From ema at pilot.msu.edu Tue Jan 7 11:13:01 2003 From: ema at pilot.msu.edu (Erik M. Altmann) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:13:01 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Modeling post-doc at MSU Message-ID: Michigan State University invites applications for a post-doctoral fellowship in the area of computational cognitive modeling, funded by a grant from the Office of Naval Research to investigate cognitive effects of task interruption in complex dynamic environments. The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, Cognitive Psychology, or equivalent, with a strong background in Lisp programming and software development for the Macintosh, and experience developing computational cognitive models using the ACT-R cognitive theory. Duties will range from integrating the ACT-R simulator with an existing task environment and developing ACT-R models of performance in that environment, to contributing to theory development and designing and supervising relevant empirical studies. The appointment is for one year, renewable for a second, with an anticipated starting date no later than Sept. 1, 2003. Review of applications will begin immediately and close Feb. 15, 2003. Please send curriculum vita, research statement, relevant journal articles, and names of three references to Dr. Erik Altmann, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, or via Internet to ema at msu.edu. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grayw at rpi.edu Tue Jan 7 19:42:02 2003 From: grayw at rpi.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:42:02 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Post-Doc @ CogWorks Lab Message-ID: Greetings. I am looking for a post-doc to join me at the new Cognitive Science Dept at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. We have several grants investigating cognitive processes in dynamic environments. My intention is to make the CogWorks lab a center of expertise in the ACT-R community. To this end, Dr. Michael Schoelles has recently joined the lab as a Research Assistant Professor. Dr. Schoelle's skills in software engineering and expertise in how ACT-R is implemented add an important dimension to the training provided and the opportunities for research. (Note that another member of the ACT-R community, Prof. Frank Lee, is also a member of the Rensselaer Cognitive Science Dept. Although Prof. Lee is not directly associate with the CogWorks Lab, there is much interaction and sharing of ideas between his group and mine.) Resources at the CogWorks lab include G4 Macintoshes, an LC Eye Tracker, and the usual array of printers, scanners, fast ethernet connections, and software. In addition, over the years we have developed a series of simulated task environments (such as Argus, Nemo, and others) that have been written to facilitate the collection of detailed empirical data from both human and simulated human users. The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, Computer Science, or Psychology. The candidate also will have knowledge of ACT-R and skill, or the desire and the ability to acquire skill, in computational cognitive modeling, eye tracking, model tracing, as well as in the design and analysis of empirical studies. The appointment is for one year and may be renewed annually for a total of 3-yrs. Applications will be reviewed immediately and will continue until the position is filled. Start date is flexible and may begin at any time between now and Sept 2003. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) is the oldest technological university in the U.S. It is located in historic Troy NY, in the Hudson River Valley, approximately 5 miles N of Albany, NY. It is 3-hrs south of Montreal, 2.5-hrs west of Boston, and 2-hrs north of New York City. (Amtrak is installing a high-speed track that should make the NYC to Albany trip even shorter.) The Albany area is notable for many things, including its affordable housing, cultural events (e.g., the famed Saratoga Performing Arts Center), and proximity to outdoor recreation (e.g., hiking/skiing in the Adirondack, White, Green, and Berkshire Mountains). Feel free to contact me for more information. Cheers, Wayne -- **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** Wayne D. Gray; Professor of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Carnegie Building (rm 108) ;;for deliveries 110 8th St.; Troy, NY 12180 EMAIL: grayw at rpi.edu, Cell: 518-364-9114, Lab: 518-276-6067, Fax: 518-276-8268 for general information see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/ for On-Line publications see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/pubs/downloadable_pubs.htm Work is infinite, time is finite, plan accordingly. **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** From schooler at mpib-berlin.mpg.de Mon Jan 13 11:20:38 2003 From: schooler at mpib-berlin.mpg.de (Lael Schooler) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:20:38 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Pre/Postdoc Positions Message-ID: Hi All, If you have questions about these positions, don?t hesitate to contact me. Lael *********************************************************************** PRE/POSTDOCS IN ADAPTIVE DECISION MAKING--The Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany, is seeking applicants for 2 one-year Predoctoral Fellowships (tax-free stipend approx. Euro 11,700) or two-year Postdoctoral Fellowships (tax-free stipend approx. Euro 25,200) beginning September 1, 2003. Candidates should be interested in studying bounded, social, and ecological rationality in real-world domains, and should have expertise in any of the following or related areas: judgment and decision making, evolutionary psychology or biology, cognitive anthropology, experimental economics or psychology, statistical inference and model selection, artificial intelligence, environment structure, social reasoning. The Center provides excellent resources including staff and equipment support for conducting experiments and computer simulations and travel support for conferences. For a detailed description of our research projects and current researchers, please visit our WWW homepage at http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/abc or write to Dr. Peter Todd (ptodd at mpib-berlin.mpg.de). The working language of the center is English, and prior knowledge of German is not necessary for living in Berlin and enjoying the active life and cultural riches of this prospering city. We strongly encourage applications from women, handicapped individuals, and members of minority groups. Send applications (including cover letter describing research interests, curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, and reprints) by February 1, 2003 to: Wiebke Moeller Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition Max Planck Institute for Human Development Lentzeallee 94 14195 Berlin, Germany *********************************************************************** Lael Schooler Max Planck Institute for Human Development Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition Lentzeallee 94 14195 Berlin Germany voice inside Germany: 030-82-406-355 from outside Germany: ++49 30-82-406-355 fax: inside Germany: 30-82-406-394 from outside Germany: ++49 30-82-406-394 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chatham at m-laboratories.net Tue Jan 14 07:54:50 2003 From: chatham at m-laboratories.net (Chris Chatham) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:54:50 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: <20030114112719.3548.7689.Mailman@ACT-R.PSY.