From ritter at ist.psu.edu  Sat Mar  4 20:37:05 2000
From: ritter at ist.psu.edu (ritter at ist.psu.edu)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:37:05 -0500
Subject: Programme for ICCM 23-25 March 2000
Message-ID: <mailman.420.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>


The conference chair has asked me to send you this as a previous
attendee or interested party to cognitive modelling or the ICCM
conference.  Rather than just refer you to the program, I append an
abreviated version.  If you are registered for the conference this is
only a reminder.

The number of submissions was very high this year (over 60), and the
program thus looks very interesting.  Copies of the proceedings are
available through Universal Press or through Niels Taatgen
<niels at tcw2.ppsw.rug.nl>.  Details will appear on the web site
http://tcw2.ppsw.rug.nl/iccm at a later date as well.

As always, if you wish to get off this list, please let me know, but
keep in mind that I do this in my spare time and by hand.

Cheers,

Frank


==================================================

Preliminary program ICCM-2000

==================================================
Wednesday 22 March tutorials

COGENT
COGNET
ACT-R 
10-13 Morning session
13-14 lunch break
14-17 Afternoon session

==================================================
Thursday 23 March


9.10-10.25

MEMORY

Erik Altmann (George Mason)
Memory in Chains: A dual-code associative model of positional uncertainty

Dieter Wallach (U. of Basel) & Christian Lebiere (CMU)
Learning of event sequences: An architectural approach

Fernand Gobet (U. of Nottingham)
Long-term working memory: A computational implementation for chess expertise

10.45-12.00

EYE TRACKING

Dario Salvucci (Cambridge Basic Research)
An Integrated Model of Eye Movements and Visual Attention

Frank Lee & John Anderson (CMU)
Modeling Eye-Movements of Skilled Performance in a Dynamic Task

Kevin Gluck (CMU)
An ACT-R/PM Model of Algebra Symbolization


13.00-14.00 Invited speaker: John Anderson

14.00-14.50

BALANCED BEAM

Hedderik van Rijn, Maarten van Someren, Han van der Maas (U. of Amsterdam)
Modeling Developmental Transitions in ACT-R. Simulating balance scale behaviour
by symbolic and subsymbolic learning

Lorna Peters, Neil Davey, Pam Smith, David Messer (U. of Hertfordshire) 
Connectionist Modelling of Skill Development: Object Balancing in
Young Children 

16.15-18.00 Poster session with drinks

==================================================
Friday 24 March

9.00-10.15

PLANNING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

Danilo Fum and Fabio Del Missier (U. of Trieste)
Climbing the mazes: A cognitive model of spatial planning

Bradley J. Best & Herbert A. Simon (CMU)
Simulating Human Performance on the Traveling Salesman Problem

Nathalie Chaignaud (Laboratoire Perception, Systmes et Information, INSA),
Ikram Cheikhrouhou, Anh Nguyen-Xuan (U. de Paris)
Generalization of a Cognitive Model for Problem Solving with Incomplete
Information

10.45-12.00 Two parallel sessions:

SESSION 1: CONSCIOUSNESS/EMOTIONS/METHODOLOGY

Kenning Marchant (Lycurgus, Toronto)
Can Emotions Be This Logical? Integrating Affect and ACT-R in the Context of
Legal Rules

Stan Franklin (U. of Memphis)
Modeling Consciousness and Cognition in Software Agents

Fernand Gobet (U. of Nottingham) & Frank E. Ritter (Penn State)
Individual Data Analysis and Unified Theories of Cognition: A Methodological
Proposal

SESSION 2: LANGUAGE ACQUISTION

Deb Roy (MIT Media Laboratory)
A Sensor-Grounded Computational Model of Early Word Learning

Gary Jones, Fernand Gobet & Julian M. Pine (U. of Nottingham)
Learning novel sound patterns

Steve Croker, Julian M. Pine and Fernand Gobet (U. of Nottingham)
Modelling optional infinitive phenomena: A computational account of tense
optionality in childrens speech


13.00-14.15 TWO PARALLEL SESSIONS:

SESSION 1: PSI

Dietrich Drner (U. of Bamberg)
The Simulation of Extreme Forms of Behaviour

Christina Bartl (U. of Bamberg)
Metacognition in Complex Problem Solving: How to implement the effects of
metacognition on goal selection in the architecture of PSI

Frank Detje (U. of Bamberg)
Comparison of the PSI-theory with human behaviour in a complex task

SESSION 2: HUMAN FACTORS AND EXPLORATORY LEARNING

Michael Freed and Roger Remington (NASA Ames Research Center)
Human-machine system design: When does simulation pay?

