From ja+ at cmu.edu Tue Sep 2 09:07:03 2008 From: ja+ at cmu.edu (John Anderson) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:07:03 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 2009 ACT-R Post Graduate School Message-ID: Colleagues: As discussed at this year's ACT-R workshop we are thinking of having a Post Graduate School next year. As back in 2001, this would mean no regular summer school or workshop for 2009. This message is to provide the community with our thoughts about the event and request your input as to the dates. ICCM is being held next summer in Manchester (July 24-26): http://web.mac.com/howesa/Site/ICCM_09.html It will be followed by Cognitive Science in Amsterdam: http://www.ai.rug.nl/cogsci09/ (July 30 - Aug 1) Thanks to the cooperation of David Peebles and the other organizers of ICCM (Andrew Howes, Rick Cooper), we are thinking of having the post graduate school meetings at a hotel or lodge in the Lake District: http://www.visitmanchester.com/Parts4.aspx?ExperienceId=14&PartId=83 The intention of the Post-Graduate school is to take those who are already well versed in ACT-R and talk about the current developments and issues in extended meetings. We would have the discussions led by various members of the ACT-R community at large. We try to make the discussions extended and the breaks relaxing. Here is the question: Logically, we can either have the event the few days before ICCM or in the few days between ICCM and Cognitive Science. Locally, there are people whose commitments and travel goals make each of these options preferable. It is also the case that we might choose to put an extra day in if it were before ICCM. We thought it would be useful to take a poll and see if there is any sense of the community. Please get back to me if you have a preference or any other suggestions for the Post Graduate School. Thanks, John -- ========================================================== John R. Anderson Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Phone: 412-268-2788 Fax: 412-268-2844 email: ja at cmu.edu URL: http://act.psy.cmu.edu/ From grayw at rpi.edu Tue Sep 2 09:59:38 2008 From: grayw at rpi.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:59:38 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 2009 ACT-R Post Graduate School In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John and all. I don't know if it would change anyone thinking, but it is definitely the case that CogSci will be starting on Wednesday 7/29 not Thursday 7/30. As in recent years we expect that there will be a strong program of tutorials and workshops on Wednesday. Not everyone goes to these, but they have become very popular. Wayne On Sep 2, 2008, at 09:07, John Anderson wrote: > Colleagues: > > As discussed at this year's ACT-R workshop we are thinking of having > a Post Graduate School next year. As back in 2001, this would mean > no regular summer school or workshop for 2009. This message is to > provide the community with our thoughts about the event and request > your input as to the dates. > > ICCM is being held next summer in Manchester (July 24-26): > > http://web.mac.com/howesa/Site/ICCM_09.html > > It will be followed by Cognitive Science in Amsterdam: > > http://www.ai.rug.nl/cogsci09/ (July 30 - Aug 1) > > Thanks to the cooperation of David Peebles and the other organizers > of ICCM (Andrew Howes, Rick Cooper), we are thinking of having the > post graduate school meetings at a hotel or lodge in the Lake > District: > > http://www.visitmanchester.com/Parts4.aspx?ExperienceId=14&PartId=83 > > The intention of the Post-Graduate school is to take those who are > already well versed in ACT-R and talk about the current developments > and issues in extended meetings. We would have the discussions led > by various members of the ACT-R community at large. We try to make > the discussions extended and the breaks relaxing. > > Here is the question: > > Logically, we can either have the event the few days before ICCM or > in the few days between ICCM and Cognitive Science. Locally, there > are people whose commitments and travel goals make each of these > options preferable. It is also the case that we might choose to put > an extra day in if it were before ICCM. We thought it would be > useful to take a poll and see if there is any sense of the community. > Please get back to me if you have a preference or any other > suggestions for the Post Graduate School. > > Thanks, > John > -- > > ========================================================== > > John R. Anderson > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > Phone: 412-268-2788 > Fax: 412-268-2844 > email: ja at cmu.edu > URL: http://act.psy.cmu.edu/ > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > From nj_sima at yahoo.com Mon Sep 1 07:48:55 2008 From: nj_sima at yahoo.com (sima najafi) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 04:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ACT-R-users] Chunk Definition Message-ID: <761731.14966.qm@web65508.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Dear All, I'm a beginner to ACT-R. nowadays?I try to solve a second degree equation with ACT-R. I define the following chunk type: (chunk-type EqDeg2 a b c root1 root2). for sovling a second degree equaion normally we use the following formula: X = -b +/- (?(b^2 -4ac))/2a). ?I saw some sample models in which lisp functions for computing the answer of the equation are being defined whenever such these situations occure. now i have a question: is it correct to define a formula in this manner or we should encode the formula in rules and chunks such as add model in unit 1 of ACT-R tutorials? I want that model be plausible psychologycally but dont' have enough knowledge in psychology. PLease? guide me if its possible. Thanks in advance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From belkacem.chikhaoui at usherbrooke.ca Tue Sep 2 11:48:38 2008 From: belkacem.chikhaoui at usherbrooke.ca (Belkacem Chikhaoui) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:48:38 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 2009 ACT-R Post Graduate School In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004701c90d13$5ddf3a20$42a02c0a@AD.DMI.USherbrooke.Ca> Hello, Thank you for organizing the Post Graduate School. It will be very interesting to have the event between the two conferences; in order to have a good idea about works which will be presented in the first conference ICCM 2009. Thanks. Belkacem ---- Belkacem Chikhaoui ?tudiant de Maitrise en Informatique Laboratoire DOMUS D?partement d'Informatique Universit? de Sherbrooke Qu?bec, Canada T?l: (819) 821 8000 Poste 63825 -----Message d'origine----- De?: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] De la part de John Anderson Envoy??: 2 septembre, 2008 09:07 ??: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Objet?: [ACT-R-users] 2009 ACT-R Post Graduate School Colleagues: As discussed at this year's ACT-R workshop we are thinking of having a Post Graduate School next year. As back in 2001, this would mean no regular summer school or workshop for 2009. This message is to provide the community with our thoughts about the event and request your input as to the dates. ICCM is being held next summer in Manchester (July 24-26): http://web.mac.com/howesa/Site/ICCM_09.html It will be followed by Cognitive Science in Amsterdam: http://www.ai.rug.nl/cogsci09/ (July 30 - Aug 1) Thanks to the cooperation of David Peebles and the other organizers of ICCM (Andrew Howes, Rick Cooper), we are thinking of having the post graduate school meetings at a hotel or lodge in the Lake District: http://www.visitmanchester.com/Parts4.aspx?ExperienceId=14&PartId=83 The intention of the Post-Graduate school is to take those who are already well versed in ACT-R and talk about the current developments and issues in extended meetings. We would have the discussions led by various members of the ACT-R community at large. We try to make the discussions extended and the breaks relaxing. Here is the question: Logically, we can either have the event the few days before ICCM or in the few days between ICCM and Cognitive Science. Locally, there are people whose commitments and travel goals make each of these options preferable. It is also the case that we might choose to put an extra day in if it were before ICCM. We thought it would be useful to take a poll and see if there is any sense of the community. Please get back to me if you have a preference or any other suggestions for the Post Graduate School. Thanks, John -- ========================================================== John R. Anderson Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Phone: 412-268-2788 Fax: 412-268-2844 email: ja at cmu.edu URL: http://act.psy.cmu.edu/ _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From r.m.young at acm.org Tue Sep 2 13:05:48 2008 From: r.m.young at acm.org (Richard M Young) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:05:48 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 2009 ACT-R Post Graduate School Message-ID: <200809021717.m82HHqqG008594@act-r.psy.cmu.edu> At 14:59 02/09/2008, Wayne Gray wrote: >I don't know if it would change anyone thinking, but it is definitely >the case that CogSci will be starting on Wednesday 7/29 not Thursday >7/30. As in recent years we expect that there will be a strong program >of tutorials and workshops on Wednesday. Not everyone goes to these, >but they have become very popular. Wayne is absolutely right, and at least according to the ICCM flyer the same is true of ICCM: tutorials on Thu 23 July, and although I know nothing of the detailed plans, I imagine it would not be comfortable to have the ICCM tutorials day overlap with the Act-R PG School. Time between ICCM and Cog Sci would be very tight. Even assuming that it's practical to travel to the Act-R School location on the Sunday 26 July after ICCM has ended, that still leaves at most around 1.5 days for the School if people are to travel to Amsterdam on Tue 28 in order to attend Cog Sci workshops/tutorials on Wed 29th. I can see why people from outside the UK and especially from N America or farther would prefer not to have to extend their European trip still longer to include an Act-R School before ICCM, so altogether this looks like a difficult decision. ;-) ~ Richard From db30 at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Sep 2 13:55:46 2008 From: db30 at andrew.cmu.edu (Dan Bothell) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:55:46 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Chunk Definition In-Reply-To: <761731.14966.qm@web65508.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <761731.14966.qm@web65508.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --On Monday, September 01, 2008 4:48 AM -0700 sima najafi wrote: > > Dear All, > I'm a beginner to ACT-R. nowadays I try to solve a second degree equation > with ACT-R. > I define the following chunk type: > (chunk-type EqDeg2 a b c root1 root2). > for sovling a second degree equaion normally we use the following formula: > X = -b +/- (?(b^2 -4ac))/2a). > I saw some sample models in which lisp functions for computing the > answer of the equation are being defined whenever such these situations > occure. > now i have a question: > is it correct to define a formula in this manner or we should encode the > formula > in rules and chunks such as add model in unit 1 of ACT-R tutorials? > I want that model be plausible psychologycally but dont' have enough > knowledge in psychology. > Generally, whenever one uses calls to "code" outside of the model to perform computations or operations that are attributed to the model it brings the psychological plausibility of the model into question. Note however that just because a model doesn't use any outside calls doesn't mean it is automatically psychologically plausible. The plausibility of a model depends on many factors, and all the choices one makes in modeling need to be justified to support the model's plausibility. For the task you mention, solving an equation, I think the plausibility of using code to compute an answer would depend a lot on what the overall task you are modeling is. If solving the equations is the task being modeled, then having code outside of the model compute the value doesn't seem like a very plausible model to me since it's bypassing all of the cognitive components of the model to achieve the result. However, if the task were instead a memory learning task for recognizing or remembering answers to equations, then one could argue that the process of solving the equation doesn't need to be handled in detail by the model because that is below the level which the model is intended to address. Other tasks would have to be considered accordingly, and different people may have different views as to what they would consider plausible models for such tasks. There are many publications of ACT-R models which perform mathematic and algebraic tasks available on the ACT-R publications page which you may want to consult for additional information on the specific topic: Hope that helps, Dan From wangyeufl at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 17:55:00 2008 From: wangyeufl at gmail.com (Wang Ye) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:55:00 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is there any place to get training in ACT-R? Message-ID: Hello all, I'm a beginner interested in act-r. I am thinking of developing act-r skills because maybe I want to include cognitive modeling into my dissertation one year later. I have studied the tutorial material, but I don't think it is enough because now I don't know how to do things with act-r. I wonder is there any place I can get act-r training? Thank you!!