From rsun at rpi.edu Fri Feb 3 17:48:08 2006 From: rsun at rpi.edu (Professor Ron Sun) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:48:08 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] CogSci 2006: CALL FOR TUTORIAL AND WORKSHOP PROPOSALS Message-ID: <2B0FEF61-E903-43C1-8ACE-5B1D4F4F7E7F@rpi.edu> > > COGSCI 2006 > > The 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society > > July 26-29 > Vancouver, Canada > > CALL FOR TUTORIAL AND WORKSHOP PROPOSALS > > ********** EXTENDED DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 10 ********** > *********** ADDITIONAL FUNDING AVAILABLE *********** > > The deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops and > tutorials at Cogsci 2006 has been extended to February 10. > > The Society has obtained additional funding from NSF for tutorials on > computational modeling. We therefore particularly encourage tutorial > proposals in this area. > > Please visit the following web sites for the full calls for proposals: > > http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/keller/cogsci06/tutorials/cfp.html > http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/keller/cogsci06/workshops/cfp.html > ======================================================== Professor Ron Sun Cognitive Science Department Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 Eighth Street, Carnegie 302A Troy, NY 12180, USA phone: 518-276-3409 fax: 518-276-3017 email: rsun at rpi.edu web: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun ======================================================= From benoithv at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 23:28:27 2006 From: benoithv at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Benoit_Hardy-Vall=E9e?=) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:28:27 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] .:: Call For Papers - Cognitio 2006 @ UQAM In-Reply-To: <2B0FEF61-E903-43C1-8ACE-5B1D4F4F7E7F@rpi.edu> References: <2B0FEF61-E903-43C1-8ACE-5B1D4F4F7E7F@rpi.edu> Message-ID: <0D9F55AC-A692-4A0B-82DC-E59354F652A0@gmail.com> +-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-+ +-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-+ Cognitio 2006 Young researchers conference in cognitive science Beyond the brain: embodied, situated & distributed cognition http://cognitio.uqam.ca Montr?al, August 19th, 20th & 21st 2006. Graduate students are invited to present their researches in an interdisciplinary conference on cognitive science, Cognitio, that will be held at the University of Qu?bec in Montr?al (UQAM), on August 19th, 20th & 21st, 2006. Participants should be graduate students from any discipline or postdoc researchers affiliated with a university or research centre. To submit a conference, send an abstract (300 words) before april 15th, to: cognitio2006 at gmail.com Please specify your institutional affiliation. This years' theme is: Beyond the brain: embodied, situated & distributed cognition. Conferences on other topics are welcome, either in French or English. All talks will be 30 minutes long (including discussion) and should be addressed to an interdisciplinary audience. A financial assistance could be granted to participants from outside Quebec. Selected participants will be contacted by April 30th. Informations : http://cognitio.uqam.ca - cognitio2006 at gmail.com Organization: Benoit Hardy-Vall?e, Nicolas Payette, Pierre Poirier (UQ?M) Poster: http://cognitio.uqam.ca/cfp/callforpapers.pdf +-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-+ +-+-++-+-++-+-++-+-+ From tkelley at arl.army.mil Wed Feb 8 11:10:47 2006 From: tkelley at arl.army.mil (Kelley, Troy (Civ,ARL/HRED)) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:10:47 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] BRIMS EXTENSION Message-ID: BRIMS Submission Deadline Extended to 21 Feb Behavior Reprsentation in Modeling & Simulation Conference 15-18 May 2006 Baltimore, MD Go to www.sisostds.org and Select BRIMS to download the call for papers, posters, panels, & symposia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iconip2006 at cse.cuhk.edu.hk Mon Feb 13 01:41:00 2006 From: iconip2006 at cse.cuhk.edu.hk (ICONIP2006) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:41:00 +0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] ICONIP2006 Message-ID: <044901c63068$73e2e720$0de3000a@sonicg4rjd6533> ******************************************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS 13th International Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP2006) Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Hong Kong October 3-6, 2006 http://www.iconip2006.org/ ******************************************************************************** The Thirteenth International Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP2006) sponsored by the Asia Pacific Neural Network Assembly (APNNA) and organized by The Chinese University of Hong Kong, will be held in Hong Kong on October 3-6, 2006. You are invited to visit this vibrant and dynamic metropolitan to share the progress and research in neural computation, statistical processing, machine learning, and other related topics. ICONIP2006 will include plenary speakers, invited talks, tutorials, special sessions, as well as highly selected oral and poster presentations of refereed papers. In addition, conference social events along with other local attractions will promote interactions among conference delegates. ******************************************************************************** Important Dates Tutorial & Special session proposal: April 1, 2006 Paper submission deadline: April 1, 2006 Notification of acceptance: June 1, 2006 Final paper submission: July 1, 2006 ******************************************************************************** Paper Submission Authors are invited to submit research and application papers representing original, previously unpublished work to ICONIP2006. Submissions are solicited in all areas of neural information processing, including (but not limited to) the following: Neural Network Theory & Models -Mathematics of neural networks; -Advanced learning algorithms/models; -Neurodynamics; -Stability and convergence analysis; -Feedforward neural networks; -Recurrent neural networks; -Evolving neural networks; -Self-organizing networks; -Reinforcement learning; -PCA and ICA; -EM algorithm and mixture models; -Ensemble learning; -Kernel methods and support vector machine Computational Neuroscience and Cognitive Science -Models of neurons; -Simulation of neurons, networks, and systems; -Neuroinformatics; -Cognitive learning and memory; -Attention and consciousness; -Language; -Emotion and motivation; -Perceptual systems Neural Network Applications -Vision and image processing; -Pattern recognition; -Auditory processing; -Speech processing/recognition; -Robotics and control; -Biometric and security; -Time-series prediction; -Financial engineering; -Telecommunication; -Manufacturing systems; -Bioinformatics; -Data mining/Web mining; -Multimedia and information processing Hybrid Systems and Hardware -Fuzzy neural systems; -Hybrid systems; -Genetic algorithms; -Evolutionary programming; -Reconfigurable systems; -Hardware implementation Web links to supplementary materials (e.g., software, audio, video,etc.) in the manuscripts are encouraged. However, the manuscript must be self-contained and reviewers will not be required to review the supplementary materials. Accepted papers will be published in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) by Springer-Verlag (approval pending). In addition, a special issue on Neural Information Processing will be published in Neurocomputing based on selected papers with substantial expansion after further review. ******************************************************************************** Enquiry and Information ICONIP2006 Secretariat Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, NT, Hong Kong http://www.iconip2006.org/ E-mail: iconip2006 at cse.cuhk.edu.hk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ICONIP06CFP.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICONIP06CFP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2329138 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apetrov at alexpetrov.com Wed Feb 15 16:19:22 2006 From: apetrov at alexpetrov.com (Alex Petrov) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:19:22 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Efficient approximation of the Base-Level Learning Equation In-Reply-To: <69273082-51F9-4405-8055-12CAC8725D35@cmu.edu> References: <69273082-51F9-4405-8055-12CAC8725D35@cmu.edu> Message-ID: <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> Dear ACToRs, As you know, the base-level equation is one of the pillars of ACT-R's success. It has a serious practical drawback, however -- it consumes a lot of memory and CPU cycles. The approximate formula published in the 1998 book is good for many purposes but does not capture the transient boost after each use of a chunk. I have developed an improved approximation, which does take all critical properties of the exact equation into account. It was used with great success in the ANCHOR model of Petrov & Anderson (2005). It can be very useful for large simulations, allowing ACT-R to scale up to more realistic memory sizes and more prolonged learning periods. As far as I know (though I'm not sure), it is already implemented in the current version of ACT-R. (Dan, can you please advise on that?) A short two-page