Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.Google Scholar

Atkinson, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.Google Scholar

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2022). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 199–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Berendt, B., Barkowsky, T., Freksa, C., & Kelter, S. (1998). Spatial representation with aspect maps. In Freksa, C., Habel, C., & Wender, K. F. (Eds.), Spatial cognition – An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 313–336). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Bertin, J. (1967). Sémiologie Graphique. Les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. (Translated 1983. Semiology of Graphics, by W. J. Berg.)Google Scholar

Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Conceptual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar

Bull, P. (1990). What does gesture add to the spoken word? In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 108–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.Google Scholar

Carroll, D. W. (2008). Psychology of language. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadworth.Google Scholar

Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Sweller, J. (2022). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 261–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1996). Gènes, peoples et langues. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., & Mountain, J. (1988). Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archeological, and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86, 6002–6006.Google Scholar

Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.) (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. (1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 159–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U., & Gärtner, H.-M. (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohn, N. (2016). A multimodal parallel architecture: A cognitive framework for multimodal interactions. Cognition, 146, 304–323.Google Scholar

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256.Google Scholar

Comenius, J. A. (1999). Orbis sensualium pictus [Facsimile of the 1887 edition]. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar

Cooney, J. B., & Swanson, H. L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: An overview. In Swanson, H. L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar

Corkin, S., Amaral, D. G., González, R. G., Johnson, K. A., & Hyman, B. T. (1997). H. M.’s medial temporal lobe lesion: Findings from magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(10), 3964–3979.Google Scholar

Crowder, R. G. (1993). Auditory memory. In McAdams, S., & Bigand, E. (Eds.), Thinking in sound: The cognitive psychology of human audition (pp. 113–145). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, C. D., & Adachi, I. (2013). Conceptual metaphorical mapping in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). eLife. Published online October 22, 2013. Available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/326065433_Conceptual_metaphorical_mapping_in_chimpanzees_Pan_troglodytes. Last accessed August 26, 2022.Google Scholar

Damerow, P., Englund, R. K., & Nissen, H. J. (1994). Die Entstehung der Schrift. In Riese, B. (Ed.), Schrift und Sprache (pp. 90–101). Heidelberg: Spektrum akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar

Danks, J. H., & End, L. J. (1987). Processing strategies for reading and listening. In Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 271–294). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

De Saussure, F. (1922). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Deuchar, M. (1990). Are the signs of language arbitrary? In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 168–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Duncker, K. (1935). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. [On psychology of productive thinking.] Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171, 303–306.Google Scholar

Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.Google Scholar

Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1996). Human cognitive neuropsychology. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1994). The human memory. A multi-modal approach. Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.Google Scholar

Fabrikant, S. I., & Montello, D. R. (2008). The effect of instructions on distance and similarity judgments in information spatializations. International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 22(4), 463–478.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F., & Anes, M. (1994). Why study spoken language? In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 34–36). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 185–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 487–493.Google Scholar

Gardner, B. T., & Gardner, R. A. (1975). Evidence for sentence constituents in the early utterances of child and chimpanzee. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 244–267.Google Scholar

Gardner, R. A., Gardner, B. T., & Van Cantfort, T. E. (Eds.) (1989). Teaching sign language to chimpanzees. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. (1983). Topic dependent effects in language processing. In Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Jarvella, R. J. (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 271–296). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. (1954). The visual perception of objective motion and subjective movement. Psychological Review, 61(5), 304–314.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (Ed.) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goethe, J. W. von (1833). Theoretische Schriften, Maximen und Reflexionen. Stuttgart: Cotta’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Graesser, A. C., & Zwaan, R. A. (1995). Inference generation and the construction of situation models. In Weaver, C. A. III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 117–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Green, R. (1981). Remembering ideas form text: The effect of modality of presentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 83–89.Google Scholar

Greer, B., De Bock, D., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). The Isis problem as an experimental probe and teaching resource. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(4), 237–246.Google Scholar

Grice, M. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. The William James Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Guthrie, J. T., Taboada, A., & Shular Coddington, C. (2007). Engagement practices for strategy learning in concept-oriented reading instruction. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies. Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 241–266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 353–374.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.Google Scholar

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Stevenson, H., Azuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Hildyard, A., & Olson, D. R. (1978). Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written discourse. Discourse Processes, 1, 91–117.Google Scholar

Hochpöchler, U., Schnotz, W., Rasch, T., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1105–1126.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, D. L., Standish, C. D., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P. B., Milton, J. A., Zilhão, J., Alcolea-González, J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte, P., Collado, H., de Balbín, R., Lorblanchet, M., Ramos-Muñoz, J., Weniger, G.-Ch., & Pike, A. W. G. (2018). U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science, 359(6378), 912–915.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2022). The redundancy in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 212–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kamermans, K., Pouw, W., Fassi, L., Aslanidou, A., Paas, F., & Hostetter, A. B. (2019). The role of gesture as simulated action in reinterpretation of mental imagery. Acta Psychologica, 197, 131–142.Google Scholar

Kanizsa, G. (1955). Margini quasi-percettivi in campi con stimolazione omogenea. Rivista di psicologia, 49(1), 7–30. [English translation (1987): Quasi-perceptual margins in homogeneously stimulated fields. (With a 1986 addendum.) In Meyer, G. E. and Petry, S. (Eds.), The perception of illusory contours (pp. 40–49). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kanizsa, G. (1968). Percezione attuale, esperienza passata e l’“esperimento impossibile” [Actual perception, past experience and the “impossible experiment”]. In Kanizsa, G. & Vicario, G. B (Eds.), Ricerche sperimentali sulla percezione [Experimental investigations on perception] (pp. 10–47). Trieste, Italy: Università degli studi di Trieste. Republished in the March–June 2019 issue of Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 46, 299–323.Google Scholar