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From db30 at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Sep 5 13:28:37 2008 From: db30 at andrew.cmu.edu (Dan Bothell) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:28:37 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is there any place to get training in ACT-R? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564F24EBDDE661B8866F0A14@DHL8KLC1.psy.cmu.edu> Several universities around the world have classes which use/teach modeling with ACT-R. If there is no such class at your institution the only other option I know of is the ACT-R Summer School held at Carnegie Mellon University, typically every July. Details on whether or not there will be a Summer School in 2009 have not yet been decided, but if there will be one the details and application request will be announced on the ACT-R mailing list. Dan --On Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:55 PM -0400 Wang Ye wrote: > > Hello all, > > > I'm a beginner interested in act-r. I am thinking of developing act-r > skills because maybe I want to include cognitive modeling into my > dissertation one year later. I have studied the tutorial material, but I > don't think it is enough because now I don't know how to do things with > act-r. I wonder is there any place I can get act-r training? Thank you!!! From teachsmith at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 22:39:43 2008 From: teachsmith at gmail.com (Catherine Smith) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:39:43 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is there any place to get training in ACT-R?] Message-ID: <7922d91f0809051939n33ce9f00xc110ea09cf79250a@mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Several universities around the world have classes which use/teach modeling with ACT-R. Hi Dan, Can you please list the schools [other than CMU :) ] currently running classes on ACT-R modeling? Thanks very much, Cathy Smith PS -- As I am new to ACT-R my vote goes to continuing the summer school in some form in 2009 -- Catherine L. Smith PhD Candidate School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies Rutgers University 4 Huntington Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From db30 at andrew.cmu.edu Sat Sep 6 00:19:07 2008 From: db30 at andrew.cmu.edu (Dan Bothell) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:19:07 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is there any place to get training in ACT-R?] In-Reply-To: <7922d91f0809051939n33ce9f00xc110ea09cf79250a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7922d91f0809051939n33ce9f00xc110ea09cf79250a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --On Friday, September 05, 2008 10:39 PM -0400 Catherine Smith wrote: > Can you please list the schools [other than CMU :) ] currently running classes on ACT-R modeling? > I can't say for certain where there are currently classes being offered. However, based on past experience and information requests which have been made many of the institutions found on the ACT-R people page: have offered classes which use ACT-R in some form (often as part of a more general cognitive modeling course) and presumably still offer such classes. Dan From grayw at rpi.edu Sun Sep 7 11:19:27 2008 From: grayw at rpi.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:19:27 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Is there any place to get training in ACT-R?] In-Reply-To: <7922d91f0809051939n33ce9f00xc110ea09cf79250a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7922d91f0809051939n33ce9f00xc110ea09cf79250a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D178882-3A81-4E3A-A9DA-5C1842744099@rpi.edu> Professor Mike Schoelles at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute teaches an excellent course on Computational Cognitive Modeling at the upper ugrad and grad student level. The course always begins with another architecture (Soar, Epic, and Lebra are some of the ones taught in the recent past). Building on concepts acquired from that part of the course, students are then lead thru ACTR and end up (by semester's end) doing some interesting and significant modeling in ACTR. Wayne On Sep 5, 2008, at 22:39, Catherine Smith wrote: > >>>>> Several universities around the world have classes which use/ > teach modeling with ACT-R. > Hi Dan, > Can you please list the schools [other than CMU :) ] currently > running classes on ACT-R modeling? > Thanks very much, > Cathy Smith > PS -- As I am new to ACT-R my vote goes to continuing the summer > school in some form in 2009 > > -- > Catherine L. Smith > PhD Candidate > School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies > Rutgers University > 4 Huntington Street > New Brunswick, NJ 08901 > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** Wayne D. Gray; Professor of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Carnegie Building (rm 108) ;;for all surface mail & deliveries 110 8th St.; Troy, NY 12180 EMAIL: grayw at rpi.edu, Office: 518-276-3315, Fax: 518-276-3017 for general information see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/ for On-Line publications see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/pubs/downloadable_pubs.htm for the CogWorks Lab see: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/cogworks/ If you just have formalisms or a model you are doing "operations research" or" AI", if you just have data and a good study you are doing "experimental psychology", and if you just have ideas you are doing "philosophy" -- it takes all three to do cognitive science. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rosemarijn.looije at tno.nl Mon Sep 8 03:23:15 2008 From: rosemarijn.looije at tno.nl (Looije, R. (Rosemarijn)) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:23:15 +0200 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Cognitive/Associative layer and signs/symbols Message-ID: Dear all, In a project we are trying to explicitly stick to the SRK framework of Rasmussen in the implementation of a cognitive model. Rules and knowledge are going to be implemented at first. The associative layer will use signs (e.g. bread) while the cognitive layer will use symbols (e.g. food). Both symbols and signs are stored in the memory. Now we think of implementing a translator, which is conceptually part of the memory, that translates signs to symbols and vice versa. The signs and symbols will probably be represented in a semantic network. Furthermore, we have the idea of activating goals in the memory depending on new symbols and sending the activated goals to the cognitive layer that can reason about which goal to choose based on for instance priorities. When in a goal hierarchy a procedure is reached the cognitive layer passes the goal to the associative layer, which then tries to reach the goal. If information is missing to succeed in the goal the associative layer asks the cognitive layer for this information. For example: the cognitive layer has passed the goal "land the plane" to the associative layer, but the information about where to land is not unambiguously present in the memory, so it asks the cognitive layer to get the "where" information. The cognitive layer than asks the memory for a list with signs (Rome, Zurich, Washington) of landing spots (symbol) and reasons about the best spot according to some specifications and current context. The best spot is given back to the associative layer that can complete its goal to land. We are very interested in your ideas on this, the cognitive plausibility and perhaps literature and example programs that describe similar implementations to crystallize our ideas further. Kind regards, Rosemarijn Looije ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Rosemarijn Looije, M.Sc. TNO Defence, Security and Safety - Human Factors Department Human Interfaces P.O.Box 23, 3769 ZG Soesterberg, The Netherlands E-mail: rosemarijn.looije at tno.nl Phone: +31 (0)346 356 370 Fax: +31 (0)346 353 977 TNO | Knowledge for business http://www.tno.nl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Research at psut.edu.jo Sun Sep 7 14:45:04 2008 From: Research at psut.edu.jo (Research) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:45:04 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] IMCL2009 Second Call for Papers Message-ID: <4117-2200890718454687@Zoubi> -- Apologies for Cross Postings -- Second Call for Papers The 4th International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer Aided Learning, IMCL2009 Amman, Jordan, 22-24 April 2009 www.imcl-conference.org The 4th International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer Aided Learning, IMCL2009, is part of an international initiative to promote technology-enhanced learning and online engineering world-wide. The IMCL2009 conference will cover all aspects of mobile learning, mobile business, mobile government, mobile society as well as the emergence of mobile technologies, services, implementation and implications for education, business, governments and society. The IMCL2009 actually aims to promote the development of Mobile Learning in the Middle East, provide a forum for education and knowledge transfer, expose students to latest ICT technologies and encourage the study and implementation of mobile applications in teaching and learning. The conference will also present an opportunity for educators to develop new skills and to stimulate critical debate on theories, approaches, principles and applications of m-learning, hence facilitate dialogue, sharing and networking between diverse cultures with regard to the optimal use of emerging technologies. Keynote Speakers Andy DiPaolo, Stanford University, USA Terry Anderson, Athabasca University, Canada Sabina Jeschke, University of Stuttgart, Germany Elizabeth Burd, University of Durham, UK Sponsors IEEE, International Association of Online Engineering and International eLearning Association International Advisory Committee Chair Rob Reilly, MIT Media Lab, USA International Program Committee Chair Michael Auer, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Austria National Organizing Committee Chair A. Y Al-Zoubi, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan Important Dates Submission of Full Paper 15 October 2008 Notification of Acceptance 15 December 2008 Author Registration Deadline 15 January 2009 Camera-Ready Papers 15 February 2009 IMCL2009 Conference 22-24 April 2009 Supporting Journals Authors of accepted IMCL2009 papers will be invited to submit selected papers for publication in one of the following reputed international journals: ? International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technology (iJIM) ? International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation (IJMLO) ? IEEE Multidisciplinary Engineering Education Magazine (MEEM) ? Journal of Educational Technology and Society ? International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE) ? Advances in Human-Computer Interaction ? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) ? International Journal for Online Engineering (iJOE) ? International Journal of Computing and Information Sciences (IJCIS) Venue The conference will be held at Princess Sumaya University for Technology, (PSUT), which is located in the town of Al-Jubaiha, North of Amman, Jordan. The country has a combination of Mediterranean and arid desert climates, with Mediterranean prevailing in the North and West of the country, while the majority of the country is desert. Generally, the country has warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters, with annual average temperatures ranging from 12 to 25?C (54 to 77?F) and summertime highs reaching the 40?C (105-115?F) in the desert regions. The social activities of the conference will include a half-day trip to the Dead Sea, a day trip to Petra at the end of the conference and a special night under the beautiful skies of Wadi Rum. www.imcl-conference.org info at imcl-conference.org IMCL2009 at psut.edu.jo From rsun at rpi.edu Mon Sep 8 13:41:16 2008 From: rsun at rpi.edu (Professor Ron Sun) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:41:16 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Cognitive/Associative layer and signs/symbols [ACT-R-users Digest, Vol 38, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B97D6B1-EA13-41AC-B5D8-EC529D6FD457@rpi.edu> Dear Rosemarijn: You might want to take a look at the following papers: ? R. Sun, L. A. Coward, and M. J. Zenzen, On levels of cognitive modeling . Philosophical Psychology, Vol.18, No.5, pp.613-637. 2005. ? R. Sun, The importance of cognitive architectures: An analysis based on CLARION. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Vol.19, No.2, pp.159-193. 2007 ? L. A. Coward and R. Sun, Criteria for an effective theory of consciousness and some preliminary attempts . Consciousness and Cognition, Vol.13, pp. 268-301. 