description of this new approximation has just been submitted to ICCM06. It is attached below, together with its associated MATLAB code. All this stuff will soon be posted on my web page at http://alexpetrov.com I do hope this will be helpful to the ACT-R community. Best regards, -- Alex ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander A. Petrov: apetrov at alexpetrov.com Post-doctoral Researcher Department of Psychology University of Colorado, Boulder http://alexpetrov.com It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ApproxBaseLevelEq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 136301 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ApproxBaseLevelEq-MatlabCode.zip Type: application/x-zip Size: 28977 bytes Desc: not available URL: From reder at cmu.edu Wed Feb 15 17:14:22 2006 From: reder at cmu.edu (Lynne Reder) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:14:22 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Efficient approximation of the Base-Level Learning Equation In-Reply-To: <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> References: <69273082-51F9-4405-8055-12CAC8725D35@cmu.edu> <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> Message-ID: <2be14ccd50b6d85eedc991bb691a1a8a@cmu.edu> Alex, two things: first in my step-child version of ACT-R's non-procedural memory (called SAC), we use a transient boost in current activation that decays exponentially. I think old versions of ACT did that too, but I know longer remember. In any case, I've been using a current boost that decays exponentially for about a decade or so (first published in 1996). Second, as you may know, Barbara Dosher & co. have evidence that power law learning is really an artifact of averaging different exponentials from different processes within a person or across people. I heard her give a talk recently. Perhaps I have mischaracterized these things, but thought you might know about this and want to address that. Regards, Lynne On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Alex Petrov wrote: > Dear ACToRs, > > As you know, the base-level equation is one of the pillars of ACT-R's > success. > It has a serious practical drawback, however -- it consumes a lot of > memory > and CPU cycles. The approximate formula published in the 1998 book is > good > for many purposes but does not capture the transient boost after each > use of > a chunk. I have developed an improved approximation, which does take > all > critical properties of the exact equation into account. It was used > with > great success in the ANCHOR model of Petrov & Anderson (2005). It can > be > very useful for large simulations, allowing ACT-R to scale up to more > realistic memory sizes and more prolonged learning periods. As far as > I know > (though I'm not sure), it is already implemented in the current > version of > ACT-R. (Dan, can you please advise on that?) > > A short two-page description of this new approximation has just been > submitted > to ICCM06. It is attached below, together with its associated MATLAB > code. > All this stuff will soon be posted on my web page at > http://alexpetrov.com > > I do hope this will be helpful to the ACT-R community. > > Best regards, > > -- Alex > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Alexander A. Petrov: apetrov at alexpetrov.com > > Post-doctoral Researcher > Department of Psychology > University of Colorado, Boulder > http://alexpetrov.com > > It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > MatlabCode.zip>_______________________________________________ > 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 > ======================================================== 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) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2813 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ben.willems at faa.gov Wed Feb 15 22:30:37 2006 From: ben.willems at faa.gov (ben.willems at faa.gov) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:30:37 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay In-Reply-To: <200602152210.k1FMAG7I027355@act-r.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a moment that the visual system may be able to process several things within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it involve cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the retrieval and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? Or do you assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by maintaining activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that activation strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or motor event that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an aircraft representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft or typing in an identifier for that aircraft. Ben Willems Engineering Research Psychologist William J. Hughes Technical Center NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) Building 28 Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 USA Phone: 609-485-4191 Fax: 609-485-6218 E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tkelley at arl.army.mil Thu Feb 16 09:10:02 2006 From: tkelley at arl.army.mil (Kelley, Troy (Civ,ARL/HRED)) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:10:02 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay Message-ID: That is a good question. I think many times as modelers, we need to make some assumptions about what is happening in the CONTEXT of the overall task. So, in your example, if you see a fixation for 1500ms, you need to make some assumptions about what is happening in relationship to the overall task. Does that fixation represent some critical moment in the flow of the problem space? Those assumptions would then guide your retrievals or any other productions that may or may not also include retrievals. So, in other words, let your knowledge of the task and problem space guide your assumptions about what is going on during the 1500ms. Troy Kelley Army Research Laboratory Human Research and Engineering Directorate AMSRD-ARL-HR-SE APG, MD, 21005-5425 voice: 410-278-5859 fax: 410-278-9523 tkelley at arl.army.mil _____ From: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of ben.willems at faa.gov Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:31 PM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a moment that the visual system may be able to process several things within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it involve cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the retrieval and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? Or do you assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by maintaining activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that activation strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or motor event that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an aircraft representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft or typing in an identifier for that aircraft. Ben Willems Engineering Research Psychologist William J. Hughes Technical Center NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) Building 28 Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 USA Phone: 609-485-4191 Fax: 609-485-6218 E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apetrov at alexpetrov.com Wed Feb 15 18:05:17 2006 From: apetrov at alexpetrov.com (Alex Petrov) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:05:17 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Efficient approximation of the Base-Level Learning Equation In-Reply-To: <2be14ccd50b6d85eedc991bb691a1a8a@cmu.edu> References: <69273082-51F9-4405-8055-12CAC8725D35@cmu.edu> <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> <2be14ccd50b6d85eedc991bb691a1a8a@cmu.edu> Message-ID: <200602151605.18185.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> Dear Lynne, Thanks for this useful information. I used to ruminate about these issues, but have since come to the conclusion that the activation function is an emergent property of billions of neurons and, as such, does not have a neat entry in the mathematical catalog. It's neither power nor exponential; it's just some context-sensitive function affected to individual differences, development, medication, etc. So, we are dealing with approximations anyway and the only thing that matters is its three qualitative properties: transient boost immediately after use, gradual accretion of strength with frequent use, and decay in the absence of use. The problems with the power function are well documented. (See below for some relevant refs). I bet the exponential has similar problems of its own. It's hard to beat the elegance of John's rational analysis of memory, though. The two-page abstract that started this whole discussion does not make any claim as to whether the ACT-R proposal is *the* correct function. It simply says, "assuming this is a good function to use, how can we approximate it efficiently". Best regards, and I look forward to seeing you in Pgh :-) -- Alex @article{PradhanHoffman63, author = {Pradhan, P. L. and Hoffman, P. J.}, year = 1963, title = {Effects of Spacing and Range of Stimuli on Magnitude Estimation judgments}, journal = {Journal of Experimental Psychology}, volume = 66, pages = {533--541}, annote = {Suggest that the power function is an artifact of data averaging}, } @article{ParkerCaseyZiriaxEtAl88, author = {Parker, S. and Casey, J. and Ziriax, J. M. and Silberberg, A.