From rsun at cecs.missouri.edu Mon Nov 5 15:29:55 2001 From: rsun at cecs.missouri.edu (rsun at cecs.missouri.edu) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:29:55 -0600 Subject: Cognitive Systems Research 2 (3), 2001 Message-ID: The new issue of Cognitive Systems Research: --------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents for Cognitive Systems Research Volume 2, Issue 3, 2001 William Frawley and Raoul N. Smith A processing theory of alexithymia [Abstract] [Full text] (PDF 191.9 Kb) 189-206 Jacqueline P. Leighton and Michael R.W. Dawson A parallel distributed processing model of Wason's selection task 207-231 [Abstract] [Full text] (PDF 320.9 Kb) Reza Farivar Review of The Mind within the Net: Models of Learning, Thinking, and Acting - Manfred Spitzer; MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, xi+359 pp; ISBN 0-262-19406-6 (PB+HC) 235-240 [Abstract] [Full text] (PDF 57.9 Kb) Jelle van Dijk and Gert-Jan Bleeker Review of A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter becomes Imagination - G.M. Edelman & G. Tononi; Basic Books, New York, 2000; 266 pp; ISBN 0465013767 241-244 [Abstract] [Full text] (PDF 48.4 Kb) * Full text files can be viewed and printed using the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download the papers from the Web site: http://www.cecs.missouri.edu/~rsun/journal.html http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/cogsys http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cogsys ? Copyright 2001, Elsevier Science, All rights reserved. =========================================================================== Prof. Ron Sun http://www.cecs.missouri.edu/~rsun CECS Department phone: (573) 884-7662 University of Missouri-Columbia fax: (573) 882 8318 201 Engineering Building West Columbia, MO 65211-2060 email: rsun at cecs.missouri.edu http://www.cecs.missouri.edu/~rsun http://www.cecs.missouri.edu/~rsun/journal.html http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cogsys =========================================================================== From ja+ at cmu.edu Tue Nov 6 10:29:10 2001 From: ja+ at cmu.edu (John Anderson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:29:10 -0500 Subject: ACT-R users poll Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Well, here on election day are the results of the poll so far and instant analysis. I know people who have not responded and should. We are willing to take in late responses but right now we have 12 respondents (I excluded one person who never had worked with either 4.0 or 5.0): >1. With respect to 4.0: >a. Have you ever worked with it? I know there is at least one person who has only worked with 5.0 but all 12 of these respondents had worked with 4.0 >b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 4.0? The median was basically 10 >c. Are you currently using it for research? Only 5 >d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching? Only 5 >2. With respect to 5.0 >a. Have you every worked with it? 11 -- it is more than possible that this high percentage reflects bias in the sample of 12 respondents. >b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 5.0? This is best answered by the actual numbers -- 3 "0"'s, 5 "1"'s, 2 "2"'s, 1 some, and 1 "4". >c. Are you currently using it for research? 10 -- again this high percentage may be biased by the sample. I know of at least one notable additional "no" who did not respond. >d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching? 9 -- this high percentage may reflect a bias towards faculty in the sample. Still, it is a surprise relative to the 5 yes's for 1d. >3. With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs >from 4.0, how much experience have you had with >a. The buffer control structure Roughly, 5 "lots", 5 "some", 1 "little", 1 "none". >b. The downgrading of the goal stack This response could better be characterized binary with 9 having experienced it and 3 not. >c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths >of association 1 "lots", 3 "some", 4 "little", and 4 "none" >d. Production compilation 2 "lots", 1 "some", 9 "none" >4. With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs >from 4.0, how would you evaluate >a. The buffer control structure 10 "good-to-great", 2 qualified. The one suggestion that was made was that we needed greater consistency in our use of buffers. >b. The downgrading of the goal stack 4 "good-to-great", 6 "problematic", and 2 no response. None of the problematic seemed to want to go back to 4.0 but they still had their problems. Two complained about returning values, one about the time to retrieve goals, one about the lack of a pop-on-failure, and one just the struggle in adjusting to the new style. >c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths >of association 9 had no comment, 3 noted problems -- for one that was lack of an associative learning mechanism; for the other 2 it was the large effects of number of competitors. On the second issue we will be sending out a set of thoughts in the next month or two. >d. Production compilation 1 "good", 5 "qualified good", and 6 no comment. The qualifications largely involved doubts about the mechanisms for gradually introducing the production rules. I know the production compilation mechanism remains a little brittle but there has been too little use to produce any annoyance with that yet and it is being at least somewhat improved through the experience of the few current users. > >5. Any other comments? One person felt that they needed simultaneous access to more than the two chunks that can be held in goal and retrieval buffer. One person wanted more support in terms of materials for teaching 5.0. One person wanted a failure chunk in the visual buffer if there was no object at the attended location. That same person wanted variability in cycle time. One person wanted a representation of time, haptic feedback/learning, an ability of the hand to do things like move a throttle, and worried that the real window interface in 5.0 is compatible with real windows in ACL 6.0. One person wanted more outlets for publishing ACT-R models. However, I think as a whole the user community has been quite successful at getting their models published. From my perspective, the biggest surprise was how much use 5.0 is getting. Generally, it got high marks from what may well be a biased sample. Still, it does seem that the train is about to leave the station. That puts even more pressure on us to make sure all of the details are working with respect to things like competitive latency. -- ========================================================== 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/ --============_-1207061944==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: ACT-R users poll
Well, here on election day are the results of the poll so far and instant analysis.  I know people who have not responded and should.  We are willing to take in late responses but right now we have 12 respondents (I excluded one person who never had worked with either 4.0 or 5.0):
1. With respect to 4.0:
a. Have you ever worked with it?
 I know there is at least one person who has only worked with 5.0 but all 12 of these respondents had worked with 4.0
b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 4.0?
The median was basically 10