2004. They are relevant to what you are proposing. They are downloadable from my webpage: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun Cheers, -- Ron > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:23:15 +0200 > From: "Looije, R. (Rosemarijn)" > Subject: [ACT-R-users] Cognitive/Associative layer and signs/symbols > To: > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear all, > In a project we are trying to explicitly stick to the SRK framework of > Rasmussen in the implementation of a cognitive model. Rules and > knowledge are going to be implemented at first. The associative layer > will use signs (e.g. bread) while the cognitive layer will use symbols > (e.g. food). Both symbols and signs are stored in the memory. Now we > think of implementing a translator, which is conceptually part of the > memory, that translates signs to symbols and vice versa. The signs and > symbols will probably be represented in a semantic network. > > Furthermore, we have the idea of activating goals in the memory > depending on new symbols and sending the activated goals to the > cognitive layer that can reason about which goal to choose based on > for > instance priorities. When in a goal hierarchy a procedure is reached > the > cognitive layer passes the goal to the associative layer, which then > tries to reach the goal. If information is missing to succeed in the > goal the associative layer asks the cognitive layer for this > information. For example: the cognitive layer has passed the goal > "land > the plane" to the associative layer, but the information about where > to > land is not unambiguously present in the memory, so it asks the > cognitive layer to get the "where" information. The cognitive layer > than > asks the memory for a list with signs (Rome, Zurich, Washington) of > landing spots (symbol) and reasons about the best spot according to > some > specifications and current context. The best spot is given back to the > associative layer that can complete its goal to land. > > We are very interested in your ideas on this, the cognitive > plausibility > and perhaps literature and example programs that describe similar > implementations to crystallize our ideas further. > Kind regards, > > Rosemarijn Looije > ------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================== Professor Ron Sun Cognitive Science Department Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 Eighth Street, Carnegie 302A Troy, NY 12180, USA phone: 518-276-3409 fax: 518-276-3017 email: rsun at rpi.edu web: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun ======================================================= From hussain.fehmida at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 04:21:55 2008 From: hussain.fehmida at gmail.com (Fehmida Hussain) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:21:55 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation Message-ID: hi all, I have a query regarding model validation. I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks simulating experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my model. the human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine significane of the conditions and interactions between variables. Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for me to just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the human data or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of defending my thesis? thanks Fehmida -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hussain.fehmida at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 04:51:27 2008 From: hussain.fehmida at gmail.com (Fehmida Hussain) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:51:27 +0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation Message-ID: Sorry for reposting, I was desperately looking for some advice on this: hi all, I have a query regarding model validation. I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks simulating experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my model. the human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine significane of the conditions and interactions between variables. Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for me to just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the human data or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of defending my thesis? thanks Fehmida -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From R.Cooper at bbk.ac.uk Sun Sep 14 06:28:54 2008 From: R.Cooper at bbk.ac.uk (Rick Cooper) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:28:54 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fehmida, I'm curious that no one has replied to your query - I've been hoping that someone would, because you ask a good and difficult question. I have comments rather than a definitive answer. There are many cases where researchers report correlational statistics for ACT-R (and other) models. Often the fits are remarkable - so good that I view them with skepticism, and wonder how much jiggery-pockery is going on underneath to get those fits. Sometimes there is parameter fitting involved. Othertimes I suspect it is carefully crafted productions. In any case, there are plenty of papers critiquing the "good fits", as given by correlation or r^2 stats. (A good question to ask is "Is the model's fit better than the fit we would obtain by retesting subjects? If it is, then I feel justified in being suspicious.) I personally like replicating the experimental results - do the same experiment with the model and establish whether the various main effects and interactions are present (but we aware that the model is likely to have less error variance than real subjects, unless you really have tried to account seriously for individual differences). But, in my opinion, the most convincing results come from doing cross-validation. Split the data in two, fit the data to one half, and then report the r^2 for the second half. I hope this is of help - if nothing else it might stir someone else to contribute. Regards, Rick Cooper 2008/9/14 Fehmida Hussain : > Sorry for reposting, I was desperately looking for some advice on this: > > hi all, > > I have a query regarding model validation. > I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks simulating > experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my model. the > human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine significane of > the conditions and interactions between variables. > > Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for me to > just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the human data > or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same > significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of > defending my thesis? > > thanks > Fehmida > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > -- Rick Cooper, PhD http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psyc/staff/academic/rcooper Reader in Cognitive Science, School of Psychology, Birkbeck, University of London From marc.halbruegge at gmx.de Sun Sep 14 06:33:18 2008 From: marc.halbruegge at gmx.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Marc_Halbr=FCgge=22?=) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:33:18 +0200 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080914103318.28350@gmx.net> Hi, > I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks simulating > experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my model. > the human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine significane of > the conditions and interactions between variables. > > Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for me to > just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the human > data or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same > significane? model validation is a complex (and still open) field, so don't expect a short and simple answer You could of course repeat the ANOVA on your model results. But: Model data is of a different quality than human data. For example, you don't really have independent observations. Therefore your ANOVA's df would be too high and your computed significances too low. I discussed this problem in more detail in a short paper last year (see refs below). There's a good deal of information on model validation in Gluck and Pew (2005): "Modeling Human Behavior with Integrated Cognitive Architectures". You should find this book in your local library. Greetings Marc Refs: Halbr?gge, M. (2007). Evaluating Cognitive Models and Architectures. In Kaminka, G. A. and Burghart, C. R., Eds. Evaluating Architectures for Intelligence. Papers from the 2007 AAAI Workshop, p. 27-31, Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press -- GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spa? haben mit Pastry Passion! http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196 From taatgen at cmu.edu Sun Sep 14 06:34:51 2008 From: taatgen at cmu.edu (Niels Taatgen) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:34:51 +0200 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Fehmida, I am not sure whether I fully understand your question, but let me try to answer what I think you are asking. First of all, there are no really good metrics to compare model fits to experimental data, I have published papers without mentioning any. Correlation and SD give some indication, and you might list them for completeness, but I often find them quite uninformative (in the sense that the graph that compares model and data gives much more information). In general it is not a good idea to apply statistics like Anova to model results. Some people run as many model simulations as they had subjects, and apply the same statistics. It is much better though to just run the model as often as possible. I agree with Rick (whose reply I just saw coming in) that a replication of the experiment is a good sanity check. Or even better: a prediction for a slightly different experiment. Niels On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fehmida Hussain wrote: > Sorry for reposting, I was desperately looking for some advice on > this: > > hi all, > > I have a query regarding model validation. > I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks > simulating > experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my > model. the > human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine > significane of > the conditions and interactions between variables. > > Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for > me to > just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the > human data > or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same > significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of > defending my thesis? > > thanks > Fehmida > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users =============================================== Niels Taatgen - University of Groningen, Artificial Intelligence Also (but not now) at: Carnegie Mellon University, Psychology, BH 345B web: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~niels email: taatgen at cmu.edu Telephone: +1 412-268-2815 (CMU) +31 50 3636435 (RUG) =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ema at msu.edu Sun Sep 14 09:31:20 2008 From: ema at msu.edu (Erik M. Altmann) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:31:20 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One technique that I think is meaningful for testing closed-form models (equations, like base-level learning) is to fit the model to participant-level data, by computing least squares, then use ANOVA with the "source" of the data (human, model) as a within-subjects factor. If source interacts with the contrasts of interest in the experimental design, then you have evidence of poor fit; the model is deviating from the data in a systematic way. There's an example in Altmann (2006), but one thing I would do differently is to use the error term from the human data to compute the F statistic for the interactions with source. For example, if you're interested in using your model to explain an interaction of experimental variables A and B, then run the ANOVA on the human data to get the error term for the A x B interaction, then run the ANOVA with source as an additional (WS) factor to get the mean square for A x B x source interaction. The logic is that the model adds no error variance of its own, so an error term based on variance pooled across the human and model "conditions" is too conservative (the better your model fit, the smaller the error term, so the more likely the test is to indicate poor fit). In general, this approach seems to make sense as long as you can obtain a least-squares fit of the model to participant-level data. This is easy enough with closed-form models together with some parameter search routine like Excel Solver. In principle it should also be possible to do this for simulation models, I think, but it may not be practical, given the size of the parameter space and the often non-trivial time needed per simulation run. Along these lines, I think Niels was making reference to a different approach, in which one runs the simulation once for each participant (say), then compares human to model with "source" as a between-subjects factor. In principle I think this could also be meaningful, if the simulation produces meaningful amounts of variance, but this means at least reproducing RT distributions as well as measures of central tendency. We tried this in Altmann and Gray (2008), but the editor wasn't convinced, so we untried it. I think this is basically uncharted territory. Seems to be a timely question. I'd welcome any feedback on these ideas, and particularly corrections if I've missed something. Erik. At 12:51 PM +0400 9/14/08, Fehmida Hussain wrote: >Sorry for reposting, I was desperately looking for some advice on this: > >hi all, > >I have a query regarding model validation. >I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks simulating >experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my model. the >human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine significane of >the conditions and interactions between variables. > >Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for me to >just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the human data >or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same >significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of >defending my thesis? > >thanks >Fehmida > > >_______________________________________________ >ACT-R-users mailing list >ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users -- Erik M. Altmann Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-353-4406 (voice) 517-353-1652 (fax) http://www.msu.edu/~ema From hussain.fehmida at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 06:00:10 2008 From: hussain.fehmida at gmail.com (Fehmida Hussain) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:00:10 +0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation Message-ID: Sorry I accidently hit the send key and incomplete reply was sent, here is the complete email: Hi, Briefly describing what I am tryging to do: I have re-implemented an ACT-R 6 model of a computer-based reaction time test called Attentional Network Task(ANT ref1) which is a combinatin of cueing and flanker tasks, having various cues and flanker condtion presented to the subject/model. The objective of my model is not only to simulate the experiment producing reaction times but also to see whether the same interaction/disassociation exits between the networks of attention(alerting, orienting, control -Posner's work on attentional networks ref2). So the model code has 2 parts: lisp code which is the experimental setup and the productions consisting of the ACT-R part for rule firing, parameter setting etc. So when you talk about replication and as Rick suggested "do the same experiment with the model", does that mean let the human subject interact with the screen setup by my model code? I am a little confused with the use of word replication. In the context of 'replicating the experiment' does it mean repeating the experiment and observing results and in the context of replicating the model does it mean come up with another model for the same experiment and then compare model results? Is my understanding correct? ref1: Fan J, McCandliss BD, Sommer T, Raz M, Posner MI. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3(14):340?47 ref2: Posner, M.I. & Petersen, S.E. (1990). The Attention system of the Human Brain. Annual Rev. of Neuroscience, 13: 25-42 thanks Fehmida -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Research at psut.edu.jo Sat Sep 13 12:35:58 2008 From: Research at psut.edu.jo (Research) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:35:58 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] ViWo 2009-IMCL2009 Call for Papers Message-ID: <4117-220089613163558328@Zoubi> ** Apologies for Cross Postings ** CALL FOR PAPERS 1st Special Track on Virtual Worlds for Academic, Organizational, and Life-Long Learning (ViWo 2009) http://www.iicm.edu/ViWo2009 In conjunction with the 4th International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer Aided Learning, (IMCL2009) Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Amman, Jordan, April 23, 2009 www.imcl-conference.org Online Information: http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/viwo2009 This CfP is also available as PDF: http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/ViWo2009/ViWo2009-CfP.pdf This special track will take place during IMCL 2009 in Amman, Jordan (22-24 April 2009) as a special programme item. The Special Track ViWo 2009 provides an interdisciplinary forum for international scientists and practitioners to discuss various aspects of learning and training in virtual worlds. The 4th International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer Aided Learning, IMCL2009, which will be hosted by Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Amman, Jordan. The conference is part of an international initiative to promote technology-enhanced learning and online engineering world-wide organized under the umbrella of the International Association of Online Engineering. Background Our society of the 21st century makes great demands on its members caused by rapid developing and ever-changing political, social, economical and technological situations. Consequently, it is expected that members of the society keep pace with these mutable situations, adapt their skills and expertise. As a result, modern instructional design, learning goals and processes as well as appropriate learning environments must support the development of the aforementioned skills and expertises. Consequently, educational approaches have changed dramatically over time from less formal schooling in the agrarian society to remedial repetitive learning in the industrialization age to learning with an understanding in today?s knowledge society. Based on that, different modern educational strategies have been developed which includes aspects such as self-directed learning, collaborative learning, experiential-based learning and actively participating. Educational approaches have also been influenced by technology but have also increasingly applied technology over the last decades, such as motion pictures, radio, television, computers and other emerging information and communication technologies (ICT). Last year?s hype surrounding the virtual world ?Second Life? has also generated significant interest in the education community. Although virtual worlds have been an active research topic for a long time, technology was not ready for complex application scenarios since recent years. New interesting and powerful platforms and tools, such as Second Life, Active Worlds, Multiverse, Open Croquet, OpenSim and Sun?s 3D Wonderland, have been emerged applicable to complement or even replace other knowledge transfer and learning settings. Modern virtual worlds are seen from an optimistic viewpoint as a disruptive and transformative technology. However, it still remains unclear to some extent where the real benefits and limitations of using virtual worlds as knowledge transfer and learning environments are when compared to more traditional methods. In order to avoid the same pitfalls of past e-learning solutions by just applying traditional learning approaches to a new technology, this special track is indented to offer a multidisciplinary platform which brings together international researchers from different organizations in order to share their experience with this technology. The special track will bring together international researchers as well as practitioners from different organisations who will have plenty of time for networking and real-world knowledge sharing. We invite submissions of papers in the categories research, development, evaluation and best practices that deal with virtual worlds for academic, organizational, and life-long learning issues including, but not limited to: Technological approaches, their limitations and how to overcome them Virtual worlds and mobile learning Virtual learning space design and architecture Modern learning settings Didactic and cognitive aspects New learning and teaching activities Interaction and behavior patterns Distance and blended learning Organizational learning, vocational training and certification Academic learning, assessment and feedback Collaborative and social learning Mixed Virtual world and classroom learning Knowledge Transfer and Collaboration Artificial Intelligence Approaches Usability and Human-Computer-Interaction Important Dates 15 November 2008: Submission of the full papers (6 pages) 15 December 2008: Notification of acceptance 15 January 2009: Author Registration Deadline 15 February 2009: Camera ready version (6 pages) 22 - 24 April 2009: IMCL 2008 Conference Submission Procedure File Types: DOC, RTF or PDF-file Language: English (British or US) Style Guides & Template: http://209.61.205.141/form/IMCL2009%20Template.doc Paper Submission System: Please use the Electronic Submission Page http://www.conftool.net/imcl-conference In case of problems or questions concerning the submission of papers, please contact the track chairs at ViWo2009 at iicm.edu. Notification of Acceptance and Publishing Accepted papers will be published within the proceedings CD of the IMCL2009 conference. At least one author has to register until January 15th 2009 after the notification of acceptance to be included into the conference program. Authors fee is applicable only once per paper! Some authors will be invited to submit extended versions of their paper for publication in a special issue in J.UCS - Journal of Universal Computer Science, http://www.jucs.org/. CAF 2008 Chair Christian G?tl, Graz University of Technology, Austria Frank Kappe, Graz University of Technology, Austria CAF 2008 Organization Team Alexander Nussbaumer, University of Graz, Austria Mohammad Smadi, Graz University of Technology, Austria CAF 2008 Program Committee (preliminary, to be extended) Dietrich Albert, University of Graz, Austria Vanessa Chang, Curtin University of Technology, Australia Baltasar Fern?ndez-Manj?n, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Ralf Klamma, RWTH Aachen University, Germany Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer, University Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia Guido Lang, City University of New York, USA Stephanie Linek, Universit?t Graz, Austria Michelle Lucey-Roper, Federatoin of American Scientists, USA Maggie A. McPherson, University of Leeds, UK Stephe Quinton, Curtin University of Technology, Australia Lalita Rajasingham , Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Torsten Reiners, University of Hamburg, Germany Diane Salter, University of Hong Kong, China Bernd Schmitz, Rheinische Fachhochschule K?ln, Germany Marc Spaniol, Max-Planck-Institut, Germany Further Information: Information about IMCL 2008: http://www.imcl-conference.org Travel Information: http://209.61.205.141/travel_info.shtm Tourist Information: http://www.visitjordan.com Dr. Christian Guetl Assistant Professor and Key Researcher Institute for Information Systems and Computer Media Graz University of Technology, AUSTRIA phone: +43 316 873 5639 fax : +43 316 873 5699 personal website: http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/guetl From schunn at mac.com Sun Sep 14 07:38:10 2008 From: schunn at mac.com (Christian Schunn) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:38:10 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] model validation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4957D719-B2AF-40AF-9A5E-C2088C689EE8@mac.com> There is a paper and excel file here: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/gof/index.html that describes your relatively simple choices and the pros/cons of each of them. -Chris On Sep 14, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Niels Taatgen wrote: > Hi Fehmida, > I am not sure whether I fully understand your question, but let me > try to answer what I think you are asking. > First of all, there are no really good metrics to compare model fits > to experimental data, I have published papers without mentioning > any. Correlation and SD give some indication, and you might list > them for completeness, but I often find them quite uninformative (in > the sense that the graph that compares model and data gives much > more information). > In general it is not a good idea to apply statistics like Anova to > model results. Some people run as many model simulations as they had > subjects, and apply the same statistics. It is much better though to > just run the model as often as possible. I agree with Rick (whose > reply I just saw coming in) that a replication of the experiment is > a good sanity check. Or even better: a prediction for a slightly > different experiment. > Niels > On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fehmida Hussain wrote: > >> Sorry for reposting, I was desperately looking for some advice on >> this: >> >> hi all, >> >> I have a query regarding model validation. >> I have implemented a few ACT-R 6 models of attentional networks >> simulating >> experimental studies. I have human data available to validate my >> model. the >> human study itself uses statistics like ANOVA to determine >> significane of >> the conditions and interactions between variables. >> >> Is is sufficient (from the point of view of model validation ) for >> me to >> just use Correl and SD to validate the model results against the >> human data >> or is it better to repeat the statistical test to show the same >> significane? What will be considered better from the point of view of >> defending my thesis? >> >> thanks >> Fehmida >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > =============================================== > Niels Taatgen - University of Groningen, Artificial Intelligence > Also (but not now) at: > Carnegie Mellon University, Psychology, BH 345B > web: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~niels email: taatgen at cmu.edu > Telephone: +1 412-268-2815 (CMU) +31 50 3636435 (RUG) > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Florian.Frische at offis.de Tue Sep 16 07:36:24 2008 From: Florian.Frische at offis.de (Florian Frische) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:36:24 +0200 Subject: [ACT-R-users] experiments to validate behaviour of a cognitive model Message-ID: Hi all, I would like to ask you about the amount of experimental data in order to validate a model's behaviour. I think there are several parameters that have an effect on the amount of data (suspects, trials) that is needed. The following 2 examples should help to describe what this question is about: Example 1: Let's say we have a 2-armed bandit that always returns -1 on the one arm and 1 on the other arm. We Would like to validate the behaviour of our model towards the behaviour of gamblers (The strategy that they use to maximize the overall outcome) Example 2: We have a complex flight task where a pilot has to avoid a thunderstorm. We would like to validate the behaviour of our pilot model in this task towards real pilots behaviour. It is obvious that example 1 is less complex than example 2 and I think that we need much more experimental data to get reliable results for the second example. I suppose there is a relationship beetween task complexity (e.g. independent variables) and the number of suspects/number of trials. But how can I assess how many suspects/trials I need (How many participants and how many repeats)? Thanks a lot for participating in this discussion, Florian Frische OFFIS FuE Bereich Verkehr | R&D Division Transportation Escherweg 2 - 26121 Oldenburg - Germany Phone.: +49 441 9722-523 E-Mail: florian.frische at offis.de URL: http://www.offis.de From grayw at rpi.edu Tue Sep 16 11:55:55 2008 From: grayw at rpi.