}, year = 1988, title = {Random Monotone Data Fit Simple Algebraic Models: Correlation is Not Confirmation}, journal = {Psychological Bulletin}, volume = 104, number = 3, pages = {417--423}, annote = {Power fun can fit almost any monotonic curve w/in measurement errors}, } @article{PoultonE89, author = {Poulton, E. C.}, year = 1989, title = {Uncertain Size of Exponent when Judging without Familiar Units}, journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, volume = 12, number = 2, pages = {286--287}, annote = {Commentary to Krueger89}, } @article{Krueger89, author = {Krueger, L. E.}, year = 1989, title = {Reconciling {F}echner and {S}tevens: Toward a Unified Psychophysical Law}, journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, volume = 12, number = 2, pages = {251--320}, annote = {Continuing commentary (1991), BBS 14, 187-204.}, } On Wednesday 15 February 2006 03:14 pm, Lynne Reder wrote: > Alex, two things: > > first in my step-child version of ACT-R's non-procedural memory > (called SAC), we use a transient boost in current activation that > decays exponentially. I think old versions of ACT did that too, but I > know longer remember. In any case, I've been using a current boost > that decays exponentially for about a decade or so (first published in > 1996). Second, as you may know, Barbara Dosher & co. have evidence > that power law learning is really an artifact of averaging different > exponentials from different processes within a person or across people. > I heard her give a talk recently. Perhaps I have mischaracterized > these things, but thought you might know about this and want to address > that. > > Regards, > Lynne From db30 at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 16 10:09:57 2006 From: db30 at andrew.cmu.edu (Dan Bothell) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:09:57 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Efficient approximation of the Base-Level Learning Equation In-Reply-To: <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> References: <69273082-51F9-4405-8055-12CAC8725D35@cmu.edu> <200602151419.22703.apetrov@alexpetrov.com> Message-ID: --On Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:19 PM -0700 Alex Petrov wrote: > Dear ACToRs, > > As you know, the base-level equation is one of the pillars of ACT-R's > success. It has a serious practical drawback, however -- it consumes a > lot of memory and CPU cycles. The approximate formula published in the > 1998 book is good for many purposes but does not capture the transient > boost after each use of a chunk. I have developed an improved > approximation, which does take all critical properties of the exact > equation into account. It was used with great success in the ANCHOR > model of Petrov & Anderson (2005). It can be very useful for large > simulations, allowing ACT-R to scale up to more realistic memory sizes > and more prolonged learning periods. As far as I know (though I'm not > sure), it is already implemented in the current version of ACT-R. (Dan, > can you please advise on that?) > Both ACT-R 5 and ACT-R 6 allow the optimized learning parameter to be set to a number, and when it is a number, it computes the base-level activation using that many specific references and the approximation over the lifetime for any others (like the equation you show). So, yes, it is implemented in the current version and it was also implemented in the previous version. Dan From grayw at rpi.edu Thu Feb 16 10:16:47 2006 From: grayw at rpi.edu (Wayne Gray) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:16:47 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben, Don't forget that retrieval is very likely to take longer than 50 msec. 50 ms is just the time it takes for the production that harvests the retrieval to fire. There would be a retrieval interval of anything from 100 to 1000 ms before a successful retrieval would place the item into the retrieval buffer. The retrieval latency is a function of baselevel activation as well as any temporary boost in activation the item may receive from the goal chunk. 1. production fires to initiate retrieval -- 50ms 2. memory system successfully retrieves the DME -- 100 to 1000 ms 3. production fires that harvests the item from the retrieval buffer -- 50 ms In terms of what could be going on in your example, I think that some of Erik Altmann's work on task switching might be relevant as he has developed an idiom for rehearsing items to a certain level of activation. In actr you can do a retrieval either with or without activation from the goal chunk. The activation from the goal chunk provides a temporary boost that enables items to be retrieved that do not have enough baselevel activation to be retrieved without the boost. Hence, Erik has the system play a game with itself in which it tries to retrieve an item without the goal chunk activation. If it cannot, then it attempts retrieval with goal chunk activation. A successful retrieval boosts activation. Then the system tries again to retrieve without that extra boost from the goal chunk -- when this retrieval is successful the system stops the rehearsal loop -- in ACTR 4.0 this all worked very nicely. Of course, if the system cannot retrieve the item even with the boost from the goal chunk, then it could always look at the screen again and recode it. I forget whether this was an issue for Erik's models. I believe the above is a simplification as it has been some time since I looked at that code. But you can imagine that if a retrieval failure occurs that the system would simply try again -- as activation is noisy something that is below threshold on one retrieval attempt may be above retrieval threshold on another. The retrieval threshold is adjustable. I am not sure that there is a consensus on what this should be, but I believe that by default the system waits 1000 ms before deciding that the retrieval failed. (This is way too long and most modelers seem to lower it.) Hope this helps. Wayne At 22:30 -0500 2006/02/15, ben.willems at faa.gov wrote: >Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of >the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human >experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity >quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a >moment that the visual system may be able to process several things >within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a >single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of >retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it involve >cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the retrieval >and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? Or do you >assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by maintaining >activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that activation >strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or motor event >that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an aircraft >representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft or typing >in an identifier for that aircraft. > >Ben Willems >Engineering Research Psychologist >William J. Hughes Technical Center >NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) >Building 28 >Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 >USA >Phone: 609-485-4191 >Fax: 609-485-6218 >E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov > >Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 2785751) is spam: >NOTE: This message has been trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, >please correct the training as soon as possible. >Spam >Not spam >Forget >previous vote > > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** Wayne D. Gray; Professor of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Carnegie Building (rm 108) ;;for all surface mail & deliveries 110 8th St.; Troy, NY 12180 EMAIL: grayw at rpi.edu, Office: 518-276-3315, Fax: 518-276-3017 for general information see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/ for On-Line publications see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/pubs/downloadable_pubs.htm for the CogWorks Lab see: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/cogworks/ If you just have formalisms or a model you are doing "operations research" or" AI", if you just have data and a good study you are doing "experimental psychology", and if you just have ideas you are doing "philosophy" -- it takes all three to do cognitive science. **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** From CHIPMAS at ONR.NAVY.MIL Thu Feb 16 10:28:42 2006 From: CHIPMAS at ONR.NAVY.MIL (Chipman, Susan) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:28:42 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay Message-ID: My reaction when I read this query was that there might be a lot more than retrieval going on. Susan F. Chipman, Ph.D. ONR Code 342 875 N. Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22217-5660 phone: 703-696-4318 fax: 703-696-1212 -----Original Message----- From: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Gray Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:17 AM To: ben.willems at faa.gov; act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay Ben, Don't forget that retrieval is very likely to take longer than 50 msec. 50 ms is just the time it takes for the production that harvests the retrieval to fire. There would be a retrieval interval of anything from 100 to 1000 ms before a successful retrieval would place the item into the retrieval buffer. The retrieval latency is a function of baselevel activation as well as any temporary boost in activation the item may receive from the goal chunk. 