From ja+ at cmu.edu Tue Jan 8 10:54:01 2002 From: ja+ at cmu.edu (John Anderson) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:54:01 -0500 Subject: final poll results. Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Seven more respondents answered after my initial distribution of the poll results on Nov 6, raising our total to 19. There still are some significant non-respondents (you know who you are) but this probably gives a pretty good picture of where things stood as of a couple of months ago (the 7 responded all shortly after the partial results were distributed). The conclusions are not dramatically different. The general conclusions seem that 5.0 is a keeper with lots of use already, that buffers are a big win, that the jury is out on just how to treat the goal stack, that there are problems with activation/ competitive latency but few are experiencing them yet, and that production compilation is receiving little use so far. >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 19 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 between 5 and 10. >c. Are you currently using it for research? 9 respondents are >d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching? 10 >2. With respect to 5.0 >a. Have you every worked with it? 16 . >b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 5.0? This is best answered by the actual numbers -- 5 "0"'s, 7 "1"'s, 4 "2"'s, 2 some, and 1 "4". >c. Are you currently using it for research? 15 >d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching? 13 >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, 6 "lots", 8 "some", 3 "little", 2 "none". >b. The downgrading of the goal stack This response could better be characterized binary with 14 having experienced it and 5 not. >c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths >of association 1 "lots", 5 "some", 4 "little", and 9 "none" >d. Production compilation 2 "lots", 2 "some", 15 "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 16 "good-to-great", 3 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 7 "good-to-great", 10 "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, one about goal forgetting, and one just the struggle in adjusting to the new style. >c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths >of association 2 OK, 13 had no comment, 4 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. >d. Production compilation 1 "good", 7 "qualified good", and 11 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. Another person wanted more documentation along the lines of the Atomic Components of Thought. 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. One person felt that there were problems satisfying style constraints on chunk creation in either 4.0 or 5.0. Another person omplained about the "state" or "step" slots that tend to be part of goals in 5.0 models. One person complained about the extra burden in dealing with the environment in 5.0. That same person felt that there needed to be better debugging features for 5.0 particularly to deal with the parallelism. -- ========================================================== 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/ --============_-1201617252==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" final poll results.
Seven more respondents answered after my initial distribution of the poll results on Nov 6, raising our total to 19.  There still are some significant non-respondents (you know who you are) but this probably gives a pretty good picture of where things stood as of a couple of months ago (the 7 responded all shortly after the partial results were distributed).   The conclusions are not dramatically different.  The general conclusions seem that 5.0 is a keeper with lots of use already, that buffers are a big win, that the jury is out on just how to treat the goal stack, that there are problems with activation/ competitive latency but few are experiencing them yet, and that production compilation is receiving little use so far.

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 19 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 between 5 and 10.

c. Are you currently using it for research?
9 respondents are

d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching?
10

2. With respect to 5.0
a. Have you every worked with it?
16 .

b. How many research models would you estimate that you have produced in 5.0?
This is best answered by the actual numbers -- 5 "0"'s, 7 "1"'s, 4 "2"'s, 2 some, and 1 "4".

c. Are you currently using it for research?
15

d. Have you used it (or do you intend to use it) for teaching?
13

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, 6 "lots", 8 "some", 3 "little", 2 "none".

b. The downgrading of the goal stack
This response could better be characterized binary with 14 having experienced it and 5 not.

c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of association
1 "lots", 5 "some", 4 "little", and 9 "none"

d. Production compilation
2 "lots", 2 "some",  15 "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
16 "good-to-great", 3 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
7 "good-to-great", 10 "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, one about goal forgetting, and one just the struggle in adjusting to the new style.

c. The competitive latency equation and downgrading of the strengths of association
2 OK, 13 had no comment, 4 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.

d. Production compilation
1 "good", 7 "qualified good", and 11 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.  Another person wanted more documentation along the lines of the Atomic Components of Thought.

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.

One person felt that there were problems satisfying style constraints on chunk creation in either 4.0 or 5.0.

Another person omplained about the "state" or "step" slots that tend to be part of goals in 5.0 models.

One person complained about the extra burden in dealing with the environment in 5.0.

