Competing "retrieval" rule vs compiled "habit" rule?

[Wolfgang Schoppek]

declatative structures in my ACT-Fly model (
http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/psychologie/ACTR-2000/ ). The model
"translates" GOMS analyses into ACT-R. The assumption is that declarative steps
(that contain the operators in a slot) are linked together purely by
associations (no symbolic links). This produces step-skipping especially under
high WM-load (see
http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/psychologie/iccm-2000.html). The drawback
of this conception is that it cannot model the process of proceduralization.
However, I'm not sure about up to what hierarchical level proceduralization
takes place. Maybe, the solution of representing methods as declarative
structures is appropriate for higher level methods?
A paper by Hunt and Lansman also popped to my mind: They argue for the
assumption that production rules activate each other:
          Hunt E., & Lansman M. (1986). Unified model of attention and
            problem solving. Psychological Review, 93, 446-461.
-- WS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wolfgang Schoppek          Universitaet Bayreuth
 Tel.: +49 921 554140
 http://www.uni-bayreuth.de/departments/psychologie/wolfgang.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------