1. production fires to initiate retrieval -- 50ms 2. memory system successfully retrieves the DME -- 100 to 1000 ms 3. production fires that harvests the item from the retrieval buffer -- 50 ms In terms of what could be going on in your example, I think that some of Erik Altmann's work on task switching might be relevant as he has developed an idiom for rehearsing items to a certain level of activation. In actr you can do a retrieval either with or without activation from the goal chunk. The activation from the goal chunk provides a temporary boost that enables items to be retrieved that do not have enough baselevel activation to be retrieved without the boost. Hence, Erik has the system play a game with itself in which it tries to retrieve an item without the goal chunk activation. If it cannot, then it attempts retrieval with goal chunk activation. A successful retrieval boosts activation. Then the system tries again to retrieve without that extra boost from the goal chunk -- when this retrieval is successful the system stops the rehearsal loop -- in ACTR 4.0 this all worked very nicely. Of course, if the system cannot retrieve the item even with the boost from the goal chunk, then it could always look at the screen again and recode it. I forget whether this was an issue for Erik's models. I believe the above is a simplification as it has been some time since I looked at that code. But you can imagine that if a retrieval failure occurs that the system would simply try again -- as activation is noisy something that is below threshold on one retrieval attempt may be above retrieval threshold on another. The retrieval threshold is adjustable. I am not sure that there is a consensus on what this should be, but I believe that by default the system waits 1000 ms before deciding that the retrieval failed. (This is way too long and most modelers seem to lower it.) Hope this helps. Wayne At 22:30 -0500 2006/02/15, ben.willems at faa.gov wrote: >Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of >the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human >experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity >quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a >moment that the visual system may be able to process several things >within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a >single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of >retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it involve >cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the retrieval >and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? Or do you >assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by maintaining >activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that activation >strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or motor event >that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an aircraft >representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft or typing >in an identifier for that aircraft. > >Ben Willems >Engineering Research Psychologist >William J. Hughes Technical Center >NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) >Building 28 >Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 >USA >Phone: 609-485-4191 >Fax: 609-485-6218 >E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov > >Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 2785751) is spam: >NOTE: This message has been trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, >please correct the training as soon as possible. >Spam >Not spam >Forget >previous vote > > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** Wayne D. Gray; Professor of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Carnegie Building (rm 108) ;;for all surface mail & deliveries 110 8th St.; Troy, NY 12180 EMAIL: grayw at rpi.edu, Office: 518-276-3315, Fax: 518-276-3017 for general information see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/ for On-Line publications see: http://www.rpi.edu/~grayw/pubs/downloadable_pubs.htm for the CogWorks Lab see: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/cogworks/ If you just have formalisms or a model you are doing "operations research" or" AI", if you just have data and a good study you are doing "experimental psychology", and if you just have ideas you are doing "philosophy" -- it takes all three to do cognitive science. **Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer**Rensselaer** _______________________________________________ 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 taatgen at cmu.edu Thu Feb 16 10:39:11 2006 From: taatgen at cmu.edu (Niels Taatgen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:39:11 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A908C29-8FA8-457F-8D11-FA34A9824E65@cmu.edu> On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:30, ben.willems at faa.gov wrote: > > Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of > the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human > experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity > quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a > moment that the visual system may be able to process several things > within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a > single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of > retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it > involve cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the > retrieval and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? > Or do you assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by > maintaining activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that > activation strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or > motor event that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an > aircraft representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft > or typing in an identifier for that aircraft. Something to keep in mind here is that the perception of a stimulus does not mean anything is retrieved from memory. Memory retrieval may well be a result of perceiving something, but in the case of a complex aircraft icon that is not necessarily the case. 1500 ms is pretty long for an eye-fixation (ACT-R's default assumption is that a stimulus can be perceived in 85ms), so either it is a really complex stimulus with multiple features to attend to, or indeed some reasoning on the basis of that fixation is going on, and keeping the eyes fixated on the stimulus keeps the information active. This may involve memory retrieval, i.e., retrieving previous interactions with that particular aircraft, but also possibly planning steps which do not necessarily involve retrieval. Retrieval time is very variable: retrieving general knowledge about for example an airplane time should be pretty fast (<100ms), or might be compiled into productions rules, but episodic memory retrieval (what did I tell this guy to do 10 minutes ago) is potentially much slower, and could take up to 1500ms. =================================================== Niels Taatgen - Carnegie Mellon University, Psychology, BH 345E Also (but not now): University of Groningen, Artificial Intelligence web: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~niels email: taatgen at cmu.edu Telephone: +1 412-268-2815 =================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Hongbin.Wang at uth.tmc.edu Thu Feb 16 11:21:41 2006 From: Hongbin.Wang at uth.tmc.edu (Hongbin Wang) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:21:41 -0600 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Baseline activation strengthening and decay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D8AFFEB-3729-45F0-AA05-462309F8D301@uth.tmc.edu> Ben, I assume you were entertaining some interesting scenarios when you raise these questions. A lot of processes can happen when one maintains the eye fixation at an object or a few objects for a while. For example, during the fixation, presumably, 1) one can get shocked and one's mind goes blank (eg, seeing a dead man walking); 2) one can engage in one single retrieval for a long time until tired (eg, trying to recollect who that familiar face belongs to); or 3) one can engage in a chain of retrievals (eg, that face looks similar to Johnson's, Johnson cried yesterday because his dog died, oh, what a dog...). That's one reason why ACT-R has a modular design, so different modules can do different things in parallel (with constraints, of course). I believe trying to figure out what happens during your expert's 1500ms fixation is one reason why we do modeling. We can speculate what's going on based on his next eye-fixation, his verbal protocol, his decision and action, etc. When we have a better understanding of the process, we can simulate, predict and test its implications on baseline activation learning. Sometimes even if one is staring at a target (via the visuospatial module), but his mind may be attending to or working on something else (via other modules). In this case, I doubt the time length of fixation would strengthen the activation level of the target. Hongbin On Feb 15, 2006, at 9:30 PM, wrote: > > Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working on the other side of > the cognitive modelers. That is, I run simulations using human > experts in Air Traffic Control and create records of human activity > quite similar to what you call a simulation trace. Ignoring for a > moment that