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030114075006.00b6c200@mail.m-laboratories.net> A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the next couple of years. He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling architecture. I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to the IRCS researcher's opinion? -Chris. From luis.botelho at iscte.pt Tue Jan 14 08:28:18 2003 From: luis.botelho at iscte.pt (Luis Botelho) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:28:18 -0000 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030114075006.00b6c200@mail.m-laboratories.net> Message-ID: <013a01c2bbd0$ccbdfcf0$cabc88c1@queen> Dear Chris, all > A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for > Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the > next couple of years. > > He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is > "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the > neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling > architecture. Can you explain or point to some source of information where I can learn what "oscillation" means? Thanks -- Luis > > I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include > this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to > the IRCS researcher's opinion? > > -Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From tkelley at arl.army.mil Tue Jan 14 09:53:26 2003 From: tkelley at arl.army.mil (Troy Kelley) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:53:26 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: Luis, I have a friend at Sandia National Labs who is doing some cognitive modeling using oscillating systems theory. I have forwarded this message to him so perhaps he can help you. I think what your friend is referring to is the neurological dynamics of the brain. The brain's neurons pulse and oscillate, forming rhythmic patterns of neurological firings from which behavior emerges. Connectionist have been moving toward "pulsed" neural nets and dynamic nets which learn from synchronous rates of fire (see Lokendra Shastri's work). However, ACT-R is a dynamic system as well. Perhaps it doesn't using synchronous oscillations, but I don't think this makes ACT-R obsolete anytime soon. One could argue that each cycle of ACT-R is equivalent to one "pulse" of a neurological system. Troy Luis Botelho To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu, Chris Chatham cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r act-r-users-admin at act-r. psy.cmu.edu 01/14/2003 08:28 AM Dear Chris, all > A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for > Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the > next couple of years. > > He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is > "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the > neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling > architecture. Can you explain or point to some source of information where I can learn what "oscillation" means? Thanks -- Luis > > I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include > this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to > the IRCS researcher's opinion? > > -Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From chatham at m-laboratories.net Tue Jan 14 10:00:04 2003 From: chatham at m-laboratories.net (Chris Chatham) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:00:04 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030114075006.00b6c200@mail.m-laboratories.net> <013a01c2bbd0$ccbdfcf0$cabc88c1@queen> Message-ID: <000e01c2bbdd$b1190a50$eb0cf983@fccc.edu> The researcher in question had referred me to Oreilly and Munakata's 2000 text "Computational explorations in cognitive neuroscience" Cambridge, MA MIT Press. He also cited McClelland as being influential to his thinking (althought you probably could have guessed that one). -Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis Botelho" To: ; "Chris Chatham" Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r > Dear Chris, all > > > > > A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for > > Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the > > next couple of years. > > > > He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is > > "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to > the > > neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling > > architecture. > > Can you explain or point to some source of information where I can learn > what "oscillation" means? > > Thanks > -- Luis > > > > > I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to > include > > this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to > > the IRCS researcher's opinion? > > > > -Chris. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ACT-R-users mailing list > > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From ngbrann at sandia.gov Tue Jan 14 10:18:54 2003 From: ngbrann at sandia.gov (Brannon, Nathan G) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:18:54 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: <8C457A052EDF6F49AA11EA7E3750A581F28393@es09snlnt.sandia.gov> Indeed Sandia is about four years into modeling from an oscillating systems perspective. See Klimesch, W. (1999) in Brain Research Reviews vol 29...a review paper. Kelso's book "Dynamic Patterns" is another resource. Approaches the topic from more of a sensory motor perspective. Nathan __________________________________ Nathan G. Brannon, Ph.D. Senior Member Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800, MS 0830 Albuquerque, NM 87185 Ph: 505.845.7055 Fax: 505.844.9037 -----Original Message----- From: Troy Kelley [mailto:tkelley at arl.