Daniel Freudenthal (Eindhoven U. of Technology)
An Instance Learning Model of Task-Action Mappings

Anna Louise Cox & Richard M. Young (U. of Hertfordshire)
Device-Oriented and Task-Oriented Exploratory Learning of Interactive Devices

14.15-15.45 ACT-R SIG/ Soar SIG

16.15-17.55

HUMAN FACTORS AND PERCEPTION/MOTOR MODELING

Wayne D. Gray, Michael J. Schoelles, & Wai-Tat Fu (George Mason)
Modeling a Continuous Dynamic Task

Michael J. Schoelles & Wayne D. Gray (George Mason)
Argus Prime: Modeling Emergent Microstrategies in a Complex, Simulated Task
Environment

Peter Lonsdale (U. of Nottingham), Frank E. Ritter (Penn State)
Soar/Tcl-PM:  Extending the Soar Architecture to Include a Widely Applicable
Virtual Eye and Hand

Jean P. Banquet (UPMC), Philippe Gaussier (U. de Cergy-Pontoise),
Arnaud  Revel, Sache Leprtre, Sorin Moga, Mathias Quoy, Ybes Burnod
Guided Navigation as implemented by a mobile agent 


==================================================
Saturday 25 March

9.00-10.15

COGNITIVE CONTROL AND DECISION MAKING

Ardi Roelofs (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics)
Control of language: A computational account of the Stroop asymmetry

Christian Lebiere (CMU), Dieter Wallach (Universitaet Basel), Robert
L. West (Carleton) 
A Memory-based Account of the Prisoner's Dilemma and Other 2x2 Games

Erik Altmann & Wayne Gray (George Mason)
The Anatomy of Serial Attention: An Integrated Model of Set Shifting
and Maintenance

10.45-11.45 Invited speaker: Axel Cleeremans

LANGUAGE

Raluca Budiu & John R. Anderson (CMU)
Integration of Background Knowledge in Sentence Processing: a Unified
Theory of Metaphor Understanding, Semantic Illusions and Text Memory

Michael Matessa & John Anderson (CMU)
An ACT-R Model of Adaptive Communication

13.30-14.45 Future of Cognitive Modelling/ICCM

15.00-17.00 Visit to Groninger Museum


From altmann at gmu.edu  Mon Mar  6 21:32:05 2000
From: altmann at gmu.edu (Erik M. Altmann)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:32:05 -0500
Subject: Response competition as signal detection
Message-ID: <mailman.421.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>


I believe it's a general finding that the more distractors or 
response mappings there are, or the less time that old ones have had 
to decay, the greater the time to retrieve the current target from 
memory.  I'm replicating this in the serial attention paradigm, and 
am able to track the effect in my ACT-R simulation.   However, I'd 
like to get better handle on the mathematics of this, and would 
appreciate any pointers.  I'd also appreciate pointers to data sets 
that help to quantify the relationship between extra distractors or 
response mappings and increased retrieval time for the target.

I've been approaching the problem conceptually in terms of signal 
detection theory.  The target is the signal, and the distractors are 
the noise.  Assuming logistic noise, multiple distractors can be 
represented by a single (right-shifted) noise distribution.  The 
retrieval threshold is simply beta, and the higher the retrieval 
threshold the longer the retrieval time (assuming multiple retrieval 
attempts per trial).

The mapping gets more complicated because the SDT noise distribution 
shifts as a function of circumstances.  Retrieval errors have a 
conditional probability, in that one error makes the next more 
likely, in effect shifting the noise distribution rightwards.  Time 
(decay) has the opposite effect, shifting the noise distribution 
leftwards.  Error frequency also has an effect, by making the noise 
distribution increasingly stable in terms of resistance to decay.

