[ACT-R-users] computational basis of act-r

[John Anderson]

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: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/act-r-users/attachments/20030114/3fcdfcc8/attachment.html>