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:55:55 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] experiments to validate behaviour of a cognitive model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Florian, There is nothing particularly special about establishing the reliability of experimental results in order to model those results. The issues here are the same as establishing the reliability of any experimental result whether they are modeled or not. The complexity of the task often means that there are many different strategies that human subjects can bring to bear in performing the task. As a trivial example, the number of strategies available in something like the attentional blink (or RSVP) task is small compared to the number of strategies that could be brought to bear by an expert playing chess (against an expert opponent). Your example of a pilot flying thru a thunder storm is a lot like the chess example in that small choices made early on may have a big impact on how the game or flight plays out. The real issue to focus on is at what level you wish to model (see Newell's time scale of human activity; first used in Newell, A., & Card, S. K. (1985). The prospects for psychological science in human- computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 209?242; later discussed in Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.). That is, what human and model data do you wish to compare? One thing to think about is what performance in a complex task you wish to predict. Total flight time? Success? Mean attitude, speed, changes in directions, changes in altitude, speed? Or perhaps the exact path of the flight down to the level of predicting all course changes, etc. More detail? Which instruments they look at from moment to moment? The sequence of instrument checks before they make a decision to alter altitude, speed, course, etc? Eye movements? Perhaps ironically, the gross characteristics of performance (total flight time) and the lower level features such as sequence of instrument checks prior to making a change are fairly easy to collect data on and model. The harder level would be to predict what seems like it should be the middle layer in the above; namely, it would be hard if not impossible to predict the exact path of any given flight thru a dynamic flight environment. The problems here though are no different for comparing model to data than they would be in comparing one pilot's performance to another pilot's performance. Establishing the reliability of the exact path of performance in a complex task is hard to do simply because there are so many variables that it is unlikely that even the same pilot put into the same beginning state of the system would have the exact same experience twice. An example is provided by the Argus task that Mike Schoelles and I have worked on (some references are given below). Argus is a fairly simple radar-like task but a complex task for most laboratory studies. In Argus people have to track targets as they move on a screen and classify their threat value each time they fly into a new sector. In our studies students do this task in 12-15 min scenarios, usually about 10 of these scenarios are spaced over two days. Mean correct classifications range in the 60% to 85% level depending on the exact conditions of the study. However, it is impossible to established commonalities across subjects are between model and subjects in things such as the order in which targets are checked. Trying to describe a common search method for all subjects is pretty near impossible as well. To make things more interesting in one of our studies we combined the basic Argus task with a second (not secondary) task of keeping the cursor over a jittering target airplane that jittered by itself (away from the radar) in the lower right-hand part of the screen. The cursor turned "blue" when the cursor over over the jittering target most of the time, yellow when the cursor was on and off the target, and then red as the Ss ignored this "jitter" task for the main classification task. Our models of this task reproduced many of the overall characteristics of human performance -- number of targets correctly classified, mean correct tracking on the jitter task. The model did not exactly reproduce any one Ss data in terms of the sequence in which individual targets were checked. Our interest in this particular task was on task switching -- could our model predict when human Ss would decide to switch from the classification task to the tracking task and back? This focus gave us a lot of data as people switched back and forth quite a bit and our model also switched back and forth quite a bit. However, our model would not switch tasks except at subtask boundaries (during the classification task once the model begin to classify a target by hooking the target, it would stay focused on that target until it had completed classifying it). Our humans interrupted the classification task much more than our model did. In this example, we established reliability at the upper levels of performance (number of targets correctly classified) between experimental conditions and the model matched those differences. At the "middle" level -- the sequence in which targets were selected and classified, we did not establish any consistent differences within or between experimental conditions and (therefore) the model could not predict behavior at this level. At the lower level of "when did people and model switch tasks" the experimental data showed consistency within conditions. However, this consistency was not matched by the model thus enabling us to conclude that whatever people were doing they did not preferentially switch tasks at subtask boundaries. I hope this helps. I think it illustrates the dilemma of those who would model complex tasks. You can only hope to model tasks at the level at which you have consistency across human subjects. You can ask many different lower level questions of the human data (such as we did in asking about "when" humans switched tasks) and compare these to model performance. However, these questions have to be fairly narrowly focused. If humans do not follow a consistent path then there is no way that your models will be able to match you humans in terms of moment-by-moment performance. If you can somehow more abstractly characterize human performance (as we did in terms of when humans would switch tasks) then you can compare models and humans at that level. Cheers, Wayne Schoelles, M. J., Neth, H., Myers, C. W., & Gray, W. D. (2006). Steps towards integrated models of cognitive systems: A levels-of-analysis approach to comparing human performance to model predictions in a complex task environment. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 756-761). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Schoelles, M. J., & Gray, W. D. (2001). Decomposing interactive behavior. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 898?903). Mahwah, NJ. Schoelles, M. J., & Gray, W. D. (2001). Argus: A suite of tools for research in complex cognition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(2), 130?140. On Sep 16, 2008, at 07:36, Florian Frische wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to ask you about the amount of experimental data in > order to > validate a model's behaviour. > I think there are several parameters that have an effect on the > amount of > data (suspects, trials) that is needed. > The following 2 examples should help to describe what this question is > about: > > Example 1: Let's say we have a 2-armed bandit that always returns -1 > on > the one arm and 1 on the other arm. We Would like > to validate the behaviour of our model towards the behaviour of > gamblers > (The strategy that they use to maximize the overall outcome) > > Example 2: We have a complex flight task where a pilot has to avoid a > thunderstorm. We would like to validate the behaviour > of our pilot model in this task towards real pilots behaviour. > > It is obvious that example 1 is less complex than example 2 and I > think > that we need much more experimental data to get reliable results > for the second example. I suppose there is a relationship beetween > task > complexity (e.g. independent variables) and the number of suspects/ > number > of trials. > But how can I assess how many suspects/trials I need (How many > participants and how many repeats)? > > Thanks a lot for participating in this discussion, > > Florian Frische > > OFFIS > FuE Bereich Verkehr | R&D Division Transportation > Escherweg 2 - 26121 Oldenburg - Germany > Phone.: +49 441 9722-523 > E-Mail: florian.frische at offis.de > URL: http://www.offis.de > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** Wayne D. Gray; Professor of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Carnegie Building (rm 108) ;;for all surface mail & deliveries 110 8th St.; Troy, NY 12180 EMAIL: grayw at rpi.edu, Office: 518-276-3315, Fax: 518-276-3017 for general information see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/ for On-Line publications see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/pubs/downloadable_pubs.htm for the CogWorks Lab see: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/cogworks/ If you just have formalisms or a model you are doing "operations research" or" AI", if you just have data and a good study you are doing "experimental psychology", and if you just have ideas you are doing "philosophy" -- it takes all three to do cognitive science. From rlweaver at stat.cmu.edu Tue Sep 16 13:55:55 2008 From: rlweaver at stat.cmu.edu (Rhiannon L Weaver) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ACT-R-users] experiments to validate the behavior of a model In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Florian, Are you talking about how many model simulations to run, or how much human data to collect to compare to simulations? If it is a question of model simulations, it depends on how you want to characterize the behavior. In essence, each time the model runs, you can record any number of characteristics of that run in order to get a profile of the behavior. Say you record J items for each model run. So eg, total time, number of turns, number of corrections, when they see the cloud, whether or not they avoid it, etc... If you are interested in averaging this behavior across multiple runs, and characterizing the model by this average, then there is some standard multivariate statistical analysis that you can apply to do a "sample size" calculation-- in this sense, it would be the number of model runs you need to do in order to estimate the mean value of your J items, and how they interact (eg, the full covariance matrix), within a certain level of statistical confidence. See for example, Johnson and Wichern, "Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis" and the chapters on estimating multivariate means and profile analysis assuming Gaussian distributions. This is the book I'm familiar with, but it can be rather dense. A less-theoretical approach might be offered in Afifi, Clark, and May, "Computer-aided multivariate analysis", though I'm just going by reviews and a perusal of the table of contents. In any case I recommend looking at the full distribution of the data points across model runs in addition to the mean values, if only to see whether you can assume that they are distributed as Multivariate Normal or not. The methods are similar for compiling human data, but because you have less control over the parameters, you might need to think of sample size within subjects. Ie, if you suspect, for example, that you have people of different baseline skill levels, you might want to get several repetitions of the task per person to take that into account, if you are interested in a within-subjects characterization of behavior. Best, Rhiannon On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, act-r-users-request at act-r.psy.cmu.edu wrote: > Send ACT-R-users mailing list submissions to > act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > act-r-users-request at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > act-r-users-owner at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ACT-R-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. experiments to validate behaviour of a cognitive model > (Florian Frische) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:36:24 +0200 > From: Florian Frische > Subject: [ACT-R-users] experiments to validate behaviour of a > cognitive model > To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Hi all, > > I would like to ask you about the amount of experimental data in order to > validate a model's behaviour. > I think there are several parameters that have an effect on the amount of > data (suspects, trials) that is needed. > The following 2 examples should help to describe what this question is > about: > > Example 1: Let's say we have a 2-armed bandit that always returns -1 on > the one arm and 1 on the other arm. We Would like > to validate the behaviour of our model towards the behaviour of gamblers > (The strategy that they use to maximize the overall outcome) > > Example 2: We have a complex flight task where a pilot has to avoid a > thunderstorm. We would like to validate the behaviour > of our pilot model in this task towards