I'm specifically interested in finding (or approximating) the optimal 
location of beta, given an estimate of the expected rightward shift 
of the noise distribution due to a single retrieval error (say). 
This optimal beta would seem to be to the right of the optimal beta 
in a simple SDT analysis (where the distributions don't shift), but 
that's about as far as I've gotten.

I'm also interested in whether anyone else has used ACT-R to address 
how people adjust their retrieval threshold (beta) dynamically, say 
in response to metacognitive information or performance feedback. 
This seems related to the question of how people maintain and adjust 
speed-accuracy tradeoffs (e.g., Rabbitt & Vyas), but also to 
production-utility computations.  In general it seems to be very much 
a question of how the memory system adapts in the short term to 
demands of the environment.

Erik.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Erik M. Altmann, PhD
Psychology 2E5
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-1326 (voice)
703-993-1330 (fax)
altmann at gmu.edu
hfac.gmu.edu/~altmann
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


From cl at andrew.cmu.edu  Tue Mar  7 11:51:44 2000
From: cl at andrew.cmu.edu (Christian Lebiere)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:51:44 -0500
Subject: Response competition as signal detection
Message-ID: <mailman.422.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

> I believe it's a general finding that the more distractors or 
> response mappings there are, or the less time that old ones have had 
> to decay, the greater the time to retrieve the current target from 
> memory.

The effect of the number of distractors on response time has often been
accounted for in terms of the fan effect in the strengths of association,
but a more general account can be found in terms of a competitive latency
function:

Ti = F*(Sum_j e^f*Aj)/e^f*Ai

This latency function can be seen as a straightforward generalization of
the Retrieval Time Equation.  Its derivation results from the same analysis
as in Appendix B of Chapter 3 of ACT98 if one assumes basic interactions
between the chunks competing for retrieval.  Alternatively, it can also be
seen as resulting from a scaling of the activation values to enforce the
condition that activations are log odds of the probabilities of retrieval.
Finally, it has an appealing symmetry with the Chunk Choice Equation.

This latency function and other changes to the architecture being
considered will be discussed at the ACT-R SIG at ICCM2000 in Groningen and
at the 2000 ACT-R workshop.

Christian Lebiere
John Anderson



From frg at psyc.nott.ac.uk  Thu Mar  9 05:54:04 2000
From: frg at psyc.nott.ac.uk (Fernand Gobet)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:54:04 +0000
Subject: Postdoctoral Research Associate (Acquisition of Syntax)
Message-ID: <mailman.423.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

Postdoctoral Research Associate (Acquisition of Syntax)

School of Psychology
University of Nottingham, UK

Applications are invited for a Postdoctoral Research Associate to work on a
Leverhulme-funded project on syntax acquisition. The successful
candidate will carry out modelling research on early language acquisition,
and in particular on syntax acquisition, under the supervision of Dr
J Pine and Dr F Gobet.

Information about related projects is available on the WWW at:
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/research/credit/projects/syntax_acquisiti

on/main.html.

The person appointed will be expected to contribute to the refinement of a
computer model of syntax acquisition. Candidates should have a
PhD in computer science, cognitive science, or psychology, and have very
good computing skills. Knowledge of Lisp or of a similar computer
language is required. Experience with development of graphical interfaces,
and/or knowledge in computational modelling, psycholinguistics
and/or linguistics will be an advantage.

Salary will be within the range #16,286 - #24,479 per annum, depending on
qualifications and experience. This post is available from April
2000 and will be offered on a fixed-term contract for a period of 18 months.

Informal enquiries may be addressed to Dr Pine, tel: 0115 951 5285, Email:
Julian.Pine at Nottingham.ac.uk or Dr Gobet, tel: 0115 951 5402,
Email: Fernand.Gobet at Nottingham.ac.uk.

Candidates should send a detailed CV, a statement of research interests,
together with the names and addresses of two referees, to Dr F
Gobet, School of Psychology, The University of Nottingham, University Park,
Nottingham, NG7 2RD. Fax: 0115 951 5324.

Closing date: 23 March 2000.

