Effects of joint attention were addressed on 3- to 4-year-olds' performance in a verbal false-Belief Test (FBT), featuring the experimenter as co-watcher rather than narrator. In two experiments, children (N = 183) watched a filmed-FBT jointly with a test leader, disjointed from a test leader, or alone. Children attending jointly with a test leader were more likely to pass the FBT compared with normative data and to spontaneously recall information indicating false-belief understanding, suggesting that joint attention strengthens the plausibility of the FBT and renders plot-critical information more salient. In a third experiment (N = 59), results were replicated using a typical, image-based FBT. Overall findings highlight the profound impact of experimenter as social context in verbal FBTs, and link recall of specific story features to false-belief understanding.

In the debate about how to interpret Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) based false-belief experiments, it has been suggested that infants are predicting the actions of the agent based on more or less sophisticated cognitive means. We present an alternative, more parsimonious interpretation, exploring the possibility that the infants’ reactions are not governed by rational expectation but rather of memory strength due to differences in the allocation of cognitive resources earlier in the experiment. Specifically, it is argued that (1) infants’ have a tendency to find more interest in events that observed agents are attending to as opposed to unattended events (“interest contagion”), (2) the object-location configurations that result from such interesting events are remembered more strongly by the infants, and (3) the VoE contrast arises as a consequence of the difference in memory strength between more and less interesting object-location configurations. We discuss two published experiments, one which we argue that our model can explain (Kovács etal., 2010), and one which we argue cannot be readily explained by our model (Onishi and Baillargeon, 2005).

No abstract

Background: Media frequently report on overall work-place challenges in Swedish schools, including teachers' working conditions, their well-being, and students' declining results. Language is the key to success in every school subject. Therefore, optimal language learning environments are important. Poor sound environments affect teachers' vocal health, their general well-being, and students' performance. To provide better conditions for teachers and students, it is necessary to combine optimized room acoustics with other preventive measures such as vocal training and evidence-based tools to improve classroom communication. Teachers play a key role in the classroom and need knowledge and skills in communicative strategies to ensure first-class communication. The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of an intervention program for primary-school teachers comprising strategies for enhanced language learning and interactions in the classroom, with focus on teachers' verbal and body communication (voice, gaze, and gesture). Methods: Teachers (n ¼ 25) from seven schools teaching in school year 3-6 participated. Assessments were made pre/post intervention and at 5-weeks and 3-months follow-up. The assessments included teachers' self-assessments (questionnaires) of vocal health, self-efficacy, stress, burnout, and psychosocial work-environment. Results: The main results were significant decrease in voice problems at the 3-months follow-up and significant decrease of both stress and degree of burnout at 5-weeks follow-up. Self-efficacy score had increased significantly at 5-week follow-up. Conclusion:It can be concluded that the intervention program improves teachers' self-reported vocal health, decreases their perception of stress, and degree of burnout whilst increasing their sense of self-efficacy in classroom management.

From an early age, humans intuitively expect physical objects to obey core principles, including continuity (objects follow spatiotemporally continuous paths) and solidity (two solid objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time). These two principles are sometimes viewed as deriving from a single overarching "persistence" principle. Indeed, violations of solidity where one solid object seemingly passes through another could theoretically be interpreted as a violation of continuity, with an object "teleporting" to switch places rather than passing through a solid obstacle. However, it is an empirical issue whether the two principles are processed distinctly or identically to one another. Here, adult participants tracked objects during dynamic events in a novel location detection task, which sometimes involved violations of the principles of continuity or solidity. While participants explicitly noticed both types of violations and reported being equally surprised at both, they made more errors and answered more slowly after continuity violations than after solidity violations. Our results demonstrate that the two principles show different signature patterns, and are thus represented distinctly in the mind.

No abstract

A protective letter is a written defence against a later application for provisional measures. It is submitted by the future defendant and is an equivalent for the defendant, whose options to defend himself in the procedure for provisional measures are substantially curtailed if: (1) pursuant to Art 62(5) in connection with Art 60(5) UPCA, the Court can order provisional measures without a prior hearing of the defendant, if particular urgency justifies such procedure; and (2) the Court, for ordering provisional measures, needs only a sufficient degree of certainty (a) that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings, (b) that the patent in question is valid, and (c) that the right of the applicant is being infringed (Rule 211.2). Therefore, the applicant need not prove the relevant facts to their fullest extent but to the full conviction of the Court. This puts the applicant in a strong position.

With regard to the service of decisions and orders, para 1 refers to Rules 270–275 which apply to service on all parties on the opposite side of the service, including interveners (Rules 313–317). Refer to the respective parts of the commentary. The date of service of decisions is relevant for the beginning of the time periods for lodging an appeal and the grounds of appeal (Rule 224).