Referenzsemantik in der Partnermodellierung

How can we explain that an assertion on something perceived can be understood in the same manner by somebody who cannot perceive that scene? This problem bases the interest in computational linguistics in how listener modeling could possibly be harmonized with reference semantics. Mental images substituting real perception appear as a way out. The architecture of the listener model has to be adapted to the creation and use of such pictorial data structures. Furthermore, the relation between the latter and a verbal (i. e., propositional) representation must be understood. The resulting architecture of a listener model with reference semantics can be employed to solve communicational problems from three general classes in a better way, as is demonstrated by an example implementation.     

材料数量与呈现速度对视、听同时瞬时记忆的影响

视、听材料同时识记、瞬时记忆效果并非普遍降低。材料数量影响视、听同时瞬时记忆效果的变化及其方向;无意义联系汉字数量超记忆广度时,视、听同时瞬时记忆相对效果与非同时识记相比提高。材料数量也影响视、听同时瞬时记忆的相对优势及重现方式。这些结果倾向于表明,材料数量在记忆广度内及超记忆广度时,视、听同时瞬时记忆的组织加工不同。呈现速度只影响记忆优势及重现方式。根据多项分析,可以认为视、听通道标签是组织视、听同时瞬时记忆最鲜明的标签,经过识记5个视、听同时字表,视、听同时识记效果有提高趋势。     

Movement and focused attention: A failure to replicate

Our original goal was to explore the nature of the grouping-by-movement phenomenon reported by Driver and Baylis (1989). In their studies, distractors that moved in common with a centrally located target had a larger influence on focused-attention performance than did more proximate but stationary distractors. These results seemed particularly important since they suggested, contrary to the predictions of space-based models of attention, that attention could be allocated to noncontiguous regions of the visual field. Their results also suggested mandatory processing of stimuli with common motion. Unfortunately, we were unable to replicate this grouping-by-movement effect. In the conditions of Experiment 1 in which we replicated Driver and Baylis’s methodology, stationary distractors produced a larger response-compatibility effect than did the more distant distractors that moved in common with the target. In Experiment 2, we redundantly coded the centrally located target and the far distractors with common movement and color. However, the results were identical to those obtained in Experiment J. The stationary near distractors that appeared in a different color from the target and the far distractors produced the largest response-compatibility effect. In a final experiment, we attempted to compensate for the reduced acuity of the moving distractors by adjusting their size by a cortical magnification factor. However, even with this manipulation, we found a larger response-compatibility effect for the stationary near distractors than for the moving distant distractors. Our results suggest that subjects are capable of selectively processing a target item that moves in common with distractors.