For all vacancies see our Internet page
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Personnel/ "




From cl at andrew.cmu.edu  Mon Mar 13 12:07:34 2000
From: cl at andrew.cmu.edu (Christian Lebiere)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:07:34 -0500
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.424.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

        chi-announcements at acm.org, announce at ppig.org, cedm-tg-l at msstate.edu
Subject: 2000 ACT-R Summer School and Workshop

[** Final reminder: the summer school application deadline is April 1st. **]


              SEVENTH ANNUAL ACT-R SUMMER SCHOOL AND WORKSHOP
              ===============================================

               Carnegie Mellon University - July/August 2000
               =============================================


ACT-R is a cognitive theory and simulation system for developing cognitive
models for tasks that vary from simple reaction time to air traffic control.
The most recent advances of the ACT-R theory were detailed in the recent
book "The Atomic Components of Thought" by John R. Anderson and Christian
Lebiere, published in 1998 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Each year, a
two-week summer school is held to train researchers in the use of the ACT-R
system, followed by a three-day workshop to enable new and current users to
exchange research results and ideas.  The Seventh Annual ACT-R Summer
School and Workshop will be held at Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh in July/August 2000.

SUMMER SCHOOL:

The summer school will take place from Monday July 24 to Friday August 4,
with the intervening Sunday free.  This intensive 11-day course is designed
to train researchers in the use of ACT-R for cognitive modeling.  It is
structured as a set of 8 units, with each unit lasting a day and involving
a morning theory lecture, a web-based tutorial, an afternoon discussion
session and a homework assignment which students are expected to complete
during the day and evening.  The final three days of the summer school will
be devoted to individual research projects.  Computing facilities for the
tutorials, assignments and research projects will be provided.  Successful
student projects will be presented at the workshop, which all summer school
students are expected to attend as part of their training.

To provide an optimal learning environment, admission is limited to a dozen
participants, who must submit by APRIL 1 an application consisting of a
curriculum vitae, a statement of purpose and a one-page description of the
data set that they intend to model as their research project.  The data set
can be the applicant's own or can be taken from the published literature.
Applicants will be notified of admission by APRIL 15.  Admission to the
summer school is free.  A stipend of up to $750 is available to graduate
students for reimbursement of travel, housing and meal expenses.
To qualify for the stipend, students must be US citizens and join to their
application a letter of reference from a faculty member.

WORKSHOP:

The workshop will take place from the morning of Saturday August 5 to
Monday August 7 at noon.  Mornings will be devoted to research
presentations, each lasting about 20 minutes plus questions.  Participants
are invited to present their ACT-R research by submitting a one-page
abstract with their registration.  Informal contributions of up to 8 pages
can be submitted by August 1 for inclusion in the workshop proceedings.
Afternoons will feature more research presentations as well as discussion
sessions and instructional tutorials.  Suggestions for the topics of the
tutorials and discussion sessions are welcome.  Evenings will be occupied
by demonstration sessions, during which participants can gain a more
detailed knowledge of the models presented and engage in unstructured
discussions.  Admission to the workshop is open to all.  The early
registration fee (before July 1) is $100 and the late registration fee
(after July 1) is $125.

A registration form is appended below.  Additional information (detailed
schedule, etc.) will appear on the ACT-R Web site (http://act.psy.cmu.edu/)
when available or can be requested at:

2000 ACT-R Summer School and Workshop
Psychology Department
Attn: Helen Borek
Baker Hall 345C                                 Fax: +1 (412) 268-2844
Carnegie Mellon University                      Tel: +1 (412) 268-3438
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890                       Email: helen+ at cmu.edu

________________________________________________________

Seventh Annual ACT-R Summer School and Workshop
July 24 to August 7, 2000 at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh

                                 REGISTRATION
                                 ============

Name:     ..................................................................

Address:  ..................................................................

          ..................................................................

          ..................................................................

Tel/Fax:  ..................................................................

Email:    ..................................................................



Summer School (July 24 to August 4): ........ (check here to apply)
====================================

Applications are due APRIL 1.  Acceptance will be notified by APRIL 15.
Applicants MUST include a curriculum vitae, a short statement of purpose
and a one-page description of the data set that they intend to model.

