<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of
act-r</title></head><body>
<div>Since we are asked to address the issues, I might point out our
forthcoming BBS article, which addresses some of these issues in its
discussion of ACT-R:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Anderson/Referees/</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 3:57 PM -0500 1/14/03, James Peters wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">I was kind of expecting
John and/or Chris to jump in here, but they haven't. The
statement that ACT-R has not computational similarity to the brain is
just plain false. ACT-R does aggregate functions, but its
development has always been based on neural plausibility. In
fact, one of John's "best kept secrets" is the existence of
ACT-RN, the neural network version of ACT-R. I believe John,
Chris, and I are the only people who every developed models in ACT-RN,
but those exercises led to modifications to ACT-R to help maintain its
neural plausibility (e.g., partial matching). The behavior of
the models (admittedly small) I build in ACT-RN were virtually the
same as ACT-R models. So, saying the ACT-R is not neurally
plausible, I believe, is just plan wrong.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Jim</font></blockquote>
<div><font color="#000000">-- <br>
</font></div>
<div><font
color="#000000"
>==========================================================</font></div
>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">John R. Anderson<br>
Carnegie Mellon University<br>
Pittsburgh, PA 15213<br>
<br>
Phone: 412-268-2788<br>
Fax: 412-268-2844<br>
email: ja@cmu.edu<br>
URL: http://act.psy.cmu.edu/</font></div>
</body>
</html>