That same person felt that there needed to be better debugging features for 5.0 particularly to deal with the parallelism.
--
==========================================================

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/
--============_-1201617252==_ma============-- From ja+ at cmu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:48:42 2002 From: ja+ at cmu.edu (John Anderson) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:48:42 -0500 Subject: activation and latency recommendations for 5.0 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" The main point of this message is to recommend that users of 5.0 adopt activation settings and chose the latency equation that will make ACT-R 5.0 more closely correspond to the behavior of 4.0 with respect to these subsymbolic computations. The following is our recommendations for the setting of the goal-activation and latency equation: (sgp :esc t :ga 1.0) (setf *latency-fn* 'old-latency) Except for the fact that retrieval threshold is variable, this will make the behavior of 5.0 identical to 4.0. It is the setting that we will use for the 5.0 tutorial and which will serve as the basis of this year's summer school. Note, in particular, setting ga to 1 will leave the Sji's behaving as they use to and setting the latency function will replace competitive latency with the old latency equation. It is not recommended, however, that you turn associative learning on and we do not regard the learning equations as part of the 5.0 theory. Of course, in the ACT-R community we always allow a 1000 flowers to bloom and you should feel free to explore other options (including competitive latency and associative learning or variants on these) and report to us what you have learned. In brief our assessment of this is that, while competitive latency had real motivations, its current instantiation introduced a set of problems. We were not able to get all of the old 4.0 models to convert under this setting and this violated the constraint of cumulative progress. The few who were working with competitive latency were encountering new problems. A somewhat more elaborate discussion of the issues behind this recommendation is available at http://act.psy.cmu.edu/ACT-R_5.0/activation_and_latency.doc. -- ========================================================== 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/ --============_-1200991171==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" activation and latency recommendations for 5.0
The main point of this message is to recommend that users of 5.0 adopt activation settings and chose the latency equation that will make ACT-R 5.0 more closely correspond to the behavior of 4.0 with respect to these subsymbolic computations.  The following is our recommendations for the setting of the goal-activation and latency equation:
(sgp :esc t :ga 1.0)

(setf *latency-fn* 'old-latency)

Except for the fact that retrieval threshold is variable, this will make the behavior of 5.0 identical to 4.0.  It is the setting that we will use for the 5.0 tutorial and which will serve as the basis of this year's summer school.  Note, in particular, setting ga to 1 will leave the Sji's behaving as they use to and setting the latency function will replace competitive latency with the old latency equation.  It is not recommended, however, that you turn associative learning on and we do not regard the learning equations as part of the 5.0 theory.
Of course, in the ACT-R community we always allow a 1000 flowers to bloom and you should feel free to explore other options (including competitive latency and associative learning or variants on these) and report to us what you have learned.

In brief our assessment of this is that, while competitive latency had real motivations, its current instantiation introduced a set of problems.  We were not able to get all of the old 4.0 models to convert under this setting and this violated the constraint of cumulative progress.  The few who were working with competitive latency were encountering new problems.  A somewhat more elaborate discussion of the issues behind this recommendation is available at http://act.psy.cmu.edu/ACT-R_5.0/activation_and_latency.doc.
--
==========================================================