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:53 AM To: Luis Botelho Cc: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu; act-r-users-admin at act-r.psy.cmu.edu; Chris Chatham Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Luis, I have a friend at Sandia National Labs who is doing some cognitive modeling using oscillating systems theory. I have forwarded this message to him so perhaps he can help you. I think what your friend is referring to is the neurological dynamics of the brain. The brain's neurons pulse and oscillate, forming rhythmic patterns of neurological firings from which behavior emerges. Connectionist have been moving toward "pulsed" neural nets and dynamic nets which learn from synchronous rates of fire (see Lokendra Shastri's work). However, ACT-R is a dynamic system as well. Perhaps it doesn't using synchronous oscillations, but I don't think this makes ACT-R obsolete anytime soon. One could argue that each cycle of ACT-R is equivalent to one "pulse" of a neurological system. Troy Luis Botelho To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu, Chris Chatham cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r act-r-users-admin at act-r. psy.cmu.edu 01/14/2003 08:28 AM Dear Chris, all > A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for > Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the > next couple of years. > > He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is > "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the > neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling > architecture. Can you explain or point to some source of information where I can learn what "oscillation" means? Thanks -- Luis > > I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include > this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to > the IRCS researcher's opinion? > > -Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From C.D.Hulshof at edte.utwente.nl Tue Jan 14 10:20:35 2003 From: C.D.Hulshof at edte.utwente.nl (Hulshof, C.D. (EDTE)) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:20:35 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: <97A989628EB7D211A58C0008C75D7629024791D7@tonet3.edte.utwente.nl> > The researcher in question had referred me to Oreilly and > Munakata's 2000 text "Computational explorations in cognitive > neuroscience" Cambridge, MA MIT Press. You may also find the work by Scott Kelso and his colleagues helpful for understanding the 'dynamic' perspective of cognition. [ Ref: Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press ] A term that is also used to refer to this viewpoint is 'synergetics', a field that has been influenced by eminent physicists such as Prigogine. In my opinion the dynamic viewpoint is interesting in its own right (they study things from finger-tapping to ant-hills), but it deals with a level of computation far removed from Act-R. Still, it may be interesting to study whether it is possible to create models in Act-R that feature emergent properties and 'control' parameters. Has any work been carried out in that direction? Casper Hulshof University of Twente From Hongbin.Wang at uth.tmc.edu Tue Jan 14 11:16:13 2003 From: Hongbin.Wang at uth.tmc.edu (Hongbin Wang) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:16:13 -0600 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: Shadows of the mind When the mind works, it leaves shadows that people can observe. Suppose a student S solved the equation "2x+5=9" and it turned out the response time was 2s. Both researchers JA and RO tried to understand what had happened in this 2s period. JA looked S' verbal protocol (e.g., "I move 5 to the right, and do the substraction. So I get 4, ...") and developed an Act-R model to simulate the underlying knowledge structure of S' behavior. RO looked S' fMRI recording and found the medium temporal lobe is particularly involved in the process. Based on well-documented principles of how the brain works, RO developed a neural networks model to simulate S' behavior. While both models fit the data well, the question is, which one is right? Apparently, both models are valuable. While the Act-R model is psychologically plausible the neural networks model may be more biologically realistic. Both models captured some characteristics of the mind's work, though at different levels (i.e., symbolic and subsymbolic). Importantly, these different levels are all "real", and no one is more real than another. A cognitive architecture that permits psychologically plausible symbolic modeling and makes nontrivial predictions will not be outdated. How to find the possible links among these different levels of shadows/models is the hard (and right) question. Act-R is already moving forward in this direction. Act-R5's symbolic components have been mapped to possible brain structures based on recent neuroscience results. Though rudimentary, it may not be too far away in time for people to start link Act-R to brain processes such as oscillation. The link would not be straightforward and linear. But as long as they all are shadows of the mind, they should be linked. Hongbin Wang School of Health Information Sciences University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston -----Original Message----- From: Chris Chatham [mailto:chatham at m-laboratories.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:55 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the next couple of years. He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling architecture. I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to the IRCS researcher's opinion? -Chris. _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Jan 14 12:12:24 2003 From: ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu (Phil Pavlik) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:12:24 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c2bbf0$1bc0f1d0$224d0280@floating77> It seems to me that it is a mistake to expect ACT-R to compete with oscillation theory (connectionism) by asking for a close correspondence to brain functioning. While some correspondence is desirable, a close correspondence will make our efforts at modeling high level processes as difficult as the connectionist's efforts. The beauty of ACT-R is that it represents neural processes (even at the subsymbolic level) in the aggregate rather than try to describe the oscillations of individual neurons. It's strength is that emergent properties of the brain do seem to be well represented by these aggregate models we construct. ACT-R, in my mind, complements connectionism, and only competes because it is human nature to compete. I see ACT-R being more effective and explanatory for high level modeling for the foreseeable future... I have read the first few chapters of O'Reilly and Munakata's book and several papers by McClelland, and I fail to see that in 2 or 3 years they will be modeling tasks like CMU-ASP. When their models are complex enough to handles such tasks, I wonder whether they will still be tractable enough to be suited to training applications. Philip I. Pavlik Jr. Psychology Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ? ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ppavlik/ -----Original Message----- From: act-r-users-admin at act-r.psy.cmu.edu [mailto:act-r-users-admin at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Hongbin Wang Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:16 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Cc: Hongbin Wang Subject: RE: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Shadows of the mind When the mind works, it leaves shadows that people can observe. Suppose a student S solved the equation "2x+5=9" and it turned out the response time was 2s. Both researchers JA and RO tried to understand what had happened in this 2s period. JA looked S' verbal protocol (e.g., "I move 5 to the right, and do the substraction. So I get 4, ...") and developed an Act-R model to simulate the underlying knowledge structure of S' behavior. RO looked S' fMRI recording and found the medium temporal lobe is particularly involved in the process. Based on well-documented principles of how the brain works, RO developed a neural networks model to simulate S' behavior. While both models fit the data well, the question is, which one is right? Apparently, both models are valuable. While the Act-R model is psychologically plausible the neural networks model may be more biologically realistic. Both models captured some characteristics of the mind's work, though at different levels (i.e., symbolic and subsymbolic). Importantly, these different levels are all "real", and no one is more real than another. A cognitive architecture that permits psychologically plausible symbolic modeling and makes nontrivial predictions will not be outdated. How to find the possible links among these different levels of shadows/models is the hard (and right) question. Act-R is already moving forward in this direction. Act-R5's symbolic components have been mapped to possible brain structures based on recent neuroscience results. Though rudimentary, it may not be too far away in time for people to start link Act-R to brain processes such as oscillation. The link would not be straightforward and linear. But as long as they all are shadows of the mind, they should be linked. Hongbin Wang School of Health Information Sciences University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston -----Original Message----- From: Chris Chatham [mailto:chatham at m-laboratories.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:55 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the next couple of years. He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling architecture. I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to the IRCS researcher's opinion? -Chris. _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From CHIPMAS at ONR.NAVY.MIL Tue Jan 14 15:47:42 2003 From: CHIPMAS at ONR.NAVY.MIL (Chipman, Susan) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:47:42 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: <535C721ABF9A0747B099AC5408B5982C1FD5CA@onrex3.onr.navy.mil> I suspect that his/her ideas about the brain will soon prove outdated. More importantly, a theory does not have to be a precise imitation of a real system in order to be a good theory. Susan F. Chipman, Ph.D. Office of Naval Research, Code 342 800 N. Quincy Street Arlington, VA 22217-5660 phone: 703-696-4318 Fax: 703-696-1212 -----Original Message----- From: Chris Chatham [mailto:chatham at m-laboratories.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:55 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the next couple of years. He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling architecture. I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to the IRCS researcher's opinion? -Chris. _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From tkelley at arl.army.mil Tue Jan 14 15:28:25 2003 From: tkelley at arl.army.mil (Troy Kelley) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:28:25 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: Phil Pavlik To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r act-r-users-admin at act-r. psy.cmu.edu 01/14/2003 12:12 PM -It seems to me that it is a mistake to expect ACT-R to compete with -oscillation theory (connectionism) by asking for a close correspondence -to brain functioning. While some correspondence is desirable, a close -correspondence will make our efforts at modeling high level processes as -difficult as the connectionist's efforts. Speaking of ACT-R's relation to connectionism, could someone out there (Christian?) explain in some detail exactly what makes parts of ACT-R's architecture "subsymbolic"? If I understand the subsymbolic parts of ACT-R, they are the algorithms which control the "continuously varying, qualitative properties of the symbolic cognitive elements" (from the ACT-R 1998 book, pg 13). But what about them is "subsymbolic".. I am assuming they operate in parallel, and that they are not distributed. Any other characterizations that make them subsymbolic? Troy From jpeters at rhsmith.umd.edu Tue Jan 14 15:57:13 2003 From: jpeters at rhsmith.umd.edu (James Peters) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:57:13 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r Message-ID: I was kind of expecting John and/or Chris to jump in here, but they haven't. The statement that ACT-R has not computational similarity to the brain is just plain false. ACT-R does aggregate functions, but its development has always been based on neural plausibility. In fact, one of John's "best kept secrets" is the existence of ACT-RN, the neural network version of ACT-R. I believe John, Chris, and I are the only people who every developed models in ACT-RN, but those exercises led to modifications to ACT-R to help maintain its neural plausibility (e.g., partial matching). The behavior of the models (admittedly small) I build in ACT-RN were virtually the same as ACT-R models. So, saying the ACT-R is not neurally plausible, I believe, is just plan wrong. Jim Chris Chatham Sent by: act-r-users-admin at act-r.psy.cmu.edu 01/14/03 07:54 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu cc: Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r A couple of days ago, I talked to a researcher at Penn's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science who believes ACT-R will be outdated in the next couple of years. He believed that the fundamental method of computation in the brain is "oscillation" and that because ACT-R has no computational similarity to the neurological structure of the brain, it will always be a poor modeling architecture. I asked whether ACT-R might be expanded at the subsymbolic level to include this type of modeling. Any thoughts here from the group, or in regards to the IRCS researcher's