the visual system may be able to process several things > within the foveal area simultaneously, how would you interpret a > single 1500msec fixation on an object in terms of number of > retrievals? Does that include a single retrieval or does it > involve cyclic retrievals with a time constant of 50msec for the > retrieval and another 50msec to push the chunk to the goal stack? > Or do you assume that initially there is a retrieval followed by > maintaining activation at a faster cycle time? Do you assume that > activation strengthening occurs independent of the perceptual or > motor event that triggers activation of the chunk? E.g., seeing an > aircraft representation vs. listening to a reference to an aircraft > or typing in an identifier for that aircraft. > > Ben Willems > Engineering Research Psychologist > William J. Hughes Technical Center > NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) > Building 28 > Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 > USA > Phone: 609-485-4191 > Fax: 609-485-6218 > E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov > _______________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------- Hongbin Wang, PhD Assistant Professor School of Health Information Sciences University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 7000 Fannin, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77030, USA Hongbin.Wang at uth.tmc.edu, Tel: 713-500-3911, Fax: 713-500-3929 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben.willems at faa.gov Thu Feb 16 15:12:35 2006 From: ben.willems at faa.gov (ben.willems at faa.gov) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:12:35 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Re: ACT-R-users Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <200602161629.k1GGTVM8002459@act-r.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: I understand that a lot can happen during such long fixations, but would ACT-R be able to predict such long fixations? I have attached a snippet of about 150 seconds for one of our air traffic controllers for one aircraft while it is entering his airspace. Controllers in this air traffic control simulation dealt with 35(!) aircraft at any point in time. When separting events related to a single aircraft there are clear patterns of task related activity. In te example blow a controller enters a command to move the aircraft label, the takes responsibility for the aircraft. This is perception, cognition, and motor action in the wild! We have tried to create "traces" if you like of observable events. Question now is how we can cluster these events to form subtasks, subtasks to for tasks, etc. Of course I can take an arbitrary interval between events and suggest that anything beyond that interval must be the start of a new sub-task, but I had hoped to use something that has better underpinnings than just Benny coming up with a number. Anyway, thanks for all the feedback. I hope to be able to use a model like ACT-R/PM in the future to see if we can explain some of the things that we see in our human data. Ben Ben Willems Engineering Research Psychologist William J. Hughes Technical Center NAS Human Factors Group (ACB-220) Building 28 Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 USA Phone: 609-485-4191 Fax: 609-485-6218 E-mail: Ben.Willems at faa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 32461 bytes Desc: not available URL: From markus.eklund at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:12:15 2006 From: markus.eklund at gmail.com (Markus Eklund) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:12:15 -0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening Message-ID: Hi, Given the following scenario, I am assuming that a declarative memory will strengthen. Can anyone point me to some research data that supports (or does not) support this assumption? *Scenario:* - Instructor states definition; - Sometime later, instructor asks student to recall the definition (either just recall the definition or use the definition during problem solving); - Student paraphrases the definition, then asks is this correct? - Instructor gives positive feedback that the answer is correct. BR, Markus Eklund MA in Education Student San Diego State University -- Good design happens only when designers understand people as well as technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From esslli06 at loa-cnr.it Fri Feb 17 05:32:36 2006 From: esslli06 at loa-cnr.it (FOCA at ESSLLI) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:32:36 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] FOCA@ESSLLI CFP: deadline approaching! Message-ID: DEADLINE IS APPROACHING! MARCH 8 ********* APOLOGIES FOR MULTIPLE POSTINGS ********* ************************************************************************ ******************CALL FOR PAPERS ************************************************************************ ****************** Formal Ontologies for Communicating Agents (FOCA) http://www.loa-cnr.it/esslli06/ July 31 - August 4, 2006 organized as part of the European Summer School on Logic, Language and Information ESSLLI 2006 http://esslli2006.lcc.uma.es/ July 31 - August 11, 2006 in Malaga ************************************************************************ ****************** WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS: Roberta Ferrario (ferrario at loa-cnr.it) Nicola Guarino (guarino at loa-cnr.it) Laurent Prevot (prevotlaurent at gmail.com) ************************************************************************ ****************** WORKSHOP PURPOSE: In recent years lots of efforts have been devoted to formal studies of human and artificial agent communication. Research advancements have been achieved along three main lines: (i) agent's internal states and dynamics, (ii) social interaction and conventional communicative patterns, (iii) semantics-pragmatics interface - especially in the dialogue context (i.e. the interplay between the semantic content of messages and the communicative acts themselves). There is a recent trend of studies trying to integrate these approaches in many ways. On the other hand, formal ontology has been consecrated as a good solution for comparing and integrating information and thus its application to this specific domain is very promising . More precisely, an ontological analysis of the fundamental ingredients of interaction and communication will make explicit the hidden ontological assumptions underlying all these proposals. Ontology has also proven to be a very powerful means to address issues related to the exchange of meaningful communication across autonomous entities, which can organize and use information heterogeneously. The purpose of the workshop is therefore to gather contributions that (i) take seriously into account the ontological aspects of communication and interaction and (ii) use formal ontologies for achieving a better semantic coordination between interacting and communicating agents. ********************************************************* WORKSHOP TOPICS We encourage contributions concerning the two main areas listed below with a particular attention to explore the interplay between ontological analysis and its applications in practical cases. * Ontological aspects of interaction and communication - Ontological analysis of interaction and communication - Studies on the structure and coherence of interaction - Logical models for communicative acts - Primitives of interaction and communication - Formal semantics of dialogue *Semantic coordination through formal ontologies - Dialogue semantics and formal ontology - Dynamic ontology sharing - Ontological primitives for meaning negotiation, ontological alignment and semantic interoperability ??? - Ontology evolution through communication ? - Concrete problems and experiences in terminological disambiguation and integration ************************************************************************ ****************** SUBMISSION DETAILS: Authors are invited to submit an extended abstract describing original contributions to the workshop topics. Submissions should range between 3 and 5 pages. The following formats are accepted: .doc, .tex, .pdf (please, always include source files). Please send your submission electronically to the following email address: esslli06 at loa-cnr.it by the deadline listed below. The submissions will be reviewed by the workshop's programme committee and additional reviewers. The accepted papers will appear in the workshop proceedings published by ESSLLI. The format for the final version will be .pdf. A selection of the best papers accepted at the workshop will be considered for publication in the international journal 'Applied Ontology' (http://www.applied-ontology.org/). ************************************************************************ ****************** WORKSHOP FORMAT: The workshop is part of ESSLLI and is open to all ESSLLI participants. It will consist of five 90-minute sessions held over five consecutive days in the first week of ESSLLI. There will be 2 or 3 slots for paper presentation and discussion per session. On the first day the workshop organizers will give an introduction to the topic. ************************************************************************ ****************** IMPORTANT DATES: Submissions : March 8, 2006 Notification : April 21, 2006 Full paper deadline: May 1st, 2006 Final programme : June 21, 2006 Workshop Dates : July 31 - August 4, 2006 ************************************************************************ ****************** WORKSHOP PROGRAM COMMITTEE: (tentative) Thomas ADDIS (University of Portsmouth) http://www.tech.port.ac.uk/staffweb/addist/tom.html Nicholas ASHER (University of Texas, Austin, USA) http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/asher/ main.html John BATEMAN (University of Bremen, Germany) http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~bateman/ Paolo BOUQUET (University of Trento, Italy) http://dit.unitn.it/~bouquet/ Scott FARRAR (University of Bremen, Germany) http://www.u.arizona.edu/~farrar/ Roberta FERRARIO (LOA-ISTC, CNR, Trento, Italy) http://www.loa-cnr.it/ferrario.html Aldo GANGEMI (LOA-ISTC, CNR, Roma, Italy) http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html Nicola GUARINO (LOA-ISTC, CNR, Trento, Italy) http://www.loa-cnr.it/guarino.html Andreas HERZIG (IRIT-CNRS, Toulouse, France) http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/LILaC/Pers/Herzig/ Joris HULSTIJN (Utrecht University, the Nehterlands) http://www.cs.vu.nl/~joris/ Kepa KORTA (Universidad del Pais Vasco, Spain) http://www.sc.ehu.es/ylwkocak/kepa.html Laurent PREVOT (Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan) http://www.loa-cnr.it/prevot.html Matt PURVER (CSLI, Stanford, USA) http://www.stanford.edu/~mpurver/ William RAPAPORT (University of Buffalo, USA) http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/ Johan VAN BENTHEM (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands) http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/ Rogier VAN EIJK (Utrecht University, the Netherlands) http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/rogier/ Laure VIEU (IRIT-CNRS, Toulouse, France) http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/LILaC/Pers/Vieu/ ************************************************************************ ****************** LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS: All workshop participants including the presenters will be required to register for ESSLLI. The registration fee for authors presenting a paper will correspond to the early student/workshop speaker registration fee. Moreover, a number of additional fee waiver grants might be made available by the local organizing committee on a competitive basis and workshop participants are eligible to apply for those. There will be no reimbursement for travel costs or accommodation. Workshop speakers who have difficulty in finding funding should contact the local organizing committee to ask for the possibilities of a grant. ************************************************************************ ****************** FURTHER INFORMATION: About the workshop: http://www.loa-cnr.it/esslli06/ About ESSLLI: http://esslli2006.lcc.uma.es/ From pavel at dit.unitn.it Mon Feb 20 01:55:49 2006 From: pavel at dit.unitn.it (pavel) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:55:49 +0100 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 3rd CfP: ECAI'06 workshop on Contexts and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications (C&O-2006) Message-ID: <00a201c635eb$38ad5c70$5aeaa8c0@alphaekts5r299> Apologies for cross-postings ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR PAPERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Second International Workshop on Contexts and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications (C&O-2006) http://www.c-and-o.net/ August 28, 2006, ECAI Workshop Program, Riva del Grada, Italy. OBJECTIVES The goal of the workshop is to bring together people from the context and ontology communities and to discuss the approaches they use for information integration. Therefore, the workshop will push the cross-fertilization and exchange of ideas (e.g., which of the methods from the ontology community can be successfully adopted in the context community, and vice versa), and, hence, make their meeting mutually beneficial. TOPICS of interest include, but are not limited to: Foundations: Information interoperability and reuse via multiple contexts and ontologies; Coordination of multiple contexts and ontologies; Languages for combination of multiple contexts and ontologies; Logics for combination of multiple contexts and ontologies. Theory & Practice: Techniques and tools for matching contexts and ontologies; Techniques and tools for merging contexts and ontologies; Techniques and tools for transforming contexts and ontologies; Techniques and tools for translating contexts and ontologies; Techniques and tools for reconciling contexts and ontologies; Techniques for query answering based on multiple contexts and ontologies; Evaluation of tools for combination of contexts and ontologies; Scalability of techniques for combination of contexts and ontologies; Comparison of uses of contexts and ontologies. Applications: Semantic Web; Information Retrieval; E-commerce; Knowledge management solutions for large organizations; Computer graphics and multimedia; Grid and P2P; Pervasive computing and ambient intelligence. INVITED TALKS: 1. Frank van Harmelen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Selene Makarios, Stanford University, USA. FORMAT, ATTENDANCE AND SUBMISSIONS The schedule assumes a one day workshop. The workshop will consist of the following components: keynote presentations, technical presentations, posters, and general discussion. The audience is assumed to consist of both academia and industry. Thus, the workshop can improve academic awareness of industrial needs, and therefore direct research towards those needs. Simultaneously, the workshop will serve to inform industry representatives about existing research efforts that may meet their business needs. Contributions to the workshop can be made in terms of technical papers or statements of interest. Technical papers should be not longer than 5 pages using the ECAI'06 Style(http://ecai2006.itc.it/cda/aree/index.php?section=33&area=10). Statements of interest should not exceed 2 pages and should be handled according to the guidelines for technical papers. Please make clear if your paper is meant to be a statement of interest. All contributions should be prepared in PDF format and should be sent (no later than April 15, 2006) by email to Pavel Shvaiko at: pavel at dit.unitn.it Contributions will be refereed by the Program Committee. Accepted papers and statements of interest will be published in the workshop proceedings. Also authors of the best technical papers will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for possible publication in a special issue on "Contexts and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications" in the Knowledge Engineering Review Journal", http://www.cambridge.org/uk/journals/journal_catalogue.asp?historylinks=ALPHA&mnemonic=KER IMPORTANT DATES April 15, 2006: Deadline for the submissions. May 10, 2006: Notification of acceptance/rejection. May 24, 2006: Deadline for the receipt of camera-ready papers. Aug 28, 2006: C&O-2006, Riva del Grada, Italy. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 1.Jerome Euzenat INRIA Rhone-Alpes 2.Alain Leger France Telecom R&D Rennes 3.Deborah L. McGuinness Stanford University 4.Pavel Shvaiko (Chair) University of Trento e-mail: pavel at dit.unitn.it 5.Holger Wache Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam PROGRAM COMMITTEE Raffaele de Amicis, GraphiTech, Italy Alex Borgida, Rutgers University, USA Patrick Brezillon, University Paris, France Doina Caragea, Iowa State University, USA Anind Dey, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Avigdor Gal, Technion, Israel Jerome Euzenat, INRIA Rhone-Alpes, France Richard Fikes, Stanford University, USA Aykut Firat, Notheastern University, USA Fausto Giunchiglia, University of Trento, Italy Frank van Harmelen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands Michael Huhns, University of South Carolina, USA Yannis Kalfoglou, University of Southampton, UK Vipul Kashyap, Clinical Informatics R&D, USA Ruediger Klein, DaimlerChrysler, Germany David Leake, Indiana University, USA Alain Leger, France Telecom R&D, France Selene Makarios, Stanford University, USA Maurizio Marchese, University of Trento, Italy Deborah L. McGuinness, Stanford University, USA Natalya Noy, Stanford University, USA Leo Obrst, MITRE, USA Dimitris Plexousakis, University of Crete, Greece Michel Plu, France Telecom R&D, France Fano Ramparany, France Telecom R&D, France Chantal Reynaud, Universite Paris-Sud, France David Robertson, University of Edinburgh, UK Aviv Segev, Technion, Israel Pavel Shvaiko, University of Trento, Italy Heiner Stuckenschmidt, University of Mannheim, Germany York Sure, AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Germany Holger Wache, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands Christopher Welty, IBM Research, USA ------------------------------------------------------- Download C&O-2006 flyer: http://www.c-and-o.net/Pictures/C&O2006-flyer.pdf ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Pavel Shvaiko University of Trento Dept. of Information and Communication Technology Sommarive 14, POVO, 38050, TRENTO, ITALY Tel: +39 (0461) 883386; Fax: +39 (0461) 882093 Web: http://www.dit.unitn.it/~pavel/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From P_DELANE at uncg.edu Mon Feb 20 11:33:04 2006 From: P_DELANE at uncg.edu (Peter Delaney P_DELANE) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:33:04 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Re: Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Feb 20 15:28:24 2006 From: ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu (Phil