (or sometimes chairs), in spatial relations that implied interaction (face-to-face) or not (back-to-back), and in postures that suggested different types of interactions (i.e., 'fighting' or 'dancing'). We presented these scenes for different time-durations (17, 33, 50, 67, 167 ms) followed by masking, as a way to manipulate the available processing time. In three different tasks, participants had to report the object category (body/chair), the spatial relation (facing/non-facing) or the interaction category (fighting/dancing). Categorization of people and their spatial relation yielded comparable performance at every stimulus duration, which was consistently more accurate than performance in interaction categorization. This implies that it takes no longer to access the objects' category (bodies <i>vs.</i> chairs) than to access the relation between objects (facing <i>vs.</i> non-facing); whereas substantially longer processing time is required in order to categorize social interactions with comparable accuracy. The parallel between categorization of objects and spatial relations suggests that relations between objects are extracted as rapidly as categorical object information, providing the building blocks for social interaction recognition. These findings impose important constraints on future models of social interaction recognition.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1171-1191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518073/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148832738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Eleven-Month-Old Infants Preferentially Look at Helpers But Do Not Reliably Evaluate Inconsistent Actors.","authors":"Brandon M Woo, Adrian Tsang, J Kiley Hamlin","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.370","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.370","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developmental psychology has provided some evidence that infants evaluate agents who engage in prosocial and antisocial acts: Infants selectively reach for and look at those who have treated third parties prosocially versus antisocially. This previous work has tended to present infants with actors whose behaviors are entirely prosocial or entirely antisocial. Studies introducing even minor variation into an actor's behaviors have yielded null results with infants in the first year of life, suggesting that infants find it difficult to evaluate others who behave even mildly inconsistently. That said, it may be that past studies were poorly designed to test infants' evaluations of inconsistent actors. The present, preregistered experiments further explored 11-month-old infants' (<i>N</i> = 141) ability to evaluate inconsistent actors, using an online testing format and pre-recorded puppet shows depicting helping and hindering interactions. In Experiment 1, infants selectively looked to consistent helpers over consistent hinderers, conceptually replicating past findings via an online preferential looking procedure. We then adapted the same methods to examine infants' evaluations of actors who behave mildly inconsistently. In Experiment 2, infants showed mixed evidence of evaluating inconsistent actors who performed a single inconsistent act after 4 consistent ones, preferring to look at more versus less prosocial actors in one preregistered analysis, but not in other analyses. Furthermore, infants did not find the inconsistency unexpected, suggesting successful evaluation may have stemmed from failing to notice the inconsistency and evaluating the inconsistent actor based on its earlier behavior. In Experiment 3, we put the single inconsistent action first, before the 4 consistent ones, to further test whether infants can evaluate inconsistent actors. Here, infants showed no evidence of successfully evaluating inconsistent actors. These findings suggest that while infants prefer agents whose actions are consistently prosocial versus antisocial, they struggle to evaluate those whose actions are even mildly inconsistent.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1039-1063"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518076/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148832522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is Generalization General? Differences Between Predictive and Category Learning Reflect Knowledge of \"Cognitive Kinds\".","authors":"Jessica C Lee, Andy J Wills, René Schlegelmilch","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.368","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.368","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Shepard (1987) observed that generalization gradients were invariant between species and stimulus dimensions, and proposed that these universal properties reflect knowledge of \"natural kinds\" that exist in the world. Here, we test a natural extension of Shepard's ideas, by examining whether generalization differs between different types of learned associations. To do so, we leverage generalization as a tool to diagnose the underlying content of learning in two domains (predictive learning and category learning), while equating stimuli and procedural details between tasks. Experiment 1 showed that empirical differences in generalization gradients between domains can be largely explained by differences in the testing procedures. When these were equated, the underlying generalization function was largely similar between predictive and category learning. The results of Experiment 2 were more complex, revealing some differences between domains which may be explained by differences in the representation of outcomes and categories. We conclude that the similarities between learning domains (underlying gradient shape and response to experimental manipulations) provide support for Shepard's (1987) proposal that generalization exhibits universal properties, and propose that the differences between learning domains reflect knowledge about \"cognitive kinds\"; categories are created to be mutually exclusive while outcomes are not.