opinion? -Chris. _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ja+ at cmu.edu Tue Jan 14 16:31:28 2003 From: ja+ at cmu.edu (John Anderson) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:31:28 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since we are asked to address the issues, I might point out our forthcoming BBS article, which addresses some of these issues in its discussion of ACT-R: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Anderson/Referees/ At 3:57 PM -0500 1/14/03, James Peters wrote: >I was kind of expecting John and/or Chris to jump in here, but they >haven't. The statement that ACT-R has not computational similarity >to the brain is just plain false. ACT-R does aggregate functions, >but its development has always been based on neural plausibility. > In fact, one of John's "best kept secrets" is the existence of >ACT-RN, the neural network version of ACT-R. I believe John, Chris, >and I are the only people who every developed models in ACT-RN, but >those exercises led to modifications to ACT-R to help maintain its >neural plausibility (e.g., partial matching). The behavior of the >models (admittedly small) I build in ACT-RN were virtually the same >as ACT-R models. So, saying the ACT-R is not neurally plausible, I >believe, is just plan wrong. > >Jim -- ========================================================== 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apetrov at uci.edu Tue Jan 14 19:16:04 2003 From: apetrov at uci.edu (Alexander Petrov) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:16:04 -0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030114075006.00b6c200@mail.m-laboratories.net > References: <20030114112719.3548.7689.Mailman@ACT-R.PSY.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030114155858.00a7be70@aris.ss.uci.edu> I find it quite remarkable that a discussion triggered by the claim that "the fundamental method of computation in the brain is 'oscillation'" rapidly slipped into an argument over connectionism. Apparently, the latter has emerged as a kind of Osama Bin Laden of the cognitive world ;-) Connectionism is not the same as the dynamic system approach. Both claim to be neurologically grounded (as does ACT-RN) but otherwise there is little overlap. There are researchers who work at the intersection of the two approaches but they are a minority. Alex Petrov From hb0q at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Jan 15 11:03:45 2003 From: hb0q at andrew.cmu.edu (helen borek) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:03:45 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Fwd: Several postdoctoral opportunities at Carnegie Mellon University (fwd) (fwd) Message-ID: <9457318.3251617425@tadpole.psy.cmu.edu> Several Postdoctoral Opportunities at Carnegie Mellon University ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- We have one or two post doc positions available concerned with (a) Studying skill acquisition and instruction-taking in a complex dynamic skill. (b) fMRI studies of the complex cognition If interested contact John R. Anderson (ja at cmu.edu) =============== Postdoctoral Traineeships in Combined Computational & Behavioral Approaches to Cognition Applications are being accepted for multiple NIMH postdoctoral fellowships for training in combined computational and behavioral approaches to the study of cognition. Members of the training grant include: John Anderson, Marlene Behrmann, Patricia Carpenter, Albert Corbett, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Bonnie John, Marcel Just, Roberta Klatzky, Ken Koedinger, Ken Kotovsky, Marsha Lovett, Jay McClelland, Brian MacWhinney, David Plaut, Lynne Reder, Robert Siegler, and David Touretzky. Please specify your interest in working with any combination of the above faculty. Stipends are set by NIMH and are based on the number of years since completion of Ph.D. Fellowships are renewable for a second year. The candidate must be an U.S. citizen, non-citizen national, or already possess a visa permitting permanent residence. Applicants must have completed the doctoral degree before assuming the position. Send a vita and letter describing your research interests and have three letters of recommendation forwarded by April 2, 2003 to: NIMH Search Committee Department of Psychology Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 For additional information, please see website: www.psy.cmu.edu/~reder/welcome.html If you are interested in working with Lynne Reder, you may contact her directly at the address given below. ======================================================== Lynne M. Reder Professor Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-3792 (office) 412-268-2844 (fax) http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~reder/reder.html (home page) reder at cmu.edu (email) --Lynne ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Helen J. Borek Administrative Coordinator to Professor John R. Anderson Phone: 412.268.3438 Department of Psychology Fax: 412.268.2844 Carnegie Mellon University Email: helen at cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2819 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil Thu Jan 16 12:22:32 2003 From: Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil (Kevin.Gluck at williams.af.mil) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:22:32 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] BRIMS 2003 submission deadline extended Message-ID: <245656B34A151046B0997D34FA909F0F09768F@FSQBGE06> The submission deadline for the 12th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation is now extended two weeks - to January 31. Papers, symposium proposals, and tutorial proposals are due by January 31. That deadline is firm. Here are the revised conference preparation dates: Submission deadline (firm): January 31 Notification to Authors: March 14 Final papers due: April 4 Conference begins: May 12 Other conference information, including location, archival materials, and the 2003 CFP, are available at the BRIMS URL below. We look forward to receiving your submissions, and hope to see you at the conference! Sincerely, Kevin Gluck BRIMS 2003 Conference Chair ------------------------------------------------------- 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 PALM Lab Website: https://www.williams.af.mil/html/palmlab.htm 2003 Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation: http://www.sisostds.org/cgf-br/03BRIMS/index.htm "Anyone with an idea whose time has come can accomplish anything provided they are willing to work hard enough." - Cecil Burney From rvb at Cs.Nott.AC.UK Thu Jan 16 18:30:48 2003 From: rvb at Cs.Nott.AC.UK (Roman Belavkin) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:30:48 +0000 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r References: <20030114112719.3548.7689.Mailman@ACT-R.PSY.cmu.edu> <5.1.0.14.2.20030114155858.00a7be70@aris.ss.uci.edu> Message-ID: <022c01c2bdb7$4dad8f00$f9c086d4@outremer> > Connectionism is not the same as the dynamic system approach. ACT-R model can easily be seen as an example of dynamic programming. In my opinion there clearly is a suspicion from connectionists towards sybolists and vica versa. It is, however, very similar to what happned in quantum mechanics between the followers of wave and particle interpretations. They are two sides of the same coin, and brain cannot be fully understood using only one interpretation. In the end of the day connectionists have to cathegorise (quantise) vectors before they can do anything. Thus, they begin to operate in discrete domain (symbolic). Sybolists have to use probability and statistics to overcome the constraints of deterministic approach. Thus, they begin to operate with continuum (subsymbolic). You may soon realise that two approaches meat each other. The main problem is how to put them together in one consise system and make it work. This is exactly what ACT-R has been trying to do, and they succeeded, perhaps, more than others. Whether it will remain to be the best candidate for the unified theory of cognition in two years or not we don't know. Let's hope there will be more choice. Roman Belavkin From cl at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Jan 16 23:16:28 2003 From: cl at andrew.cmu.edu (Christian Lebiere) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:16:28 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: <022c01c2bdb7$4dad8f00$f9c086d4@outremer> Message-ID: <371457.3251747788@[10.0.1.2]> There are several levels at which oscillation theory, and a dynamical systems perspective in general, can be relevant to ACT-R. Perhaps the most common invocation of the idea concerns the binding together of units that are active at the same time. As such, it suggests a neural mechanism for chunk creation. At a somewhat higher level, it can be used to look at the dynamics of how brain areas activate each other over time. From that perspective, the evolution of ACT-R from a system synchronized around the production cycle to one more asynchronously driven by a variety of events, internal and external, simply reflects the complexity of the possible dynamics. At a longer time scale (the rational and social band), the evolution of knowledge over time can also be seen as a dynamical system. As Casper Hulshof pointed out, a lot of dynamical systems work is at a level of computation far removed from ACT-R. The lesson I took from ACT-RN is that constraints on neural implementation are quite valuable in guiding architectural developments, but taken too literally they will only drag you down to a myriad of implementation problems that have little to do with the general (external) behavior of the system. There is a general lack of appreciation in some quarters for the concept of abstraction. That is particularly surprising given that it is really a basic foundation of much of hard science. Chemistry works quite well in terms of simple algebraic (symbolic) equations, and trying to do it with quantum physics tools would very quickly prove intractable. Moreover, we learned from the theory of computation that you can't tell a book from its cover. Very different computational paradigms have been shown to be fundamentally equivalent, but slightly different programs within the same paradigm can lead to fundamentally different results. Thus, an ACT-R model might have similar dynamics to a particular kind of neural network, which itself might have very different dynamics from another kind of neural network. As for the opinion that started this thread, it brought to mind Khrushchev's old quote: "History is on our side. We will bury you." Prediction is a tricky business, as we all know. From apetrov at uci.edu Fri Jan 17 14:19:31 2003 From: apetrov at uci.edu (Alexander Petrov) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:19:31 -0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r In-Reply-To: <371457.3251747788@[10.0.1.2]> References: <022c01c2bdb7$4dad8f00$f9c086d4@outremer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030117111657.00a7e268@aris.ss.uci.edu> >As for the opinion that started this thread, it brought to mind >Khrushchev's old quote: "History is on our side. We will bury you." >Prediction is a tricky business, as we all know. Excellent point, Christian. Let's all contribute as much as we can, in ways that each of us finds most promising, and the issues will sort themselves out in the end. Cheers! Alex From robert_west at carleton.ca Mon Jan 20 09:26:25 2003 From: robert_west at carleton.ca (Robert L. West) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:26:25 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r References: <022c01c2bdb7$4dad8f00$f9c086d4@outremer> <5.1.0.14.2.20030117111657.00a7e268@aris.ss.uci.edu> Message-ID: <001a01c2c08f$ea169500$8eca7586@psycho> by way of clarifying the distinction between symbolic systems, dynamic systems, neural nets, and ACT-R, West & Lebiere (2001) presents a discussion of this issue and a dynamic systems model of a symbolic system constructed using neural networks. Lebiere & West (1999) presents an ACT-R model that produces the same dynamic properties as the neural network model. For more general discussions on this, Bechtel and Clark are excellent. cheers Robert Bechtel, W. (1998). Representations and cognitive explanations: Assessing the dynamicist's challenge in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 295-318. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clark, A. (1998). The dynamic challenge. Cognitive Science, 21 (4), 461-481. Clark, A. (1999). Where brain, body, and world collide. Journal of Cognitive Systems Lebiere, C., & West, R. L. (1999). Using ACT-R to model the dynamic properties of simple games. The Proceedings of Cognitive Science. West, R. L., & Lebiere, C. (2001). Simple games as dynamic, coupled systems: Randomness and other emergent properties. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(4), 221-239. Dr. Robert L. West Department of Cognitive Science Department of Psychology (send snail mail here) Carleton University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Petrov" To: Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r > > >As for the opinion that started this thread, it brought to mind > >Khrushchev's old quote: "History is on our side. We will bury you." > >Prediction is a tricky business, as we all know. > > Excellent point, Christian. Let's all contribute as much as we can, in > ways that each of us finds most promising, and the issues will sort > themselves out in the end. > > Cheers! > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > From sdoane at doane.psychology.msstate.edu Wed Jan 22 18:57:10 2003 From: sdoane at doane.psychology.msstate.edu (Dr. Stephanie Doane) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:57:10 -0600 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Post Doc at Skill Acquisition Lab Message-ID: Hello! I am looking for a post-doc to join me and seven very bright graduate students in the Skill Acquisition Laboratory in the Department of Psychology at Mississippi State University in Mississippi State, MS. We have several grants investigating human cognition and action in dynamic task environments. Resources at the Skill Acquisition Lab include Sun V880 servers, Sun blades, G4 Macintoshes, Dells, ASL Eye Trackers, FAA approved PCATD flight simulators and the usual I/O devices. MSU has internet 2 ethernet connections. Additional resource and project information is available on line at http://doanelab1.psychology.msstate.edu. The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, Computer Science, or Psychology. The candidate also will have knowledge of the C/I or ACT-R architectures of cognition and experience or interest in computational cognitive modeling, eye tracking, and the design and analysis of empirical studies of human cognition and performance. This is a one-year appointment that may be renewed annually for a total of three years. Applications will be reviewed immediately and will be accepted until the position is filled. The start date is any time between now and August 2003. Mississippi State University (MSU), located in a pleasant sun-belt community, is ranked in the top 57 public Universities in terms of annual research funding. MSU is located in a small college town that is approximately 15 miles W of Columbus Mississippi. It is 2.5 hours W of Birmingham, AL, 2.5 hrs SE of Memphis, TN, and 2.5 hrs NE of Jackson MS. Housing is affordable, winters are warm, the Noxubee Wildlife Refuge is 15 minutes away, and we are in close proximity to many outdoor recreation areas (e.g., water skiing in the Tombigbee Waterways). Please feel free to contact me if you desire any additional information. Sincerely, Stephanie -- Dr. Stephanie M. Doane, Professor Department of Psychology Mississippi State University Box 6161 Mississippi State, MS 39762 sdoane at ra.msstate.edu http://doane.psychology.msstate.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eurocogsci03 at uos.de Thu Jan 23 10:21:47 2003 From: eurocogsci03 at uos.de (Franz Schmalhofer) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:21:47 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Reminder EuroCogSci03: Paper submission DL, March 1, 2003 Message-ID: <005201c2c2f3$2569d710$464ead83@UOSFB08COGPSY.clki.uniosnabrueck.de> I apologize for multiple postings. __________________________________________________ Dear Cognitive Scientists, it is about five weeks till the paper submission deadline of the European Cognitive Science Conference (EuroCogSci03) which will be held in Osnabrueck/Germany from Sept 10 - 13, 2003. Submissions will be handled over the Internet. The procedures for submitting a paper are identical to the ones which have been established in previous years by the cognitive science society. The forms for submitting a paper to the conference website will be available by the first week of February. The actual status and details on the conference (and later on for submitting a paper) may be found under: http://www.eurocogsci03.uni-osnabrueck.de/ I hope that you will participate in the conference. Sincerely, Franz Schmalhofer Program Co-Chair EuroCogSci03 Institute of Cognitive Science University of Osnabrueck Kolpingstr. 7 49069 Osnabrueck Germany -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.ferrario at economia.unitn.it Fri Jan 24 10:26:56 2003 From: roberta.ferrario at economia.unitn.it (Roberta Ferrario) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:26:56 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] LAST CFP: Context 2003 Message-ID: <004f01c2c3bd$07ef6540$d9c7cdc1@Eolo> LAST REMINDER: DEADLINE FOR PAPERS SUBMISSION IS APPROACHING: MONDAY, JANUARY 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | CONTEXT'03 | | | | Fourth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on | | Modeling and Using Context | | | | Stanford, California (USA) | | June 23-25, 2003 | | | | (www.context.umcs.maine.edu/CONTEXT-03) | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ The Fourth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT'03) will provide a high-quality forum for discussions about context among researchers active in artificial intelligence and other areas of computer science, cognitive science, linguistics, the organizational sciences, philosophy, and psychology. Context affects a wide range of activities in humans and animals as well as in artificial agents and other computer programs. The importance of context is widely acknowledged, and "context" has become an area of study in its own right, as evidenced by the numerous workshops, symposia, seminars, and conferences held recently. CONTEXT, the oldest conference series focusing on context, is unique due to its strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research. Previous CONTEXT conferences have been held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (CONTEXT'97), Trento, Italy (CONTEXT'99), and Dundee, Scotland (CONTEXT'01). Each of these brought together researchers in many disparate fields to discuss and report on research on context-related topics. The proceedings of CONTEXT'03 will be published in a Lecture Notes series (http://www.springer.de/comp/lnai) of Springer?Verlag, as were those of the previous two CONTEXT conferences. TOPICS OF INTEREST To guide potential submissions, a representative sampling of topics of interest for CONTEXT'03 are as follows (in alphabetical order). This is not an exhaustive list, and other contributions are welcome, although all submissions must have a focus on context. Analogy and case-based reasoning Autonomous Agents and Agent-based Systems Cognitive Modeling Commonsense Reasoning Context Issues in Databases Context-aware Applications Contextual effects on language Contextual effects on problem-solving, understanding and production decision-making, and categorization Decision Support and Expert Systems Distributed Information Systems Formal Theories of Context Heterogeneous Information Integration Human-Computer Interaction Information Management Intelligent Tutoring Systems Intelligent/Semantic Web Systems Interagent Communication Knowledge Engineering and Management Knowledge Representation Machine Learning Multiagent Systems Natural Language Processing Neuroscience and context Organizational Theory and Design Philosophical Foundations SUBMISSION OF PAPERS Since CONTEXT'03 will be an interdisciplinary