King, A. (2007). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies. Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 267–290). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructive-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Google Scholar

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar

Kita, S. (Ed.) (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 363–371.Google Scholar

Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kosslyn, S. M. (1994a). Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar

Kosslyn, S. M. (1994b). Image and brain. The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Caterino, L. C. (1994). Reference maps as a framework for remembering text. In Schnotz, W. & Kulhavy, R. W. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 153–162). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Kürschner, C., & Schnotz, W. (2008). Das Verhältnis gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache bei der Konstruktion mentaler Repräsentationen. Psychologische Rundschau, 59(3), 139–149.Google Scholar

Kürschner, C., Schnotz, W. & Eid, M. (2006). Konstruktion mentaler Repräsentationen beim Hör- und Leseverstehen. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 18(2), 48–59.Google Scholar

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.Google Scholar

Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418.Google Scholar

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 195–232.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In Willows, D. M. & Houghton, H. A. (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol. 1 (pp. 51–86). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., & Binkley, M. R. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 95–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Liu, K., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Visual working memory for briefly presented scenes. Journal of Vision, 5, 650–658.Google Scholar

Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377–397.Google Scholar

Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J. M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 650–663.Google Scholar

Lowe, R. K., Schnotz, W., & Boucheix, J. M. (2022). The animation composition principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 313–323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Luria, A. (1973). The working brain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Marey, E. J. (1895). Movement. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar

Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1‒19.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Meyer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–49). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on visualizations. In Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 427–445). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.) (2014). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.) (2022). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380–386.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. (1976). Evolution and the diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.Google Scholar

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.Google Scholar

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In Weaver, C. A. III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Miller, J. (1990). Moving pictures. In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 180–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Millis, K. K., & King, A. (2001). Rereading strategically: The influences of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository text. Reading Psychology, 22, 41–65.Google Scholar

Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & TenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific text. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 232–246.Google Scholar

Montgomery, H. (1984). Mental models and problem solving: Three challenges to a theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 29, 85–94.Google Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.Google Scholar

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by minimizing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.Google Scholar

Murai, C., Kosugi, D., Tomonaga, M., Tanaka, M., Matsuzawa, T., & Itakura, S. (2005). Can chimpanzee infants (Pan troglodytes) form categorical representations in the same manner as human infants (Homo sapiens)? Developmental Science, 8(3), 240–254.Google Scholar

Ogden, L. K., & Richards, J. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In Keane, M., & Gilhooly, K. (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2006). Building the gist of a scene: The role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 23–36.Google Scholar

Orrill, C. H., Sexton, S., Lee, S.-O., & Gerde, C. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ abilities to use and make sense of drawn representations. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 in Utrecht.Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers, II. Elements of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Peterson, D. (1996). Forms of representation. Exeter: Intellect.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle, R. (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Povinelli, D. J., Bering, J. M., & Giambrone, S. (2003). Chimpanzees’ “Pointing”: Another error of the argument by analogy. In Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 35–68). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rasch, R. (2003). 42 Denk- und Sachaufgaben. Wie Kinder mathematische Aufgaben lösen und diskutieren. Stuttgart: Klett, Kallmeyer, Kaulis.Google Scholar

Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C. (1991). Learning to read: Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Robin, H. (1992). The scientific image: From cave to computer. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.Google Scholar

Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. (2022). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 521–536). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.Google Scholar

Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49(2), 121–133.Google Scholar

Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 164–176.Google Scholar

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344–355.Google Scholar

Sanders, J. R. (1973). Retention effects of adjunct questions in written and oral recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 181–186.Google Scholar

Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Lewin, R. (1994). Kanzi: The ape at the brink of the human mind. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279–294.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W. (2011). Colorful bouquets in multimedia research: A closer look at the modality effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 269–276.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed. (pp. 72–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W. (2022). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 82–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Bild- und Textverstehen [Effects of the visualization form on the construction of mental models in picture and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 216–235.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36(3), 175–190.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. K. (2008). A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.), Learning with animation. Research implications for design (pp. 304–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., Mengelkamp, C., Baadte, C., & Hauck, G. (2014). Focus of attention and choice of text modality in multimedia learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 483–501.Google Scholar

Schnotz, W., & Wagner, I. (2018). Construction and elaboration of mental models through strategic conjoint processing of text and pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 850–863.Google Scholar

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research, Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–25.Google Scholar

Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Boundary conditions and constraints of the modality effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 211–220.Google Scholar

Sidner, C. L. (1983). Focusing and discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 107–130.Google Scholar

Silveira, J. (1971). Incubation: The effect of interruption timing and length on problem solution and quality of problem processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, USA.Google Scholar

Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 184–203.Google Scholar

Stringer, C. B. (1992). Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In Bräuer, G., & Smith, F. H. (Eds.), Continuity or replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 9–24). Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Torralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30, 745–757.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826.Google Scholar

Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D. M., & Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (1995). Performance in a tool-using task by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109(1), 52–60.Google Scholar

Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations. Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms in a source book for Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Winn, W. D. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In Schnotz, W., & Kulhavy, R. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Zelazny, G. (1985). Say it with charts. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.Google Scholar

Zhao, F., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., & Gaschler, R. (2020). Texts and pictures serve different functions in conjoint mental model construction and adaptation. Memory & Cognition, 48(1), 69–82.Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292–297.Google Scholar