Unfamiliar voice identification is error-prone. Whilst the investigation of system variables may indicate ways of boosting earwitness performance, this is an under-researched area. Two experiments were conducted to investigate how methods of presenting voices during a parade affect accuracy and self-rated confidence. In each experiment participants listened to a target voice, and were later asked to identify that voice from a nine-person target present or target absent parade. In Experiment 1, accuracy did not vary across parades comprising 15 or 30 s sample durations. Overall, when the target was present, participants correctly identified the target voice with 39% accuracy. However, when the target was absent, participants correctly rejected the parade 6% of the time. There was no relationship between accuracy and confidence. In Experiment 2, performance with a serial procedure, in which participants responded after hearing all nine voices, was compared with a sequential procedure, in which participants made a decision after listening to each voice. Overall accuracy was higher with the sequential procedure. These results highlight the importance of system variable research in voice identification. Different methods of presenting voices have the potential to support higher levels of accuracy than the procedure currently recommended in England and Wales.

Two classes of account have been proposed to explain the memory processes subserving the processing of reflexive-antecedent dependencies. Structure-based accounts assume that the retrieval of the antecedent is guided by syntactic tree-configurational information without considering other kinds of information such as gender marking in the case of English reflexives. By contrast, unconstrained cue-based retrieval assumes that all available information is used for retrieving the antecedent. Similarity-based interference effects from structurally illicit distractors which match a non-structural retrieval cue have been interpreted as evidence favoring the unconstrained cue-based retrieval account since cue-based retrieval interference from structurally illicit distractors is incompatible with the structure-based account. However, it has been argued that the observed effects do not necessarily reflect interference occurring at the moment of retrieval but might equally well be accounted for by interference occurring already at the stage of encoding or maintaining the antecedent in memory, in which case they cannot be taken as evidence against the structure-based account. We present three experiments (self-paced reading and eye-tracking) on German reflexives and Swedish reflexive and pronominal possessives in which we pit the predictions of encoding interference and cue-based retrieval interference against each other. We could not find any indication that encoding interference affects the processing ease of the reflexive-antecedent dependency formation. Thus, there is no evidence that encoding interference might be the explanation for the interference effects observed in previous work. We therefore conclude that invoking encoding interference may not be a plausible way to reconcile interference effects with a structure-based account of reflexive processing.

Thank you for choosing to publish with us. This is your final opportunity to ensure your article will be accurate at publication. Please review your proof carefully and respond to the queries using the circled tools in the image below, which are available by clicking "Comment" from the right-side menu in Adobe Reader DC.* Please use only the tools circled in the image, as edits via other tools/methods can be lost during file conversion. For comments, questions, or formatting requests, please use. Please do not use comment bubbles/sticky notes .

No abstract

Keystroke logging is used to automatically record writers' unfolding typing process and to get insight into moments when they struggle composing text. However, it is not clear which and how features from the keystroke log map to higher-level cognitive processes, such as planning and revision. This study aims to investigate the sensitivity of frequently used keystroke features across tasks with different cognitive demands. Two keystroke datasets were analyzed: one consisting of a copy task and an email writing task, and one with a larger difference in cognitive demand: a copy task and an academic summary task. The differences across tasks were modeled using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. Posterior distributions were used to compare the strength and direction of the task effects across features and datasets. The results showed that the average of all interkeystroke intervals were found to be stable across tasks. Features related to the time between words and (sub)sentences only differed between the copy and the academic task. Lastly, keystroke features related to the number of words, revisions, and total time, differed across tasks in both datasets. To conclude, our results indicate that the latter features are related to cognitive load or task complexity. In addition, our research shows that keystroke features are sensitive to small differences in the writing tasks at hand.