c. Are you currently using it for research?
Only 5
d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching?
Only 5
2. With respect to 5.0
a. Have you every worked with it?
11 -- it is more than possible that this high percentage reflects bias in the sample of 12 respondents.

b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 5.0?
This is best answered by the actual numbers -- 3 "0"'s, 5 "1"'s, 2 "2"'s, 1 some, and 1 "4".

c. Are you currently using it for research?
10 -- again this high percentage may be biased by the sample.   I know of at least one notable additional "no" who did not respond.

d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching?
9 -- this high percentage may reflect a bias towards faculty in the sample.  Still,  it is a surprise relative to the 5 yes's for 1d.

3. With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs from 4.0, how much experience have you had with
a. The buffer control structure
Roughly, 5 "lots", 5 "some", 1 "little", 1 "none".

b. The downgrading of the goal stack
This response could better be characterized binary with 9 having experienced it and 3 not.
c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of association
1 "lots", 3 "some", 4 "little", and 4 "none"

d. Production compilation
2 "lots", 1 "some",  9 "none"

4. With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs from 4.0, how would you evaluate
a. The buffer control structure
10 "good-to-great", 2 qualified.  The one suggestion that was made was that we needed greater consistency in our use of buffers.

b. The downgrading of the goal stack
4 "good-to-great", 6 "problematic", and 2 no response.  None of the problematic seemed to want to go back to 4.0 but they still had their problems.  Two complained about returning values, one about the time to retrieve goals, one about the lack of a pop-on-failure, and one just the struggle in adjusting to the new style.

c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of association
9 had no comment, 3 noted problems -- for one that was lack of an associative learning mechanism; for the other 2 it was the large effects of number of competitors.  On the second issue we will be sending out a set of thoughts in the next month or two.

d. Production compilation
1 "good", 5 "qualified good", and 6 no comment.  The qualifications largely involved doubts about the mechanisms for gradually introducing the production rules.  I know the production compilation mechanism remains a little brittle but there has been too little use to produce any annoyance with that yet and it is being at least somewhat improved through the experience of the few current users.


5. Any other comments?
One person felt that they needed simultaneous access to more than the two chunks that can be held in goal and retrieval buffer.

One person wanted more support in terms of materials for teaching 5.0.

One person wanted a failure chunk in the visual buffer if there was no object at the attended location. That same person wanted variability in cycle time.

One person wanted a representation of time, haptic feedback/learning, an ability of the hand to do things like move a throttle, and worried that the real window interface in 5.0 is compatible with real windows in ACL 6.0.

One person wanted more outlets for publishing  ACT-R models.  However, I think as a whole the user community has been quite successful at getting their models published.

From my perspective, the biggest surprise was how much use 5.0 is getting.  Generally, it got high marks from what may well be a biased sample.  Still, it does seem that the train is about to leave the station.  That puts even more pressure on us to make sure all of the details are working with respect to things like competitive latency.
--
==========================================================

