ACT-R users poll

[John Anderson]

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"

<!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 poll</title></head><body>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">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)</font>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">1.
With respect to 4.0:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">a.
Have you ever worked with it?</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"> I know there is at
least one person who has only worked with 5.0 but all 12 of these
respondents had worked</font> with 4.0<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">b.
How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in
4.0?</font></blockquote>
<div>The median was basically 10</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">c.
Are you currently using it for research?</font></blockquote>
<div>Only 5<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">d.
Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for
teaching?</font></blockquote>
<div>Only 5<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">2.
With respect to 5.0<br>
a. Have you every worked with it?</font></blockquote>
<div>11 -- it is more than possible that this high percentage reflects
bias in the sample of 12 respondents.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">b.
How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in
5.0?</font></blockquote>
<div>This is best answered by the actual numbers -- 3 "0"'s,
5 "1"'s, 2 "2"'s, 1 some, and 1
"4".</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">c.
Are you currently using it for research?</font></blockquote>
<div>10 -- again this high percentage may be biased by the
sample.   I know of at least one notable additional
"no" who did not respond.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">d.
Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for
teaching?</font></blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">3.
With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs from
4.0, how much experience have you had with</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">a.
The buffer control structure</font></blockquote>
<div>Roughly, 5 "lots", 5 "some", 1
"little", 1 "none".</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">b.
The downgrading of the goal stack</font></blockquote>
<div>This response could better be characterized binary with 9 having
experienced it and 3 not.<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">c.
The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of
association</font></blockquote>
<div>1 "lots", 3 "some", 4 "little", and
4 "none"</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">d.
Production compilation</font></blockquote>
<div>2 "lots", 1 "some",  9
"none"</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">4.
With respect to the principal features on which ACT-R 5.0 differs from
4.0, how would you evaluate</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">a.
The buffer control structure</font></blockquote>
<div>10 "good-to-great", 2 qualified.  The one
suggestion that was made was that we needed greater consistency in our
use of buffers.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">b.
The downgrading of the goal stack</font></blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">c.
The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of
association</font></blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">d.
Production compilation</font></blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York"
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="New York" color="#000000">5.
Any other comments?</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">One person felt that they
needed simultaneous access to more than the two chunks that can be
held in goal and retrieval buffer.</font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">One person wanted more
support in terms of materials for teaching 5.0.</font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="New York" color="#000000">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.</font></div>

<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 at cmu.edu<br>
URL:  http://act.psy.cmu.edu/</font></div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1207061944==_ma============--