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/
--============_-1200991171==_ma============-- From byrne at acm.org Fri Jan 18 15:14:00 2002 From: byrne at acm.org (Mike Byrne) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:14:00 -0600 Subject: Visual search & finsts Message-ID: ACT-folk, There's a lingering issue with RPM's Vision Module that has come up now and again and I'd like to get people's thoughts. A fairly high proportion of the RPM-intensive models out there have fairly substantial visual search components. In some cases, this amounts to an attempt to NOT have a substantial set of ACT-R productions to manage the visual search component. The issue resolves around the number of items that can be marked as having been attended. I borrowed Pylyshyn's term and these markers are called "finsts." Pylyshyn's work suggests that the appropriate number of these things is four, and that's been the default setting in RPM. (I'd like to note that recent work out of Jeremy Wolfe's lab seems to suggest that there should be none of them whatsoever.) However, four doesn't seem to be an adequate number for many models, which causes a lot of people to set the :VISUAL-NUM-FINSTS parameter to something much higher, like 10. Or 100. I can't find anything in the visual attention work that supports this kind of idea. Eye-tracking data we've collected in my lab suggests that people certainly do re-visit seen items from time to time, which ought not to happen if 100 is a legitimate number for this parameter. So, my question is, what breaks such that this number really has to be so much bigger? I suspect that one reason people have trouble with this number is because people write productions in such a way that they depend on side-effects of a high finst number to do useful placekeeping work for them. For instance, in reading a series of words from left to right, one could use the following call to find the next word: +visual-location> isa visual-location attendend nil screen-x lowest This works in moving from left to right only if the number of finsts exceeds the number of words. If the number of finsts is exceeded, the leftmost word becomes the item with the lowest screen-x that has not been attended, so visual attention will snap to the left word partway through reading. Obviously, that's not the behavior one might want from RPM and certainly isn't what subjects are actually doing. Thus, to defeat this, the number of finsts has to be cranked up. However, it seems to me that there's a better way of doing this that should both be consistent with visual attention performance limits as I understand them and should also yield the correct behavior: +visual-location> isa visual-location screen-x greater-than-current nearest current [Note: You could add "attended nil" in there if you wanted but it would make little difference.] This will find the next thing to the right of whatever is currently being attended. Overcoming problems created by limiting the number of finsts is why those relative-to-current-location terms were added to RPM in the first place. I suspect that most problems that are now solved by raising the number of finsts can actually be solved by putting a little more knowledge into the search control productions, but I might be wrong about this. Those of you who have built models that do even limited visual search, please let me know what you think. Do we really need more than four finsts? If so, what are the conditions under which more than four are needed? Thanks, -Mike P.S. to Mike Schoelles: I really want to hear from you on this, regardless of how you set this parameter. You have interesting data on re-visitation that you've modeled... =========================================================== Mike Byrne, Ph.D. byrne at acm.org Assistant Professor, Psychology Department Rice University, MS-25 http://chil.rice.edu/byrne/ 6100 Main Street +1 713-348-3770 voice Houston, TX 77005-1892 +1 713-348-5221 fax From gray at gmu.edu Sun Jan 20 14:18:32 2002 From: gray at gmu.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:18:32 -0500 Subject: CogSci2002 Reviewers Needed Message-ID: Science Society (http://www.hfac.gmu.edu/~cogsci/). We need reviewers from a broad range of disciplines, with expertise in a wide variety of topics and methodologies. If you are a faculty member, research scientist, postdoc, or advanced graduate student with expertise in areas relevant to cognitive science, please volunteer to be a reviewer. The reviewing activities will take place during the period of Feb 15th through March 15th. All reviewing activities will occur through a web software system, which will insure that no reviewer is assigned too many papers. To volunteer to be a reviewer, go to http://cogsci.lrdc.pitt.edu/request.asp?id=4 and fill out the form. The success of the conference depends crucially on the participation of a large number of reviewers. Sincerely, Wayne D. Gray and Christian Schunn Associate Program Chairs 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society -- 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 From safia at ai.is.uec.ac.jp Tue Jan 22 00:48:49 2002 From: safia at ai.is.uec.ac.jp (safia belkada) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:48:49 +0900 Subject: mailing list subscription Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1A353.E6BDDC60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1A353.E6BDDC60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1A353.E6BDDC60-- From cl at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Jan 23 11:41:30 2002 From: cl at andrew.cmu.edu (Christian Lebiere) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:41:30 -0500 Subject: Postdoctoral Position @ CMU Message-ID: The postdoctoral researcher will participate in an investigation of the impact of working memory differences on individual performance in complex interactive environments, such as air traffic control simulations. The project involves the collection of experimental data and the development of cognitive models of individual performance. The models will be developed using the ACT-R cognitive architecture, a hybrid architecture combining a rule-based production system with adaptive neural-like activation processes and perceptual and motor modules. Requirements include a Ph.D. in cognitive science, computer science or psychology with experience in experimental design and in cognitive modeling, preferably but not necessarily using the ACT-R cognitive architecture. Programming experience, especially in Lisp, is preferred but not required. This position is funded for three years by the Office of Naval Research and offers a highly competitive salary and benefits. Carnegie Mellon University offers a stimulating research environment in livable Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. To apply or obtain additional information, contact (email preferred): Dr. Christian Lebiere Human-Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Tel: 412-268-5920 Email: cl at cmu.edu From ema at msu.edu Thu Jan 24 14:20:04 2002 From: ema at msu.edu (Erik M. Altmann) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:20:04 -0400 Subject: Faculty position in cognitive science Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The following is a new faculty line reflecting the growth of cognitive science at Michigan State. Please forward as seems appropriate, and please be in touch (with John or myself) if you have questions. Deadline is March 1, rank is assistant or associate, and tenure home is Psychology. Erik. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM Computational Vision/Visual Cognition. The Department of Psychology and the Cognitive Science Program at Michigan State University invite applications for a tenure-system position at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor. We are seeking candidates who study vision or visual cognition by combining computational modeling or hardware implementation with behavioral, psychophysical, and/or cognitive neuroscience techniques. The successful candidate will be appointed by Psychology, the tenure home department, and will be affiliated with the Cognitive Science Program and a newly funded NSF IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training) grant in cognitive science (http://cogsci.msu.edu/). We encourage applications from individuals pursuing research questions in areas such as (but not limited to) visual attention, visual search, eye movement control, visually guided action, spatial navigation, object recognition, and scene perception. Women and minority-group candidates are strongly urged to apply. The individual must have a strong research program capable of attracting extramural support. The position begins August 16, 2002 (pending final administrative approval). Salary and rank will depend on the candidate=92s qualifications and experience. Review of applications will begin March 1, 2002 and continue until a suitable candidate is identified. Send a letter of application, vitae, (p)reprints and three letters of reference to: John M. Henderson, Chair, Computational Vision Search Committee, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 121 Psychology Research Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117. MSU is an AA/EO employer. -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Erik M. Altmann Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 517-353-4406 (voice) 517-353-1652 (fax) ema at msu.edu http://www.msu.edu/~ema ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --============_-1200222489==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Faculty position in cognitive science