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/
--============_-1207061944==_ma============-- From N.G.Austin at herts.ac.uk Mon Nov 12 12:46:15 2001 From: N.G.Austin at herts.ac.uk (Neville Austin) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:46:15 +0000 Subject: Graduate studentship. Message-ID: candidates. Many thanks. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Request for post of type: graduate Expiration Date: PhD STUDENTSHIP IN COGNITIVE MODELLING (3 year full time, 8,100 GBP p.a., EU citizens only) Department of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK. The studentship will involve carrying out research into the application of neural network models to cognitive function and dysfunction. Of particular interest are dynamic, attractor based models of associative memory. The student will be strongly encouraged to relate this programme to a topical field of cognitive psychology/cognitive neuropsychology. In particular: higher order cognition as an emergent property of a modular network, modelling normal categorisation and concept representation and/or modelling abnormal conceptual knowledge (e.g. as found in dementia/schizophrenia).=DD The supervision is cross-disciplinary and therefore ensures expertise from Computer Scientists with track records in ANN research and Cognitive Psychologists with research expertise in Human Cognition. Supervisory sessions involve the supervisors from both departments, to ensure parallel development of the research in ANNs and cognition. Since 1993 strong collaborative research (and teaching) links between the Department of Computer Science (RAE 4) and the Department of Psychology (RAE 3a) have resulted in a series of successful inter-disciplinary studentships based on artificial neural networks (ANNs). All of these studentships have had either a primary focus on modelling some aspect of normal/abnormal cognition, or developing ANNs and evaluating their psychological plausibility. This studentship will be of the latter kind, i.e. carrying out research on ANNs and relating these to a field of cognition. The research programme could begin in January 2002, but the start is negotiable. Research students are encouraged to undertake some teaching support activities, which will be paid in addition to the studentship. Application forms can be obtained from: Lorraine Nichols EIS Research Administrator EIS Research Office University of Hertfordshire College Lane Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK L.Nichols at herts.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1707286083 Any questions regarding the research program should be directed to Ray Frank, R.J.Frank at herts.ac.uk Some more information about Computer Science Neural Network research at UH can be found at http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~nngroup and information about related Psychology Department research at: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk and follow staff links to John Done Since 1993 there have been seven Computer Science /Psychology Inter-Disciplinary studentships, of which four have successfully completed their PhDs within the 4 year period and two are in progress. The other PhD student took up a position at the University of Colorado in his second year and has yet to complete. All students have presented to at least 2 conferences overseas ( USA, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Belgium), with one being invited to become a UK organiser for future conferences. Two students obtained US scholarships to attend workshops on cognitive modelling in the US. A substantial number of papers in peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings have resulted from the PhD programme/collaborative work with supervisors during the studentships. A selection of papers produced by students in previous collaborations: Power, W., Frank, R., Done, D. J., Davey, N. (1999) A Modular Attractor Model of Semantic Access. Foundations and Tools for Neural Modelling. International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, IWANN'99. Tim Gale, Lorna Peters, Ray Frank, Neil Davey (2000) Perceptual Distinction In An Unsupervised Neural Network: Implications for Theories of Category-specific Deficits Proceedings of Second International ICSC Symposium on Neural Computation / NC'2000 Nix, A., Davey, N. Messer, D. & Smith, P. (1998). A Connectionist Account of Spanish Determiner Production. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, ICANN 98. Volume 2, pages 1077-1082.. Lorna Peters, Neil Davey Pam Smith, David Messer (1999) A Reward Driven Connectionist Model of Cognitive Development Proceedings of European Conference on Cognitive Science, Sienna 1999 Peters, L., Davey N, Messer D, Smith P (1999) An Investigation into Karmilov-Smith's RR model: The effects of structured tuition. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 277-292 Lorna Peters, Neil Davey Pam Smith, David Messer. (2000) Connectionist Modelling of Skill Development: Object Balancing in Young Children. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modelling (ICCM) 2000. St-Aubyn, M., Davey, N. (1997) Connectionist rule processing using recursive auto-associative memory. Proceedings of the Fifth European Symposium On Artificial Neural Networks 225-230. Bruges (Belgium). From ritter at ist.psu.edu Thu Nov 15 17:27:14 2001 From: ritter at ist.psu.edu (Frank E. Ritter) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:27:14 -0500 Subject: Pre-task appraisal/Caffeine overlay for ACT-R Message-ID: ACT-R (4.0) that can be influenced by an overlay to ACT-R. This overlay modifies ACT-R's parameters so that the model's behaviour is influenced by settings on control panels representing different pre-task appraisals (and then ongoing task appraisals), as well very simple implementation of the effects of caffeine. The model and overlay are available at http://acs.ist.psu.edu/ACT-R_AC/ An preliminary paper reporting these results is available upon request from me or Isaac as a pdf file. Cheers, Frank -- Frank Ritter at ist.psu.edu School of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University 004 Thomas (Basement) University Park, PA 16801-3857 ph. (814) 865-4453 fax (814) 865-6426 http://ritter.ist.psu.edu From Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil Tue Nov 20 19:14:09 2001 From: Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil (Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:14:09 -0700 Subject: Research Associateship in Human Behavior Representation Message-ID: Research Associate position in the area of Human Behavior Representation. This position will be sponsored through the National Research Council's Research Associateship Program. The initial period of tenure for this position is 1 year with the possibility of renewal for 1 or 2 additional years. The research location is the Warfighter Training Research Division in Mesa, Arizona. If you have held your doctorate less than 5 years at the time of application, you are applying for a Postdoctoral Research Associateship award. If you have held your doctorate 5 years or more at the time of application, you are applying for a Senior Research Associateship award. The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology or a related Cognitive Science area, with a strong background and interest in experimental research and computational behavior representation. Programming experience is desired, but not required. Must be a U.S. citizen. Start date is negotiable. Salary is commensurate with experience. Interested persons should see the NRC Research Associateship website (http://www4.nas.edu/pga/rap.nsf) for more information, and then contact Dr. Kevin Gluck (kevin.gluck at williams.af.mil) and/or Dr. Winston Bennett (winston.bennett at williams.af.mil) to discuss the laboratory's research goals and other details regarding the application process. Please forward this announcement to anyone who may be interested in applying. ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin A. Gluck, PhD Research Psychologist Air Force Research Laboratory 6030 S. Kent St. Mesa, AZ 85212-6061 Ph: 480-988-6561 x-234 / DSN 474-6234 Fax: 480-988-6285 "Anyone with an idea whose time has come can accomplish anything provided they are willing to work hard enough." - Cecil Burney From gray at gmu.edu Wed Nov 21 22:29:27 2001 From: gray at gmu.edu (Wayne D Gray) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:29:27 -0500 Subject: Cognitive Science Society Message-ID: Those of you who are members of the Cognitive Science Society may have recently (like today!!) received ballots to elect new people to the Board of Governors. Ignore the deadline of November 15th!! But get your votes in early (and often as they say in Florida!). Also, note that there are two long time members of ICCM running: Richard Young and Gerhard Strube. Also note that Rick Alterman is a real and true computational modeler. These things (votes for governing boards of professional societies) typically have low "voter turnout". So your vote may, indeed, may a difference. We can vote for three! BTW: I recommend voting to accept the proposed change to the by-laws. Wayne -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Wayne D. Gray, Professor of Psychology Program Director HUMAN FACTORS & APPLIED COGNITIVE PROGRAM SNAIL-MAIL ADDRESS (FedX et al) VOICE: +1 (703) 993-1357 George Mason University FAX: +1 (703) 993-1330 ARCH Lab/HFAC Program ************************ MSN 3f5 * Work is infinite, * Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 * time is finite, * http://hfac.gmu.edu/~gray * plan accordingly. * _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ From gray at gmu.edu Tue Nov 27 15:35:00 2001 From: gray at gmu.edu (Wayne D Gray) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:35:00 -0500 Subject: NEW CogSci2002 submission category Message-ID: NEW SUBMISSION CATEGORY FOR THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE CONFERENCE This year introduces a new submission category for the Annual Cognitive Science Society meeting: Publication-based submissions. A publication-based submission allows established researchers to present (15+5 minute) talks in the area of their expertise without submitting full 6-page papers. Instead, the researcher submits proof of a publication record in a given area of approximately 5 first authored papers and chapters along with a 500-word abstract of the work they would like to present at the conference. A one-page camera-ready abstract, similar to the member abstracts, is submitted later and will be published in the proceedings. The author whose publication-list is being submitted need not be the first author on the submission, but they have to be the one who presents the paper at the conference. IMPORTANT * You can only be a first publication-list on one publication-based submission * You cannot be a publication-list author on a publication-based submission and the first author of a paper submission * The talk must be presented by the publication-list author * You (the publication-list author) must be a member of the Cognitive Science Society at the time you deliver the talk. For information about membership, see http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org Submission Deadline Feb 11th, 2002 Further details on the conference are available at http://hfac.gmu.edu/~cogsci. Further details regarding publication-list submissions can be found at: http://www.hfac.gmu.edu/~cogsci/pubbased.html -- CogSci2002--CogSci2002-CogSci2002-CogSci2002-CogSci2002 CogSci2002 CogSci2002 Co-Chairs CogSci2002 Wayne D. Gray & Chris Schunn CogSci2002 CogSci2002 cogsci at gmu.edu CogSci2002 CogSci2002 http://hfac.gmu.edu/~cogsci/ CogSci2002 CogSci2002 August 8th to 10th 2002 CogSci2002 CogSci2002--CogSci2002-CogSci2002-CogSci2002-CogSci2002