real pilots behaviour. > > It is obvious that example 1 is less complex than example 2 and I think > that we need much more experimental data to get reliable results > for the second example. I suppose there is a relationship beetween task > complexity (e.g. independent variables) and the number of suspects/number > of trials. > But how can I assess how many suspects/trials I need (How many > participants and how many repeats)? > > Thanks a lot for participating in this discussion, > > Florian Frische > > OFFIS > FuE Bereich Verkehr | R&D Division Transportation > Escherweg 2 - 26121 Oldenburg - Germany > Phone.: +49 441 9722-523 > E-Mail: florian.frische at offis.de > URL: http://www.offis.de > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > > End of ACT-R-users Digest, Vol 38, Issue 11 > ******************************************* > From Kevin.Gluck at mesa.afmc.af.mil Wed Sep 17 19:28:54 2008 From: Kevin.Gluck at mesa.afmc.af.mil (Gluck, Kevin A Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:28:54 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Model Validation and Model Comparison Message-ID: We've seen two recent threads on the topic of model validation. An important topic and interesting exchange. A closely related, but not identical, topic is "model comparison." Paul Bello, Jerry Busemeyer, and I recently organized a special issue of the journal _Cognitive Science_ on the topic of model comparison. It is in press and (we think) will appear as the last issue of the journal in 2008. As a teaser, here is the opening paragraph from our intro to the special issue: -------- All cognitive modelers sooner or later (usually sooner) run headlong into fundamental issues associated with comparing and selecting alternative models and with evaluating the validity of the models that have been developed. We developed this special issue around the theme of Model Comparison in order to highlight the critical importance of these topics for ongoing progress in cognitive science. What are the different methods by which one can compare two or more models in terms of their capacity to explain a set of experimental findings? Can these models be empirically distinguished in terms of their qualitative and/or quantitative predictions? What are the prospects for making direct comparisons across statistical, mathematical, and computational modeling approaches? How does the focus of comparisons differ across modeling approaches and what value might the best practices of one of these modeling communities have for the others? How should we deal with the complex interplay of issues such as the breadth and depth of explanatory mechanisms, parsimony, plausibility, precision, and accuracy within and across modeling approaches? Without clear answers to these questions, how can our science measure its progress? We have assembled a collection of papers that address some of these and other important questions. -------- Hopefully it will be an informative and useful resource. Cheers, Kevin ------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN GLUCK, PhD Senior Research Psychologist S&T Advisor, Cognitive Models and Agents Branch Air Force Research Laboratory 6030 S. Kent St Mesa, AZ 85212-6061 P: 480-988-6561 x-677; DSN 474-6677 F: 480-988-2230; DSN 474-6688 C: 480-229-4569 PALM Webpage: http://www.mesa.afmc.af.mil/palmlab.html "The true line is not between 'hard' natural science and 'soft' social sciences, but between precise science limited to highly abstract and simple phenomena in the laboratory and inexact science and technology dealing with complex problems in the real world." - Herb Simon, Models of My Life From jeedward at yahoo.com Sat Sep 20 05:03:51 2008 From: jeedward at yahoo.com (Ed) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ACT-R-users] IICAI-09 Call for papers Message-ID: <438962.61515.qm@web45909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dear Colleagues ? ? The 4th Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IICAI-09) will be held in Tumkur (near Bangalore), India during December 16-18 2009. The conference consists of paper presentations, special workshops, sessions, invited talks and local tours, etc.? and it is one of the biggest AI events in the world. We invite draft paper submissions. Please see the website: www.iiconference.org ?for more details of the conference. ? Sincerely ? ? Edward Publicity Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From f.j.mcneill at ed.ac.uk Wed Sep 24 07:28:54 2008 From: f.j.mcneill at ed.ac.uk (Fiona McNeill) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:28:54 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 1st CFP: Workshop on Matching and Meaning: automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies. Message-ID: <20080924122854.zd0phc8maso80o4o@mail.inf.ed.ac.uk> Apologies for cross-postings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PAPERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Workshop on Matching and Meaning: Automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies http://dream.inf.ed.ac.uk/workshops/WMM09/ 9th April 2009, part of AISB'09 Convention, Edinburgh, UK OVERVIEW The problem of semantic misalignment - of two systems failing to understand one another when their semantic representation is not identical - occurs in a huge variety of areas: the Semantic Web, databases, natural language processing; anywhere, indeed, where semantics are necessary but centralised control is undesirable or impractical. In highly dynamic domains, where interactions are between a large, diverse and evolving community, there is a need for the resolving of these misalignments - through developing and evolving existing ontologies or interpreting unknown ontologies in terms of known ones - to be done automatically and on-the-fly. The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers interested in the problems of automated development, evolution and interpretation of ontologies in the many different domains in which it occurs. We are primarily interested in the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of debate, and the workshop is intended to be a forum for researchers to present ongoing work and ideas and to engage in discussion with other researchers from the field. We are particularly interested in novel ideas and innovative research, which may be in its early stages, and encourage reports on work in progress. Topics of interest include: * Ontology evolution * Ontology matching and alignment * Ontology versioning * Representational or structural change * Formal aspects of ontology dynamics * Foundational issues * Social and collaborative matching * Background knowledge in matching * Extensions to ontology languages to better support change * Belief revision for ontologies and the Semantic Web * Inconsistency handling in evolving ontologies * Uncertainty in matching * Change propagation in ontologies and metadata * Ontologies for dynamic environments * Dynamic knowledge construction and exploitation * Case studies, software tools, use cases, applications * Open problems SUBMISSION GUIDELINES We encourage the submission of extended abstracts that discuss ongoing research, problem descriptions and overviews of the domain. These may be of any length; we expect two or three pages will be appropriate in most cases. This workshop will be non-archival so it is not necessary that abstracts should meet fixed standards; they are primarily intended to highlight ideas. Submissions will be subject to light reviewing, mainly intended to check fit to workshop. Abstracts should be submitted electronically in pdf format to f.j.mcneill-at-ed.ac.uk by 19th December 2008. Notification of acceptance will be sent to the submitting author on 13th February 2009. VENUE The workshop will take place at the Edinburgh Convention Centre at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, as part of the AISB 2009 Convention (http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb09/), on April 9th 2009. All workshop participants must be registered for the AISB 2009 Convention. Registration for this workshop is included in the convention registration fee. IMPORTANT DATES Submission: Friday, 19th December 2008 Notification: Friday, 13th February 2009 Workshop: 9th April 2009 AISB09 Convention: 6th - 9th April 2009 PROGRAMME Presentations: Authors of accepted abstracts will give presentations of their work; exact times to be decided. Posters: If it is not possible to fit in presentations for all accepted authors, some may be asked to present posters instead. There will be a session of 5 minute poster talks. Panel: The technical programme will end with a 90 minute panel discussion on a topic of mutual interest to be decided. Three speakers will speak for 10 minutes each with a brief to stimulate debate during the remaining 60 minutes. Discussion amongst all participants, rather than question-and-answering for the panel, will be strongly encouraged. ORGANISERS Fiona McNeill, University of Edinburgh, UK Michael Chan, University of Edinburgh, UK PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE Manuel Atencia Arcas, IIIA-CSIC, Spain Paolo Besana, University of Edinburgh, UK Alan Bundy, University of Edinburgh, UK Jerome Euzenat, INRIA Grenoble Rhone-Alpes, France Fausto Giunchiglia, University of Trento, Italy Adam Pease, Articulate Software, USA Pavel Shvaiko, TasLab, Informatica Trentina, Italy -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. From frank.ritter at psu.edu Wed Sep 24 19:07:03 2008 From: frank.ritter at psu.edu (Frank Ritter) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:07:03 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] CogModeling notes: ICCM09/AISB09/BRIMS09/RBI workshop/Books/Positions Message-ID: [Please forward as/what is appropriate, such as to students' mailing lists, and for calenders of events.] This is based on the International Cognitive Modeling Conference mailing list, which I maintain. I forward messages about twice a year. The first two announcements are driving this email, the announcement of the call for papes and the tutorials program at ICCM 2009. If you would like to be removed, please just let me know. I maintain it by hand to keep it small. cheers, Frank Ritter frank.e.ritter at gmail.com http://acs.ist.psu.edu, http://www.frankritter.com 1. Tutorials program call, 2009 Int'l Conference on Cognitive Modeling 23 July 2009, Mancester, UK, proposal deadline is 5 March 2009 http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2009/tutorials-call.html 2. ICCM 2009 Conference Announcement, 24-26 July 2009, Mancester, UK, paper deadline early April 2009 http://web.mac.com/howesa/Site/ICCM_09.html 3. ICCM 2009 Doctoral Consortium Call July 23, 2007 4. AISB 09 Convention, 6-9 April 2009 http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb09 5. BRIMS 09 Conference, 31 March 2009 paper deadline is 17 December 2008 http://www.brimsconference.org (will be up after 6 October) 6. CHI Workshop on Challenges in Evaluating Usability and User Experience in Reality Based Interaction http://faculty.euc.ac.cy/gchristou/workshop/ 7. I/ITSEC Modeling scholarship http://www.iitsec.org/scholarships.cfm 8. Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems book, Anderson (ed.), published http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsychology/?view=usa&ci=9780195324259 9. ICCM 2004 in DBLP http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/index.html 10. Two books on on Art & Cognition (in French) Cognition et creation Approaches cognitives de la creation artistique 11. Huntsville Simulation Conference http://www.scs.org/hsc 12. PostDoc Position in CASOS http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/naacsos/ 13. Job in cognitive science in Manchester, UK http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/QQ147/Lecturer_in_Cognition_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/ 14. Job (potentially) in user modeling at North Carolina State University 15. Job (potentially) in modeling at Michigan State Deadline: 1 October *************************************************** 1. Tutorials program call, 2009 Int'l Conference on Cognitive Modeling 23 July 2009, Mancester, UK, proposal deadline is 5 March 2009 http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2009/tutorials-call.html The Tutorials program at the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM) 2009 will be held on 23 July 2009. It will provide conference participants with the opportunity to gain new insights, knowledge, and skills from a broad range of areas in the field of cognitive modeling. Tutorial topics will be presented in a taught format and are likely to range from practical guidelines to academic issues and theory. Tutorials at ICCM have been held before, and this year's program will be modelled after them and after the series held at the Cognitive Science Conference. If you are interested in providing such a tutorial, please reply to the tutorials call, and please keep in mind that this is typically developmental process, so please feel free to contact me or a committee member for suggestions, advice, and comments, including encouragement. More details at http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2007/tutorials-call.html Committee ========= Erik Altmann (Michigan State) Fabio Del Missier (Trento) Glenn Gunzelmann (Air Force Research Laboratory) Randolph M. Jones (Soar Technology) Katharina Scheiter (Tuebingen) Peter Wallis (Sheffield) *************************************************** 2. ICCM 2009 Conference Announcement 24-26 July 2009, Mancester, UK, paper deadline early April 2009 http://web.mac.com/howesa/Site/ICCM_09.html ICCM is the premier international conference for research on computational models and computation-based theories of human behavior. ICCM