forum, all submissions, in addition to being evaluated for their technical merit, will be evaluated for their accessibility to an interdisciplinary audience. Works that transcend disciplinary boundaries are especially encouraged. Papers will be accepted either for oral presentation or for presentation at a poster session. Each submission will be evaluated by three referees. Complete formatting requirements and detailed instructions for authors can be found on the conference Web page. Note that papers cannot be longer than 14 pages. Papers must be submitted electronically--no hardcopy submissions will be accepted without prior approval from the Program Co-Chairs well in advance of the submission deadline. LaTeX and Word templates are available at the conference Web page. Papers must be in PDF format. See the conference Web page for instructions on converting to this format from Word, LaTeX, etc. Submitted papers should be received by the Program Co-Chairs no later than January 27, 2003. The conference Web page contains instructions for submitting papers electronically. IMPORTANT DATES Paper submission deadline....................................January 27, 2003 Notification of acceptance/rejection for all submissions.......March 13, 2003 Deadline for final versions of accepted papers.................April 13, 2003 Conference...................................................June 23?25, 2003 CONFERENCE CHAIR Fausto Giunchiglia (fausto at cs.unitn.it) Universita degli Studi di Trento, Italy PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS Patrick Blackburn (Patrick.Blackburn at loria.fr) LORIA, France Chiara Ghidini (C.Ghidini at csc.liv.ac.uk) University of Liverpool, UK Roy Turner (rmt at umcs.maine.edu) University of Maine, USA STEERING COMMITTEE Varol Akman (akman at cs.bilkent.edu.tr) Bilkent University, Turkey Massimo Benerecetti (bene at cs.unitn.it) University of Naples, Italy Paolo Bouquet (bouquet at cs.unitn.it) Universita degli Studi di Trento, Italy Patrick Brezillon (Patrick.Brezillon at lip6.fr) University of Paris VI, France Boicho Kokinov (bkokinov at nbu.bg) New Bulgarian University, Bulgaria John Perry (john at csli.stanford.edu) Stanford University, USA Francois Recanati (Francois.Recanati at ehess.fr) L'Ecole Polytechnique, France Luciano Serafini (serafini at irst.itc.it) Istituto Trentino di Cultura (ITC), Italy Rich Thomason (rich at thomason.org) University of Michigan, USA Roger A. Young (R.A.YOUNG at dundee.ac.uk) University of Dundee, UK PROGRAM COMMITTEE Horacio Arlo-Costa Carnegie Mellon University, USA John Barnden The University of Birmingham, UK Carla Bazzanella Universit? degli Studi di Torino, Italy John Bell University of London, UK Jose Luis Bermudez University of Stirling, UK Matteo Bonifacio University of Trento, Italy Anind K. Dey Intel Research, California, USA Christo Dichev Winston Salem State University, USA Bruce Edmonds Manchester Metropolitan University, UK Paul Feltovich University of West Florida, USA Tim Fernando Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Anita Fetzer Universitaet Stuttgart Christopher Gauker University of Cincinnati, USA Alain Giboin INRIA, France Avelino Gonzalez University of Central Florida, USA Jerry Hobbs USC/ISI, USA Lucja Iwanska LxLinks, Inc., Michigan, USA Ruth Kempson King's College London, UK David Leake Indiana University, USA Mark Maybury MITRE Corporation, Massachusetts, USA Bernard Moulin Universit? Laval, Canada Rolf Nossum Agder University College, Norway Jean-Charles Pomerol DRITT/Universite P and M Curie, France Marina Sbis? University of Trieste, Italy Carles Sierra Spanish Scientific Research Council, Spain Munindar Singh North Carolina State University, USA Steffen Staab University of Karlsruhe, Germany Elise Turner University of Maine, USA Peter Turney National Research Council, Ontario, Canada Johan van Benthem University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Robert J. van den Bosch Univ. Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands Teun A. van Dijk Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Terry Winograd Stanford University, USA PUBLICITY CHAIR Roberta Ferrario (ferrix at cs.unitn.it) Universita degli Studi di Trento, Italy LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS COMMITTEE Dikran Karagueuzian, Chair (dikran at roslin.stanford.edu) Michele King (mking at csli.stanford.edu) John Perry (john at csli.stanford.edu) Keith Devlin (devlin at csli.stanford.edu) Elisabetta Zibetti (ezibetti at psych.stanford.edu) ********************************************************* * For more information, see www.context.umcs.maine.edu. * ********************************************************* From pirolli at parc.xerox.com Tue Jan 28 13:39:44 2003 From: pirolli at parc.xerox.com (Peter Pirolli) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:39:44 PST Subject: [ACT-R-users] Cognitive Modeling position at PARC Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030128103637.042a4770@louise.parc.xerox.com> The User Interface Research Area (UIR) at the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) anticipates a new position opening for a Cognitive Modeler. UIR is expanding its research on human-information interaction, with a current focus on improving the intelligence of people engaged in making sense from large volumes of information. The ideal candidate will have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Science, or related fields, with experience in performing empirical psychological studies and developing computational models of cognition. Our current need is for someone with experience in developing models of human-computer interaction; especially models of higher level cognition, such as problem solving, comprehension., concept formation, and decision making. We anticipate a need for someone with additional experience in developing perceptual-motor models especially visual search and attention. In addition, the position will require experience and skills in performing psychological experiments and cognitive task analysis. The UIR Area at PARC is a leader in the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI), having been the site of seminal work on the input devices (e.g., the mouse), the psychology of HCI (e.g., GOMS), information visualization, and information foraging theory. The UIR research lab is equipped with state-of-the-art instrumentation for eye tracking, digital video recording and analysis, and logging of application and content use. PARC inventors were seminal in the development of the personal computer, networked computing, laser printing, the graphical user interface, digital property rights, and ubiquitous computing. --Peter Pirolli Principal Scientist User Interface Research Inquiries and applications can be sent to pirolli at parc.com