Pavlik) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:28:24 -0500 Subject: FW: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening Message-ID: <000001c6365c$32f620c0$06b30280@pslc.cs.cmu.edu> Hi, By definition in ACT-R what you describe strengthens declarative memory. Since this information passes thru a buffer it is automatically moved into declarative memory. In fact, according to ACT-R the positive reinforcement does nothing to strengthen the declarative memory. However, the positive feedback does allow the student to count the firing of the productions involved as a success. This increases the likelihood of future attempts to answer such questions. This second step of considering the utility of the productions underlying a memory retrieval is frequently not relevant when dealing with high functioning college students since it is might be safe to assume that such "question answering" has been highly reinforced in the past and that the productions are always selected when the left hand side matches. However, in a younger student, perhaps from a disadvantaged background, simple question answering productions might not yet have high utility and other productions like horseplay productions or attention seeking behaviors might have higher utility. In such a situation, positive reinforcement of the responding to your question would strengthen the appropriate productions (by signifying success) and therefore improve performance at the task. Of course, such an explanation might apply to older adults too. I have found in a paired associate declarative memory task with feedback that the more overall success an individual has (more success with general productions) the better they performed overall. This might be explained as an effect of success on production utility. Phil Philip I. Pavlik Jr. Human Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ppavlik/ _____ From: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Markus Eklund Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:12 AM To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening Hi, Given the following scenario, I am assuming that a declarative memory will strengthen. Can anyone point me to some research data that supports (or does not) support this assumption? Scenario: * Instructor states definition; * Sometime later, instructor asks student to recall the definition (either just recall the definition or use the definition during problem solving); * Student paraphrases the definition, then asks is this correct? * Instructor gives positive feedback that the answer is correct. BR, Markus Eklund MA in Education Student San Diego State University -- Good design happens only when designers understand people as well as technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From reder at cmu.edu Mon Feb 20 17:59:02 2006 From: reder at cmu.edu (Lynne Reder) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:59:02 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening In-Reply-To: <000001c6365c$32f620c0$06b30280@pslc.cs.cmu.edu> References: <000001c6365c$32f620c0$06b30280@pslc.cs.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <00c503f1c719d69e1f9c44b2106aa750@cmu.edu> Phil, Concerning your assumption concerning students and question answering, I want to mention that in a number of studies i conducted about 20 years ago, I showed that people's tendency to look for a specific answer to a question vs. use a plausible reasoning strategy could easily be affected by the base rate of success with the strategy. It could also be manipulated by specific instructions. I also looked at this with the elderly and found that old subjects had a greater propensity to use plausible reasoning than "direct retrieval" presumably because the latter strategy was more difficult for them. the main point is that college students were quite adaptive in changing their question-answering strategy. Further I debriefed them and there was no evidence that they were aware of what strategy they were using nor of the base rates I manipulated. This finding has been replicated many times by Lovett, Schunn, me and Lebiere (in various combinations). --Lynne p.s. Below are a couple of the papers that showed this. the can be downloaded from my website (URL below) if interested. Reder, L.M., (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 90-138. Reder, L.M., Wible, C., & Martin, J. (1986). Differential memory changes with age: Exact retrieval versus plausible inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(1), 72-81. On Feb 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Phil Pavlik wrote: > > ? > Hi, > ....... > ? > This second step of considering the utility of the productions > underlying a memory retrieval is frequently not relevant when dealing > with high functioning college students since it is might be safe to > assume that such ?question answering? has been highly reinforced in > the past and that the productions are always selected when the left > hand side matches. However, in a younger student, perhaps from a > disadvantaged background, simple question answering productions might > not yet have high utility and other productions like horseplay > productions or attention seeking behaviors might have higher utility. > In such a situation, positive reinforcement of the responding to your > question would strengthen the appropriate productions (by signifying > success) and therefore improve performance at the task. > ? > Of course, such an explanation might apply to older adults too. I have > found in a paired associate declarative memory task with feedback that > the more overall success an individual has (more success with general > productions) the better they performed overall. This might be > explained as an effect of success on production utility. > ? > Phil > ? > ? > Philip I. Pavlik Jr. > Human Computer Interaction Institute > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > ? > ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu > http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ppavlik/ > > From: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Markus > Eklund > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:12 AM > To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening > ? > Hi, > ? > Given the following scenario,? I am assuming that a declarative memory > will strengthen.? Can anyone point me to some research data that > supports (or does not) support this assumption? > ? > Scenario: > ? Instructor states definition; > ? Sometime later, instructor asks student to recall the definition > (either just recall the definition or use the definition during > problem solving); > ? Student paraphrases the definition, then asks is this correct? > ? Instructor gives positive feedback that the answer is correct. > BR, > ? > Markus Eklund > MA in Education Student > San Diego State University > > -- > Good design happens only when designers understand people as well as > technology > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ======================================================== 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) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 8391 bytes Desc: not available URL: From markus.eklund at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 00:21:49 2006 From: markus.eklund at gmail.com (Markus Eklund) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:21:49 -0800 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening In-Reply-To: <00c503f1c719d69e1f9c44b2106aa750@cmu.edu> References: <000001c6365c$32f620c0$06b30280@pslc.cs.cmu.edu> <00c503f1c719d69e1f9c44b2106aa750@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Phil and Lynne, So to summarize (please correct me if I misunderstood): Positive feedback does nothing to strengthen declarative memory, but the positive feedback could be highly influential in learner's strategy of selecting retrieval (finding a specific answer) and using a plausible reasoning strategy. My learners were novices to the subject matter (based on a prior knowledge assessment) who, given the constraints and goals of my study, were provided only small amounts of practice. The particular instances of asking 'Is this correct' were during the first portion of the study, when the learners were just beginning to form conceptions. So I am assuming the utility of the strategy of retrieval is very high. thanks for the help! Markus On 2/20/06, Lynne Reder wrote: > > Phil, > > Concerning your assumption concerning students and question answering, > I want to mention that in a number of studies i conducted about 20 > years ago, I showed that people's tendency to look for a specific > answer to a question vs. use a plausible reasoning strategy could > easily be affected by the base rate of success with the strategy. It > could also be manipulated by specific instructions. I also looked at > this with the elderly and found that old subjects had a greater > propensity to use plausible reasoning than "direct retrieval" > presumably because the latter strategy was more difficult for them. > > the main point is that college students were quite adaptive in changing > their question-answering strategy. Further I debriefed them and there > was no evidence that they were aware of what strategy they were using > nor of the base rates I manipulated. This finding has been replicated > many times by Lovett, Schunn, me and Lebiere (in various combinations). > > --Lynne > > p.s. Below are a couple of the papers that showed this. the can be > downloaded from