The following is a new faculty line reflecting the growth of cognitive science at Michigan State.  Please forward as seems appropriate, and please be in touch (with John or myself) if you have questions.  Deadline is March 1, rank is assistant or associate, and tenure home is Psychology.

Erik.


MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

Computational Vision/Visual Cognition. The Department of Psychology and the Cognitive Science Program at Michigan State University invite applications for a tenure-system position at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor.  We are seeking candidates who study vision or visual cognition by combining computational modeling or hardware implementation with behavioral, psychophysical, and/or cognitive neuroscience techniques.  The successful candidate will be appointed by Psychology, the tenure home department, and will be affiliated with the Cognitive Science Program and a newly funded NSF IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training) grant in cognitive science (http://cogsci.msu.edu/).  We encourage applications from individuals pursuing research questions in areas such as (but not limited to) visual attention, visual search, eye movement control, visually guided action, spatial navigation, object recognition, and scene perception.  Women and minority-group candidates are strongly urged to apply.  The individual must have a strong research program capable of attracting extramural support.  The position begins August 16, 2002 (pending final administrative approval).  Salary and rank will depend on the candidate=92s qualifications and experience.  Review of applications will begin March 1, 2002 and continue until a suitable candidate is identified.  Send a letter of application, vitae, (p)reprints and three letters of reference to:  John M. Henderson, Chair, Computational Vision Search Committee, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 121 Psychology Research Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117.  MSU is an AA/EO employer.
--

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Erik M. Altmann
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI  48824
517-353-4406 (voice) 
517-353-1652 (fax)
ema at msu.edu
http://www.msu.edu/~ema
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
--============_-1200222489==_ma============-- From gray at gmu.edu Sat Jan 26 15:18:53 2002 From: gray at gmu.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:18:53 -0500 Subject: CogSci2002 -- reminder Message-ID: Paper submissions are due on Feb 6 Packaged symposium are due on Feb 6 Publication-based submissions are due Feb11 Member Abstracts are due April 30 THERE WILL BE NO EXTENSIONS AND NO EXCEPTIONS ALSO, we are still looking for a few more reviewers. To volunteer to be a reviewer, go to http://cogsci.lrdc.pitt.edu/request.asp?id=4 and fill out the form. -- 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 From rsun at cecs.missouri.edu Wed Jan 30 13:58:26 2002 From: rsun at cecs.missouri.edu (rsun at cecs.missouri.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:58:26 -0600 Subject: Cognitive Systems Research, Volume 2, Issue 4 Message-ID: The new issue of Cognitive Systems Research: --------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents for Cognitive Systems Research Volume 2, Issue 4, December 2001 Noel E. Sharkey and Tom Ziemke Mechanistic versus phenomenal embodiment: Can robot embodiment lead to strong AI? 251-262 H. John Caulfield, John L. Johnson, Marius P. Schamschula and Ramarao Inguva A general model of primitive consciousness 263-272 Tarja Susi and Tom Ziemke Social cognition, artefacts, and stigmergy: A comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks for the understanding of artefact-mediated collaborative activity 273-290 Book review Ezequiel A. Di Paolo The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of Cognitive Science, Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Princeton University Press, 2000, Conference review D. Van Rooy Report on the Fourth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling 297-300 Online access to full text articles for Cognitive Systems Research is available to those readers whose library has subscribed to Cognitive Systems Research via ScienceDirect Digital Collections. For subscription information, see: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/cogsys http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cogsys ? Copyright 2002, 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 ===========================================================================