A stipend of up to $750 is available for the reimbursement of travel,
lodging and meal expenses (receipts needed).  To qualify for the stipend,
the applicant must be a graduate student with US citizenship and include
with the application a letter of reference from a faculty member.

Check here to apply for stipend: ........


Workshop (August 5 to 7): ........ (check here to register)
=========================

Presentation topic (optional - include one-page abstract with registration):

..........................................................................


Registration fee:

Before July 1: $100  ...

After July 1:  $125  ...

The fee is due upon registration.  Please send checks or money orders only.
We cannot accept credit cards.


                                 HOUSING
                                 =======

Housing is available in Resnick House, a CMU dormitory that offers
suite-style accommodations.  Rooms include air-conditioning, a semi-private
bathroom and a common living room for suite-mates.  Last year's rates were
$180.75/week/person or $32.60/night/person for single rooms and
$134.25/week/person or $24.25/night/person for double rooms.  Housing
reservations will be taken after acceptance to the summer school.  Do not
send money.  See http://www.housing.cmu.edu/conferences/ for further
housing information.

To reserve a room in Resnick House, fill in the dates and select one of the
three room options:

I will stay from ................ to ................

1. ... I want a single room
2. ... I want a double room and I will room with ................
3. ... I want a double room.  Please select a roommate of ....... gender

ROOM PAYMENT IS DUE UPON CHECK-IN.  DO NOT SEND MONEY.

The recommended hotel is the Holiday Inn University Center, located on the
campus of the University of Pittsburgh within easy walking distance of CMU.
Contact the Holiday Inn directly at +1 (412) 682-6200.

Send this form to:

2000 ACT-R Summer School and Workshop
Psychology Department
Attn: Helen Borek
Baker Hall 345C                                 Fax: +1 (412) 268-2844
Carnegie Mellon University                      Tel: +1 (412) 268-3438
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890                       Email: helen+ at cmu.edu 





From tisc0006 at stud.uni-sb.de  Tue Mar 14 05:10:52 2000
From: tisc0006 at stud.uni-sb.de (Tina Schorr)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:10:52 +0100
Subject: variabilization of slots
Message-ID: <mailman.425.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

I try to model some activation-based proceeding in the working on a task
where the solution of the task should be held in one single chunk. The
mentioned activation should result from external cues (reading text files).
Depending on the kind of the last notified cue there will be a binding of a
part of the answer on a certain slot. Now the problem is that I am looking
for some way to variabilize slots in the production specification. This
would allow to use one production for this mechanism.
Is there any way to do so? The only way I can see at the moment is to write
some nearly identical productions where only the explicitly given slot
varies. So, the response on the kind of the cue will be the use of
different productions instead of only different bindings. But that doesn't
seem to be a really elegant solution.

Thanks for help,
Tina



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Schorr
Sonderforschungsbereich 378: Ressourcenadaptive Kognitive Prozesse
Fachrichtung Psychologie der Universitaet des Saarlandes
Postfach 151150, D-66041 Saarbruecken          =20
--------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------
Katharina Scheiter
Graduiertenkolleg Kognitionswissenschaft
Fachrichtung Psychologie
Universit=E4t des Saarlandes
Postfach 15 11 50
D - 66041 Saarbr=FCcken



From wschoppe at mason2.gmu.edu  Tue Mar 14 10:38:31 2000
From: wschoppe at mason2.gmu.edu (Wolfgang Schoppek)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:38:31 -0500
Subject: variabilization of slots
Message-ID: <mailman.426.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

Tina Schorr wrote:

> I try to model some activation-based proceeding in the working on a task
> where the solution of the task should be held in one single chunk. The
> mentioned activation should result from external cues (reading text files).
> Depending on the kind of the last notified cue there will be a binding of a
> part of the answer on a certain slot. Now the problem is that I am looking
> for some way to variabilize slots in the production specification. This
> would allow to use one production for this mechanism.
> Is there any way to do so? The only way I can see at the moment is to write
> some nearly identical productions where only the explicitly given slot
> varies. So, the response on the kind of the cue will be the use of
> different productions instead of only different bindings. But that doesn't
> seem to be a really elegant solution.