is a forum for presenting, discussing, and evaluating the complete spectrum of cognitive models, including connectionism, symbolic modeling, dynamical systems, Bayesian modeling, and cognitive architectures. ICCM includes basic and applied research, across a wide variety of domains, ranging from low-level perception and attention to higher-level problem-solving and learning. The proceedings of the 2007 conference are available from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/iccm2007.org/iccm_2007_proceedings_and_papers *************************************************** 3. ICCM 2009 Doctoral Consortium Call Doctoral Consortium July 23, 2009 The ICCM 2009 Doctoral Consortium provides an opportunity for doctoral students to explore their research interests in a multi-approach workshop, under the guidance of a panel of research faculty. The Consortium has the following objectives: * Provide a setting for mutual feedback on participants' current research and guidance on future research directions. * Develop a supportive community of scholars and a spirit of collaborative research. * Contribute to the conference goals through interaction with other researchers and conference events. Review Criteria The Doctoral Consortium review committee will select participants based on their anticipated contribution to the Consortium objectives. Participants typically have settled on thesis directions but have not necessarily had their research proposals accepted by their thesis committees. The Doctoral Consortium encourages participation of students from a wide variety of modeling approaches. Students from under-represented groups or institutions, including students from institutions where modeling is not a strength, are especially encouraged to apply. *************************************************** 4. AISB 09 Convention http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb09 The AISB'09 Convention will be organised by Nick Taylor at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, 6th-9th April 2009. Its theme is Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems. It is made up up of workshops and symposiums. Killer Robots or Friendly Fridges: the Social Understanding of Artificial Intelligence Prof Greg Michaelson (Heriot-Watt University) Prof Ruth Aylett (Heriot-Watt University) New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction Prof Kerstin Dautenhahn (University of Hertfordshire) 2nd Swarm Intelligence Algorithms and Applications Symposium (SIAAS-09) Dr Aladdin Ayesh (De Montfort University) Evolutionary Algorithms for the Design and Understanding of Complex Systems Prof David Corne (Heriot-Watt University) Dr Pier Frisco (Heriot-Watt University) 2nd Perada Workshop on Pervasive Adaptation Dr Emma Hart (Napier University) Dr Nick Taylor (Heriot-Watt University) PERSIST Workshop on Intelligent Pervasive Environments Ms Sarah McBurney (Heriot-Watt University) Ms Eliza Papadopoulou (Heriot-Watt University) Social Networks and Multi-Agent Systems Symposium (SNAMAS-09) Dr Guido Boella (University of Turin) Dr Leendert van der Torre (University of Luxembourg) Dr Harko Verhagen (Stockholm University) Symposium on Behaviour Regulation in Multi-Agent Systems Dr Nir Oren (King's College London) Workshop on Matching and Meaning Dr Fiona McNeill (University of Edinburgh) Affective Bodily Expression Dr Nadia Berthouze (University College London) Dr Marco Gillies (Goldsmiths College London) Affect Mental States Symposium: From Emotion to Reason (AMSS-09) Dr Aladdin Ayesh (De Montfort University) 2nd AISB Symposium Computing and Philosophy Dr Mark Bishop (Goldsmiths College London) Persuasive Technology and Digital Behaviour Intervention Dr Judith Masthoff (University of Aberdeen) Dr Floriana Grasso (University of Liverpool) *************************************************** 5. BRIMS 09 Conference, 30 March -2 April 2009 paper deadline is 17 December 2008 http://www.brimsconference.org (will be up after 6 October) Sundance Resort, Utah. (room rates will be very competitive) All submissions due: December 17, 2008 Note: Paper submissions are full papers Tutorials held: March 30, 2009 Invited Speakers Dr. John Anderson Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Carnegie Mellon University Author of On Killing Bruce Sawhill & Jim Herriot, DayJet This year BRIMS is being co-located with the Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), which will provide an outstanding opportunity for scienti?c and technical exchange on research and application in human behavior representation with the larger modeling and simulation community. BRIMS enables modeling and simulation research scientists, engineers, application users, and technical communities to meet, share ideas and experiences, identify gaps in current capabilities, discuss new research directions, highlight promising technologies, and showcase applications. The BRIMS Executive Committee invites papers, posters, demos, symposia, panel discussions, and tutorials on topics related to the representation of individuals, groups, teams and organizations in models and simulations. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Paper submissions are full papers but are limited to 5 pages and should describe original research that has not been published elsewhere. Accepted papers are published in the Proceedings. Papers not accepted as full papers will be considered for poster presentations. Proposals for Symposia and Panel Discussions, Interactive Sessions, Exhibitions, and Tutorials are also solicited. Abstracts for selected symposia/panel discussions will be published in the Proceedings. *************************************************** 6. CHI Workshop on Challenges in Evaluating Usability and User Experience in Reality Based Interaction http://faculty.euc.ac.cy/gchristou/workshop/ CFP: CHI 2009 Workshop: Challenges in Evaluating Usability and User Experience in Reality Based Interaction The emergence of Post-WIMP interfaces led to new ways of interacting with technology. However, there are still no integrated ways of evaluating the usability and user experience of these interfaces. Developers and designers are left to discover their own evaluation methods. This approach presents problems, as methods used in each case may provide results that are neither valid nor meaningful. Thus, the time is ripe to integrate the methods that have been developed for evaluating interfaces that belong to the RBI umbrella. This workshop will further the understanding of the challenges relating to evaluation methods specific to RBIs, and will identify effective practical responses to these challenges. We will enhance and promote the collaboration between researchers and practitioners that work in the field of design and evaluation of RBIs by cross-pollinating the work done in the RBI constituent interaction styles. We invite submissions in the following topics: * Case studies of evaluations that applied a specific measure or evaluation method to RBI applications. * Experimental studies of evaluation methods that hold potential for use in applied RBI settings. * Conceptual frameworks that enable the evaluation of RBIs through subjective and objective measures. * Studies that provide connections between user experience and usability measures in RBI contexts. SUBMISSION INFORMATION Submissions of 2-4 pages in SIGCHI archive format are to be sent to g.christou at euc.ac.cy by 23rd October 2008. One author is required to register at the workshop and for one or more days of CHI 2009. ORGANIZERS AND COMMITTEE ORGANIZERS GEORGIOS CHRISTOU, European University Cyprus EFFIE LAI-CHONG LAW, ETH Zurich WILLIAM GREEN, Philips Research Europe KASPER HORNB?K, University of Copenhagen PROGRAM COMMITTEE Greg Dunn, Philips Research Europe Jettie Hoonhout, Philips Research Europe Robert Jacob, Tufts University Frank E. Ritter, Penn State University Orit Shaer, Wellesley College MORE INFORMATION For more information, contact Georgios Christou at g.christou at euc.ac.cy Georgios Christou, Ph.D. Lecturer Department of Computer Science & Engineering School of Sciences European University Cyprus *************************************************** 7. I/ITSEC Modeling scholarship http://www.iitsec.org/scholarships.cfm Applications will be accepted through February 23, 2009. Funds will be available to the student for the Fall 2009 Quarter/Semester. The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) is pleased to announce the Eighteenth Annual I/ITSEC Graduate Student Scholarships. Scholarships are being offered at a Masters level in the amount $5,000, and at a Doctoral level in the amount of $10,000. The scholarships are being offered to stimulate student interest and university participation in preparing individuals for leadership in the Simulation, Training and Education community. The scholarship recipient will attend I/ITSEC '09 at the expense of the organization, where he or she will be recognized, view the latest in simulation, training and education technologies and meet leading figures from Government, Industry and Academia associated with this community. Additional requirements: * The applicant must be a U.S. citizen * The applicant must successfully complete undergraduate studies by the end of Spring Term 2009. *************************************************** 8. Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems book, Anderson (ed.), published http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsychology/?view=usa&ci=9780195324259 (The third book in the OUP Cognitive Models and Architectures series.) "The question for me is how can the human mind occur in the physical universe. We now know that the world is governed by physics. We now understand the way biology nestles comfortably within that. The issue is how will the mind do that as well."--Allen Newell, December 4, 1991, Carnegie Mellon University The argument John Anderson gives in this book was inspired by the passage above, from the last lecture by one of the pioneers of cognitive science. Newell describes what, for him, is the pivotal question of scientific inquiry, and Anderson gives an answer that is emerging from the study of brain and behavior. Humans share the same basic cognitive architecture with all primates, but they have evolved abilities to exercise abstract control over cognition and process more complex relational patterns. The human cognitive architecture consists of a set of largely independent modules associated with different brain regions. In this book, Anderson discusses in detail how these various modules can combine to produce behaviors as varied as driving a car and solving an algebraic equation, but focuses principally on two of the modules: the declarative and procedural. The declarative module involves a memory system that, moment by moment, attempts to give each person the most appropriate possible window into his or her past. The procedural module involves a central system that strives to develop a set of productions that will enable the most adaptive response from any state of the modules. Newell argued that the answer to his question must take the form of a cognitive architecture, and Anderson organizes his answer around the ACT-R architecture, but broadens it by bringing in research from all areas of cognitive science, including how recent work in brain imaging maps onto the cognitive architecture. *************************************************** 9. ICCM in DBLP http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/index.html The DBLP Computer Science Bibliography now lists publications from ICCM 2004 in it. http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/iccm/iccm2004.html I don't know when it happened, but recently, in a vanity search, I saw that they were included. *************************************************** 10. Two books on on Art & Cognition (in French) COGNITION ET CR?ATION Explorations cognitives des processus de conception Mario Borillo et Jean-Pierre Goulette http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/993323/Borillo-Cognition-Et-Creation-Livre.html#info Le d?veloppement r?cent des sciences de la cognition porte le projet de dialogue art/science sur un territoire in?dit et ? bien des ?gards surprenant. En effet, la rencontre ne s'effectue plus seulement sur le plan de la pure instrumentalit? - illustr?e de mani?re spectaculaire par ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler l'art ?lectronique, par exemple. Plus profond?ment, la rencontre vise d?sormais ? p?n?trer au plus intime du processus de cr?ation de l'oeuvre d'art, ? le d?crire, ? l'expliquer dans les termes d'une transdisciplinarit? qui associe, autour du concept de computation, des disciplines aussi diverses que les neurosciences, la psychologie, les sciences du langage, enfin l'informatique et les math?matiques pour les aspects th?oriques plus formels. Cet ouvrage rassemble des contributions qui illustrent les voies que prend aujourd'hui l'?mergence de cette ambition dans le domaine de l'art. On y trouvera un ensemble de recherches o? sont abord?es des questions comme l'analyse et la description des processus de conception, par exemple dans le cas de l'architecture, mais aussi de la musique et de la danse. Sur ce socle empirique, sont examin?s les probl?mes que soul?ve la repr?sentation formelle de ces structures et de ces processus, une formalisation qui n'est parfois qu'une ?tape indispensable ? la mise en oeuvre de syst?mes informatiques pour participer au processus de cr?ation. Une coop?ration qui est elle-m?me l'un des d?fis que lancent aujourd'hui les technologies cognitives. Un livre qui associe en profondeur deux des activit?s les plus significatives de l'empan du mental - l'art et la cognition. APPROCHES COGNITIVES DE LA CR?ATION ARTISTIQUE Mario Borillo Pierre MARDAGA Editeur