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1017-1038"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518074/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148832572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prioritizing Detailed Item Memories Through Post-Encoding Motivation Requires Consolidation.","authors":"Taylor A Chamberlain, Daphna Shohamy, Christopher Baldassano","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.379","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.379","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prioritizing memories that are motivationally salient is adaptive for goal-directed behavior, ensuring that information being retained is the most relevant to future goals. Past research demonstrates we can use value signals to adaptively modulate our memory. Crucially, however, the timing of value signals varies. Sometimes we know the significance of an upcoming event in advance, while other times, we are unaware of an event's importance until after the fact. Does the timing of a value signal relative to encoding change the cognitive mechanism by which it shapes memory? To test this question, we developed a motivated encoding task where the motivational cue appeared either before or after encoding. Across two independent samples, pre-encoding motivation improved item memory regardless of test timing, while the benefit of post-encoding motivation only appeared after a 24-hour delay. For source memory, pre-encoding motivation reliably enhanced performance across conditions. In contrast, the effect of post-encoding motivation on source memory was more variable: it was significant across both test timings in Experiment 2, but was weaker and more variable in Experiment 1. Furthermore, the two conditions differently affected incidental memory organization; pre-encoding motivation enhanced item order memory relative to post-encoding motivation. These results reveal the dissociable effects of pre- and post-encoding motivation, and suggest that when we learn of an event's importance might determine the mechanism by which we can strengthen its memory for future use.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1192-1212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518079/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148832552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Agreement Errors Disrupt Eye Movements in Reading Only When They Are Detected.","authors":"Adrian Staub, Nathan Wolf, Brian Dillon","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.374","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.374","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sentence processing models posit that syntactic processing difficulty contributes to the processing time of each word (e.g., Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). On the other hand, the E-Z Reader 10 model of eye movements in reading (Reichle et al., 2009) proposes that syntactic processing affects eye movements only when integration of an input word <i>fails</i>. We present two eye movement experiments designed to address this tension. Readers were presented with ungrammatical sentences with a singular subject and a plural verb, but with a plural local noun that often induces an illusion of grammaticality, e.g., *<i>The editor of the magazines are reviewing the articles before publication</i>. After each critical sentence was removed from the screen, the reader made a binary acceptability judgment. When readers rejected the ungrammatical critical sentences, there was also pronounced disruption to incremental reading. However, on the majority of trials readers accepted these sentences, and on those trials the eye movement record revealed only a very small increase in reading time compared to corresponding grammatical sentences; critically, this small effect was entirely explained by the difference between conditions in the lexical surprisal of the verb. Thus, as predicted by E-Z Reader 10, an effect of agreement computation above and beyond the effect of surprisal was in evidence only when agreement computation failed, i.e., the sentence was rejected. We discuss implications for models of incremental sentence processing and reading.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"1118-1156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13518078/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148833197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"People Adapt to Personal Singular They Through Exposure.","authors":"Yining Ye, Jennifer E Arnold","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.366","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.366","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although <i>they</i> is often considered a plural pronoun (e.g., \"Liz and Will went to the library. They borrowed a textbook\"), it is increasingly used as a singular pronoun for individuals whose personal pronouns are <i>they</i>/<i>them</i> (e.g., \"Alex went to the store. They bought a sandwich\"), a usage we call <i>personal they</i>. This usage wasn't broadly available until relatively recently, but its increasing frequency requires comprehenders to identify a singular referent when appropriate. What mechanism accounts for this change? While one possibility is that explicit awareness can boost consideration of the singular meaning of <i>they</i> (Arnold et al., 2021), here we test the hypothesis that comprehension facility can be facilitated through exposure. In two experiments, participants listened to stories where <i>they</i> referred to either a singular character (Alex) or to two characters. Participants were more likely to choose the singular interpretations after singular exposure, consistent with evidence that adaptation affected on-line processing in a mouse-tracking task (Ye & Arnold, 2025). Results support the role of exposure as a mechanism for the increased availability of singular <i>they</i> interpretations.