@article{HommersLewandEhrmann2012,
  author    = {Hommers, Wilfried and Lewand, Martin and Ehrmann, Dominic},
  title     = {Testing the moral algebra of two Kohlbergian informers},
  series = {Ps{\´i}cologica},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Ps{\´i}cologica},
  number    = {3},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-133917},
  pages     = {515-532},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {This paper seeks to unify two major theories of moral judgment: Kohlberg's stage theory and Anderson's moral information integration theory. Subjects were told about thoughts of actors in Kohlberg's classic altruistic Heinz dilemma and in a new egoistical dilemma. These actors's thoughts represented Kohlberg's stages I (Personal Risk) and IV (Societal Risk) and had three levels, High, Medium, and Low. They were presented singly and in a 3 x 3 integration design. Subjects judged how many months of prison the actor deserved. The data supported the averaging model of moral integration theory, whereas Kohlberg's theory has no way to handle the integration problem. Following this, subjects ranked statements related to Kohlberg's first four stages in a procedure similar to that of Rest (1975). Higher score went with larger effect of Societal Risk as predicted by Kohlberg's theory. But contrary to Kohlberg's theory, no age trends were found. Also strongly contrary to Kohlberg's theory, effects of Personal Risk (Stage I) and Societal Risk (Stage IV) correlated positively.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EhrenfeldHerbortButz2013,
  author    = {Ehrenfeld, Stephan and Herbort, Oliver and Butz, Martin V.},
  title     = {Modular neuron-based body estimation: maintaining consistency over different limbs, modalities, and frames of reference},
  series = {Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience},
  number    = {148},
  doi       = {10.3389/fncom.2013.00148},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-122253},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {This paper addresses the question of how the brain maintains a probabilistic body state estimate over time from a modeling perspective. The neural Modular Modality Frame (nMMF) model simulates such a body state estimation process by continuously integrating redundant, multimodal body state information sources. The body state estimate itself is distributed over separate, but bidirectionally interacting modules. nMMF compares the incoming sensory and present body state information across the interacting modules and fuses the information sources accordingly. At the same time, nMMF enforces body state estimation consistency across the modules. nMMF is able to detect conflicting sensory information and to consequently decrease the influence of implausible sensor sources on the fly. In contrast to the previously published Modular Modality Frame (MMF) model, nMMF offers a biologically plausible neural implementation based on distributed, probabilistic population codes. Besides its neural plausibility, the neural encoding has the advantage of enabling (a) additional probabilistic information flow across the separate body state estimation modules and (b) the representation of arbitrary probability distributions of a body state. The results show that the neural estimates can detect and decrease the impact of false sensory information, can propagate conflicting information across modules, and can improve overall estimation accuracy due to additional module interactions. Even bodily illusions, such as the rubber hand illusion, can be simulated with nMMF. We conclude with an outlook on the potential of modeling human data and of invoking goal-directed behavioral control.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KozlikNeumannLozo2015,
  author    = {Kozlik, Julia and Neumann, Roland and Lozo, Ljubica},
  title     = {Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: on the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {563},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00563},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-143192},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Several emotion theorists suggest that valenced stimuli automatically trigger motivational orientations and thereby facilitate corresponding behavior. Positive stimuli were thought to activate approach motivational circuits which in turn primed approach-related behavioral tendencies whereas negative stimuli were supposed to activate avoidance motivational circuits so that avoidance-related behavioral tendencies were primed (motivational orientation account). However, recent research suggests that typically observed affective stimulus response compatibility phenomena might be entirely explained in terms of theories accounting for mechanisms of general action control instead of assuming motivational orientations to mediate the effects (evaluative coding account). In what follows, we explore to what extent this notion is applicable. We present literature suggesting that evaluative coding mechanisms indeed influence a wide variety of affective stimulus response compatibility phenomena. However, the evaluative coding account does not seem to be sufficient to explain affective S-R compatibility effects. Instead, several studies provide clear evidence in favor of the motivational orientation account that seems to operate independently of evaluative coding mechanisms. Implications for theoretical developments and future research designs are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}