I'm not sure I've understood you right. Do you mean the problem that you want
to check for a certain chunk in any of the goal slots which means a disjunction
in the lhs of the production?

For example:

(p prod-1
  =goal>
   isa dingsbums
   slot-a cue1
   <or>
   slot-b cue1
...
)


Then the only way to do that is actually writing two (or more) productions.
If you want to have that kind of check in a retrieval, then you can try to omit
the symbolic constraints at all and rely on the spread of activation.

For example:

(p prod-2
  =goal>
   isa dingsbums
   slot-a cue1
   slot-b cue2
   result nil
 =chunk-x>
   isa solution
==>
 =goal>
   result =chunk-x
)


The probability of retrieving the correct chunk if it has cue1 and cue2 in any
of its slots is quite high and your model produces quite plausible errors
(without the assumption of partial matching).

-- Wolfgang

P.S. To learn more about ACT-R, it would be a good idea to attend the ICCM on
March 23-25 in Groningen, The Netherlands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dr. Wolfgang Schoppek                <<< Tel.: +1 703-993-4663 <<<
 HUMAN FACTORS & APPLIED COGNITION PROGRAM, George Mason University,
 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
  http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/psychologie/wolfgang.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From tkelley at arl.mil  Tue Mar 28 17:01:48 2000
From: tkelley at arl.mil (Troy Kelley)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:01:48 -0500
Subject: Two Questions for everyone
Message-ID: <mailman.427.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>

Hope everyone had fun in Europe while I was slaving away in the States!

I am attempting use ACT-R to predict interface errors made by someone using
a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) while walking through the woods.  The HMD is
a fold-down type display that soldiers can wear on their helmets.

I have already collected the error data.  But I will not let myself see the
actual errors in the data, instead I would like to predict errors that were
made using ACT-R.

This creates a "model-fitting" problem because I cannot "tweak" my
parameters to fit my error data, because I do not know what my final errors
are going to be.

Question 1:  I was wondering if there is a list of standard defaults used
by other modelers for all the "tweakable" ACT-R parameters which I could
use to get an average from.  I am especially interested in Base Level
Learning, Activation Noise, Retrieval Threshold and the Base Level
Constant.  I have seen TABLE 8.4 on pg. 291 in Atomic Components of
Thought, but was wondering if there was something else.

Question 2:  My model has time between recall events where memory decay can
occur.  Most of the time between each recall event is measured in seconds.
Currently I have my cycle time set to 50 ms, and if my calculations are
correct, I would need 20,000 50ms cycles to equal 1 second.  This could
make for a very large model but it is possible to run this way.

However, it seems that even if my cycle time was 50ms or something larger,
that the general decay function would remain the same, or is this wrong?
In other words, stretching the X axis of the decay function by manipulating
certain parameters doesn't matter as long as the general shape of the
function remains the same.  This seems like what ACT-R allows you to do by
manipulation of the decay parameters, change the X axis of the decay
function.  However, this also seems to be counter-intuitive, especially
when I attempt to explain it to other people.  Any ideas on this?

Troy Kelley
ARL



From tkelley at arl.mil  Wed Mar 29 09:41:30 2000
From: tkelley at arl.mil (Troy Kelley)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:41:30 -0500
Subject: Two Questions for everyone
Message-ID: <mailman.428.1617128274.6729.act-r-users@act-r.psy.cmu.edu>







Alex Petrov <apetrov at andrew.cmu.edu> on 03/28/2000 11:19:38 PM

To:   Troy Kelley <tkelley at arl.mil>
cc:
Subject:  Re: Two Questions for everyone


> I have already collected the error data.  But I will not let
> myself see the actual errors in the data ...
> ... I cannot "tweak" my parameters to fit my error data,
> because I do not know what my final errors are going to be.

-Excellent methodology!!!  We should all be doing the same.
Journal reviewers should insist on that. Alas, it is not the
usual practice at all...

Thanks.  It is also very challenging.

> I have my cycle time set to 50 ms, and if my calculations are
> correct, I would need 20,000 50ms cycles to equal 1 second.

-20 cycles, not 20 thousand. You will find out that your model
constantly runs out of time.

Right.. I was thinking 50ms ment millonths of a second, not thousands of a
second.

Thanks...