No abstract

Determining how we use our body to support cognition represents an important part of understanding the embodied and embedded nature of cognition. In the present investigation, we pursue this question in the context of a common perceptual task. Specifically, we report a series of experiments investigating head tilt (i.e., external normalization) as a strategy in letter naming and reading stimuli that are upright or rotated. We demonstrate that the frequency of this natural behavior is modulated by the cost of stimulus rotation on performance. In addition, we demonstrate that external normalization can benefit performance. All of the results are consistent with the notion that external normalization represents a form of cognitive offloading and that effort is an important factor in the decision to adopt an internal or external strategy.

6 7 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 20178 Abstract Much previous research has conceptualized pauses during writing as 9 indicators of the engagement of higher-level cognitive processes. In the present 10 study 101 university students composed narrative or argumentative essays, while 11 their key logging was recorded. We investigated the relation between pauses within 12 three time intervals (300-999, 1000-1999, and [2000 ms), at different text 13 boundaries (i.e., between words, sentences, and paragraphs), genre (i.e., narrative 14 vs. argumentative), and transcription fluency (i.e., typing speed). Moreover, we 15 investigated the relation between pauses and various lexical characteristics of essays 16 (e.g., word frequency, sentence length) controlling for transcription fluency and 17 genre. In addition to replicating a number of previously reported pause effects in 18 composition, we also show that pauses are related to various aspects of writing, 19 regardless of transcription fluency and genre. Critically our results show that the 20 majority of pause effects in written composition are modulated by pause location. 21 For example, increased pause rates at word boundaries predicted word frequency, 22 while pause rates at sentence boundaries predicted sentence length, suggesting 23 different levels of processing at these text boundaries. Lastly, we report some 24 inconsistencies when using various definitions of pauses. We discuss potential 25 mechanisms underlying effects of pauses at different text boundaries on writing. 26 27 Keywords Writing Á Pauses Á Computational linguistics 28 29 30 A1Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

While much previous research has suggested that decreased transcription fluency has a detrimental effect on writing, there is recent evidence that decreased fluency can actually benefit cognitive processing. Across a series of experiments, we manipulated transcription fluency of ostensibly skilled typewriters by asking them to type essays in two conditions: both-handed and one-handed typewriting. We used the Coh-Metrix text analyser to investigate the effects of decreased transcription fluency on various aspects of essay writing, such as lexical sophistication, sentence complexity, and cohesion of essays (important indicators of successful writing). We demonstrate that decreased fluency can benefit certain aspects of writing and discuss potential mechanisms underlying disfluency effects in essay writing.

We used text analyzers to compare the language used in two recently published reports on the physical science of climate change: one authored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the other by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC; a group of prominent skeptics, typically with prior scientific training, organized by the Heartland Institute). Although both reports represent summaries of empirical research within the same scientific discipline, our language analyses revealed consistent and substantial differences between them. Most notably, the IPCC authors used more cautious (as opposed to certain) language than the NIPCC authors. This finding (among others) indicates that, contrary to that which is commonly claimed by skeptics, IPCC authors were actually more conservative in terms of language style than their NIPCC counterparts. The political controversy over climate change may cause proponents' language to be conservative (for fear of being attacked) and opponents' language to be aggressive (to more effectively attack). This has clear implications for the science communication of climate research.