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"963-997"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13421553/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148631837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"No Evidence of Experimenter Demand Effects in Three Online Psychology Experiments.","authors":"Lucas Woodley, Xavier Roberts-Gaal, Rachel Calcott, Fiery Cushman","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.367","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.367","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Experimenter demand effects occur when participants alter their behavior to align with perceived study hypotheses, threatening internal validity. Concern about demand effects is pervasive in psychology. Experimenter demand may be especially acute in studies relying on experienced participants recruited online (e.g., via Prolific), who may readily guess hypotheses, or when using common paradigms (e.g., vignette studies and interventions) where study goals are transparent. We conducted three preregistered experiments (<i>N</i> = 2,252) examining whether explicit demand cues influence online participants' behavior across three paradigms commonly used in psychology: a dictator game, replicating prior work on demand effects (Experiment 1); a moral dilemma vignette (Experiment 2); and an intervention on group attitudes (Experiment 3). We randomly assigned participants on Prolific to receive information about the study's hypothesis or to a no-information control. As expected, we find that receiving such information significantly shifts participants' beliefs about the study's hypothesis, creating the potential for experimenter demand effects. Yet we find no evidence that learning any study's hypothesis alters participants' behavior, judgments, or attitudes, suggesting that demand effects may be elusive in online samples. Bayesian region-of-practical-equivalence (ROPE) analyses indicate that experimenter demand effects in these paradigms are typically confined to small magnitudes (|<i>d</i>| < 0.20), suggesting that effects larger than Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.20 are unlikely to be fully explained by experimenter demand alone. These findings offer important insights for the design and interpretation of modern online psychology experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"998-1016"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13421554/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148631776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Children's Representations of Possibility: Uncertainty About \"What\" Is Easier Than Uncertainty About \"Where\".","authors":"Esra Nur Turan-Küçük, Melissa M Kibbe","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.364","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.364","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Young children struggle in situations involving mere possibility, such as when a target object could be in one of two possible locations. This difficulty is often interpreted as a general limitation on children's ability to reason about possibility. We tested the hypothesis that a source of children's difficulty may be their early-emerging object representational architecture, which necessarily represents <i>where</i> an object is, but only optionally represents <i>what</i> an object is. Two- to 4-year-old US children (<i>n</i> = 138) were tasked with finding a target object in one of several possible containers, and we manipulated whether the location or the identity of the target was uncertain. At all ages, children were better able to find the target when there was uncertainty about \"what\" versus uncertainty about \"where\". We suggest that children's object representational architecture can support uncertainty about identity but not location, and discuss implications for the development of possibility reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"951-962"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13421556/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148631782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Word Trigram Frequency Predicts Failure to Detect Word Transpositions: Implications for Rational Inference in Reading.","authors":"Kuan-Jung Huang, Adrian Staub","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.362","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.362","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A substantial recent literature has investigated readers' failure to detect transposed words in otherwise grammatical sentences. This phenomenon may reflect a process of rational inference, whereby a reader's prior over word strings overrides the bottom-up perceptual evidence. In three experiments, we tested the prediction emerging from the rational inference framework that failure to detect a transposition should be most common when the prior probability of the untransposed string is high. We found that the frequency of the trigram consisting of the two transposed words and the preceding word predicts failure to notice the transposition: Readers are more likely to miss a transposition of the final two words of a high-frequency trigram such as <i>close the gate</i> than a lower-frequency trigram such as <i>close the pool</i>. We also found a weaker role for the conditional probability of the transposed words based on the entire preceding sentence context. The results support a role for rational inference in 'correcting' errors, and also contribute further evidence that multi-word units play an important role in language processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"10 ","pages":"884-907"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13379306/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148498122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}