Montrer comment l'interrogation scientifique commence ? p?n?trer certains des processus mentaux, des activit?s sensori-motrices, qui sont au c?ur de la conception et de la production de l'?uvre d'art - et aussi , sous d'autres formes, de sa jouissance - tel est le propos de cet ouvrage. Bien entendu, une telle ambition proc?de du d?veloppement des sciences de la cognition dont elle est ins?parable. Celles-ci associent dans un vaste projet transdisciplinaire l'observation des diverses modalit?s par lesquelles se manifeste l'activit? cognitive - de son substrat neurologique ? ses manifestations comportementales et langagi?res. Du point de vue th?orique, ces recherches s'inscrivent dans un cadre formel de nature logique, math?matique et computationnelle, qui articule ces diff?rents domaines empiriques, en donnant leur coh?rence conceptuelle et leur pleine signification aux donn?es observationnelles. Se tournant vers la sph?re de l'art, la recherche cognitive dessine une mosa?que de probl?mes philosophiques et scientifiques in?dits qui va des processus neuropsychologiques propres ? la perception de l'?uvre d'art jusqu'? l'?mergence de la signification dans les syst?mes symboliques qui la construisent, en passant par les diverses modalit?s soci?tales qui entrent dans la formation de la sensibilit?, de l'?motion et de la culture. Quel est le r?le de tel constituant biologique ou symbolique de notre syst?me cognitif dans la cr?ation et/ou la jouissance de l'?uvre d'art? Comment l'isoler? Comment le d?crire? Comment se compose-t-il ?ventuellement avec d'autres constituants dans la r?alisation ou la contemplation de l'oeuvre? Quelles sont les relations/interactions entre esth?tique, signification et ?motion? ? Autant de questions d?licates aujourd'hui ouvertes. Sur un front aussi large d'interrogations et de savoirs ?mergents, le propos de ce livre est de donner la plus grande intelligibilit? ? la rigueur de la d?marche scientifique et philosophique. Une ouverture sur de nouveaux territoires pour l'esprit. *************************************************** 11. Huntsville Simulation Conference http://www.scs.org/hsc The 2008 Huntsville Simulation Conference, sponsored by The Society for Modeling and Simulation International and hosted by The Alabama Modeling and Simulation Council, is scheduled for October 22 and 23 at the Huntsville Marriott Hotel, Five Tranquility Base, Huntsville, Alabama, with a classified segment October 21 at the Advanced Research Center. *************************************************** 12. PostDoc Position in CASOS http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/naacsos/ PostDoc Position in CASOS Start Date: Immediately Length - 2-3 years The Post-Doctoral position in the Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS). Candidate will work with Professor Carley in the area of network, evolution and change using a combined machine learning and statistical analysis approach. The candidate will help assess network change over time in large scale networks, analyze behavioral and network data, design, develop and test new algorithms and integrate them into CASOS tools, write research papers, develop presentation materials and give talks related to this research. Application areas are varied and include: belief identification, state failure, text analysis, anaphora resolution, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and law-enforcement. CASOS brings together computer science, dynamic network analysis and the empirical study of complex socio-technical systems. Computational and social network techniques are combined to develop a better understanding of the fundamental principles of organizing, coordinating, managing and destabilizing systems of intelligent adaptive agents (human and artificial) engaged in real tasks at the team, organizational or social level. *************************************************** 13. Job in cognitive science in Manchester, UK http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/QQ147/Lecturer_in_Cognition_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/ We are seeking to appoint an experienced and enthusiastic cognitive scientist or cognitive neuroscientist to join the Cognition and Cognitive Neuroscience Research Group (CCNRG) in the School. Areas of particular interest to the group include memory, cognition and emotion, time perception, decision making, face recognition, motor control, cross-modal processing, spatial processing, attentional and top-down processing, and their neural bases. While there is a strong focus on behavioural work, expertise in structural and functional MRI and ERP/EEG is extensive within the group. You will be expected to develop a strong programme of research and to contribute significantly to the teaching of cognition and cognitive neuroscience at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Subject to a satisfactory 4 year probationary period this post is open-ended. *************************************************** 14. Job in user modeling at North Carolina State University Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering North Carolina State University The Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at North Carolina State University seeks to hire multiple positions. The Department seeks two senior faculty for endowed professorships ($1M each) as well as faculty at the Assistant / Associate Professor level. Applicants must have an earned doctorate in engineering or a related discipline. One endowed professorship is in biomedical manufacturing systems engineering, including one or more of the following areas: biomedical manufacturing; nanomanufacturing; micromanufacturing; tissue engineering; biomedical modeling; medical-device design and manufacturing; biomanufacturing systems engineering; and pharmaceutical manufacturing. The second endowed professorship is in health systems engineering with emphasis on the broad connections to medical decisions, diagnosis, and therapy. The holder of both Distinguished Professorships will provide leadership in the development of research and academic programs. Other positions will consider applicants with expertise in ergonomics, manufacturing and stochastic processes. The ergonomics position will give preference to design of complex cognitive systems (e.g., robotic, medical, military, transportation, training), systems safety and resilience, human-machine system modeling, and user performance evaluation and testing. The manufacturing engineering position will give preference to, but is not limited to, biomanufacturing, advanced manufacturing processes, nanomaterials and processes, biomaterials, rapid prototyping/manufacturing, and medical device design. NCSU is located minutes from the Research Triangle Park (www.rtp.org), the medical schools at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. NCSU also has its own university/industry research campus (centennial.ncsu.edu), providing ample opportunity to interact with diverse industrial and research organizations as well as other outstanding universities. The Department has four areas of concentration in teaching and research: ergonomics, production systems, manufacturing, and systems analysis and optimization, as well as signature integrative thrusts in biomedical manufacturing systems engineering, health systems engineering and logistics systems engineering. Review of applications will begin immediately. Applications will be accepted until suitable candidates are found. To apply for these positions, go to jobs.ncsu.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=78798 for position #04-32-0711. Please go to jobs.ncsu.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=78796 to apply for position #045-32-0710. NCSU is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer. Also, NC State welcomes all persons without regard to sexual orientation. In its commitment to diversity and equity, NCSU seeks applications from women, minorities and persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities desiring accommodations in the application process or other questions should contact Debbie Allgood-Staton, Administrative Manager, Debbie_allgood at ncsu.edu, ph/vm 919-515-6401, fax 919-515-5281. *************************************************** 15. Job (potentially) in modeling at Michigan State *Environmental Science & Policy Program, Michigan State University - AST PROFESSOR* Posting Date: Sep 10, 2008 Posting Number: SSC-047 Tenure System, 9-month basis, 100% time. DUTIES: The Department of Sociology and the Environmental Science and Policy Program of Michigan State University seek a tenure stream Assistant Professor in the area of environmental policy or population and environment. The appointment will be joint between the Department of Sociology and the Environmental Science and Policy Program. Sociology will be the tenure home for the position. Ph.D. or equivalent is required at the time of appointment. Candidates should have strong quantitative skills and rigorous theoretical focus. International experience or demonstrated interest in international issues is an advantage as is a background in modeling. We also have a special interest in researchers studying coupled human and natural systems. The successful candidate will be expected to develop externally funded research. For more information about Environment Science & Policy Program, please visit our website at http://environment.msu.edu QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. or equivalent is required at the time of appointment. Doctorate or other terminal degree. Candidates should have strong quantitative skills and rigorous theoretical focus. APPLICATIONS: Due October 1, 2008. Late submissions will be considered if a suitable candidate pool is not identified by the deadline. MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer. MSU is committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and/or nominations of women, persons of color, veterans and persons with disabilities. Application should refer to position 38-047. Please send curriculum vitae, samples of written work, a short statement of professional goals and at least three letters of recommendation to: Sociology/ESPP CHANS Search Committee, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, 274 Giltner Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1101. Electronic applications should be sent to ESPP at MAIL.MSU.EDU and directed to Search Committee. [forwarded from:] The NAACSOS mailing list is a service of NAACSOS, the North American Association for Computational and Organizational Science (http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/naacsos/). -30- From hpwu at world-research-institutes.com Wed Sep 24 20:07:07 2008 From: hpwu at world-research-institutes.com (Hongping Wu) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:07:07 +0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] =?gb2312?b?Q1NJRSAyMDA5LCBMb3MgQW5nZWxlcywgUGFwZXJz?= =?gb2312?b?L0Fic3RyYWN0czogU2VwdGVtYmVyIDMw?= Message-ID: <200809250010.m8P0A78w029567@mx3.andrew.cmu.edu> 2009 World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering (CSIE 2009) March 31 - April 2, 2009 Los Angeles/Anaheim, USA http://world-research-institutes.org/conferences/CSIE/2009 CALL FOR PAPERS, INVITED SESSIONS & EXPO The Los Angeles/Anaheim area is known for its many renowned attractions, such as Disneyland, Universal Studios and the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Very few cities in the world offer as much entertainment, excitement and diversity as Los Angeles/Anaheim does. CSIE 2009 conference proceedings will be published by the IEEE Computer Society and all papers in the proceedings will be included in EI Compendex, ISTP, and IEEE Xplore. CSIE 2009 intends to be a global forum for researchers and engineers to present and discuss recent advances and new techniques in computer science and information engineering. CSIE 2009 consists of the following Technical Symposiums: * Communications & Mobile Computing Symposium * Computer Applications Symposium * Computer Design & VLSI Symposium * Data Mining & Data Engineering Symposium * Intelligent Systems Symposium * Multimedia & Signal Processing Symposium * Software Engineering Symposium Invited sessions offer focused discussions on specialized topics. A prospective invited session organizer should send a proposal, including a session title, a short synopsis, bio-sketch of the organizer with a publication list, to the appropriate Symposium Chair (visit the conference website for more details). In addition to research papers, CSIE 2009 also seeks exhibitions of modern products and equipment for computer science and information engineering. Important Dates: Paper/Abstract Submission Deadline: September 30, 2008 Review Notification: November 15, 2008 Final Papers and Author Registration Deadline: December 7, 2008 Organizing Committee: General Chair: Adrian Martin, World Research Institutes, USA Program Chair: Mark Burgin, University of California at Los Angeles, USA Symposium Chairs: Masud H Chowdhury, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA Chan H. Ham, University of Central Florida, USA Simone Ludwig, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Weilian Su, Naval Postgraduate School, USA Sumanth Yenduri, University of Southern Mississippi, USA Publicity Chair: Nitin Upadhyay, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), India David C. Wong, US Environmental Protection Agency, USA (Please forward to those who may be interested.) (To unsubscribe all WRI announcements, please reply with the email subject being "Unsubscribe ALL act-r-users at andrew.cmu.edu". Thanks and apologies) (To unsubscribe CSIE announcements only, please reply with the email subject being "Unsubscribe CSIE act-r-users at andrew.cmu.edu".)