my website (URL below) if interested. > > Reder, L.M., (1987). Strategy selection in question answering. > Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 90-138. > > Reder, L.M., Wible, C., & Martin, J. (1986). Differential memory > changes with age: Exact retrieval versus plausible inference. Journal > of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(1), > 72-81. > > On Feb 20, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Phil Pavlik wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > ....... > > > > This second step of considering the utility of the productions > > underlying a memory retrieval is frequently not relevant when dealing > > with high functioning college students since it is might be safe to > > assume that such "question answering" has been highly reinforced in > > the past and that the productions are always selected when the left > > hand side matches. However, in a younger student, perhaps from a > > disadvantaged background, simple question answering productions might > > not yet have high utility and other productions like horseplay > > productions or attention seeking behaviors might have higher utility. > > In such a situation, positive reinforcement of the responding to your > > question would strengthen the appropriate productions (by signifying > > success) and therefore improve performance at the task. > > > > Of course, such an explanation might apply to older adults too. I have > > found in a paired associate declarative memory task with feedback that > > the more overall success an individual has (more success with general > > productions) the better they performed overall. This might be > > explained as an effect of success on production utility. > > > > Phil > > > > > > Philip I. Pavlik Jr. > > Human Computer Interaction Institute > > Carnegie Mellon University > > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > > > ppavlik at andrew.cmu.edu > > http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/ppavlik/ > > > > From: act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > [mailto:act-r-users-bounces at act-r.psy.cmu.edu] On Behalf Of Markus > > Eklund > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:12 AM > > To: act-r-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > > Subject: [ACT-R-users] Positive Feedback and Memory strengthening > > > > Hi, > > > > Given the following scenario, I am assuming that a declarative memory > > will strengthen. Can anyone point me to some research data that > > supports (or does not) support this assumption? > > > > Scenario: > > ? Instructor states definition; > > ? Sometime later, instructor asks student to recall the > definition > > (either just recall the definition or use the definition during > > problem solving); > > ? Student paraphrases the definition, then asks is this > correct? > > ? Instructor gives positive feedback that the answer is > correct. > > BR, > > > > Markus Eklund > > MA in Education Student > > San Diego State University > > > > -- > > Good design happens only when designers understand people as well as > > technology > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > ======================================================== > > 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) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- Good design happens only when designers understand people as well as technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clebiere at maad.com Wed Feb 22 15:04:55 2006 From: clebiere at maad.com (Christian Lebiere) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:04:55 -0700 Subject: [ACT-R-users] AAAI Spring Symposium Message-ID: <000401c637eb$409de650$8c05c80a@lebiere> The program for this year's AAAI spring symposia can be found at: http://www.aaai.org/Symposia/Spring/sss06.php Of particular relevance, Bob Wray and I will co-chair a symposium titled "Between a rock and a hard place: Cognitive Science principles meet AI-hard problems." The primary goal of the symposium is to explore the relative contributions that AI and Cognitive Science can make to each other. Additional information including a complete schedule is (or will shortly be) available at: http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/aaai-sss/ The symposia take place at Stanford University on March 27-29,2006. The deadline for registration (and most housing group rates) is this Friday February 24. Christian Christian Lebiere Principal Research Scientist Micro Analysis and Design clebiere at maad.com 412-362-5334 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hiran.ekanayake at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 03:48:24 2006 From: hiran.ekanayake at gmail.com (Hiran Ekanayake) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:48:24 +0600 Subject: [ACT-R-users] Cog. MMDB Model Message-ID: Hi, I am new to this group and trying to follow the conversations. I am trying to develop a cognitive multimedia database model with the help of automata theory. I like to know whether someone has tried this before or doing similar. Hiran Ekanayake University of Colombo School of Computing Sri Lanka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ritter at acs.ist.psu.edu Tue Feb 28 01:01:28 2006 From: ritter at acs.ist.psu.edu (ritter at acs.ist.psu.edu) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:01:28 -0500 Subject: [ACT-R-users] CogModeling notes: ICCM06 tutorials+registration/Infection modeling Message-ID: <200602280601.k1S61Sqo004595@acs.ist.psu.edu> [please forward as/what is appropriate, if you have good ideas, I'll take them. ] This is based on the International Cognitive Modeling Conference mailing list, which I maintain. I forward messages about twice a year. I've added you this year because I think you are intersted in such stuff. The first announcement is the one that is driving this email, the announcement of the tutorials program at ICCM 2006. Also, registration is open for this year's conference in Trieste, Italy. cheers, Frank Ritter (http://acs.ist.psu.edu) on sabbatical, Tufts, Spring 2006 1. Tutorial program, 2006 International Conference on Cognitive Modeling 5 April 2006, Trieste, Italy, early reg. deadline 1 March (!) 2006 http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2006/tutorials.html 2. Registration open, 2006 International Conference on Cognitive Modeling Wednesday, 5 April 2006 to Saturday 8 April 2006, in Trieste, Italy http://iccm2006.units.it/ 3. Modeling infectious processes "Koopman, James" *************************************************** 1. Tutorial program announcement, 2006 International Conference on Cognitive Modeling Wednesday 5 April 2006, in Trieste, Italy http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2006/tutorials.html Early registration deadline: 1 March 2006 (not a huge increase in price after, deadline might be extended) The Tutorials program at ICCM 2006 will be held on Wednesday 5 April 2006. Registration: Tutorials cost 35 Euros (about 25 pounds or about $40) for each half-day tutorial and about $30 in Euros for students. You are encouraged to register through the conference site, or, if space is available, paid for on the day. Attendance at the tutorials does not require conference registration; tutorial registration does not provide conference entrance. If you are not registering for the conference, you can register for the tutorials at the door. Topics Agimap --- A tool chain to support the modelling of the interaction level of dynamic systems Urbas & al. , Half-day (1345-1700) Psi and MicroPsi --- A novel approach for modeling emotion and cognition in a cognitive architecture Bach, Doerner, and Vuine, Half-day (1345-1700) Introduction to Connectionist Simulation in Social Cognition Van Overwalle, Whole-day (0915-1230) Simulation exercises in Social Cognition with FIT Van Overwalle, Whole-day (1345-1700) Introduction: The Tutorials program at the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling 2006 will be held on 5 April 2006. It will provide conference participants with the opportunity to gain new insights, knowledge, and skills from a broad range of areas in and related to the field of cognitive modeling. Tutorial topics will be presented in a taught format and are likely to range from practical guidelines to academic issues and theory. More details at http://acs.ist.psu.edu/iccm2006/tutorials.html **************************************************************** 2. Registration open, 2006 International Conference on Cognitive Modeling Wednesday, 5 April 2006 (tutorials), 6 to 8 April 2006, in Trieste, Italy http://iccm2006.units.it/ This continues the series of ICCM conferences. The last conference was at Pittsburgh. http://simon.lrdc.pitt.edu/~iccm/ This conference will build on that one's success. ICCM-2006: The 7th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling Trieste, Italy, 5 - 8 April 2006 The International Conference on Cognitive Modeling provides an international forum that allows cognitive scientists pursuing computational modeling to present, discuss and evaluate their models, to compare different architectural approaches, and to further the development, accumulation and integration of cognitive theories. The goal of ICCM-2006 is to foster the development of models of human cognition based on a principled integration of analytical, experimental and computational tools capable of providing theoretical accounts of phenomena spanning different levels of analysis, from the behavioral to the neuronal ones. Proceedings will be available from LEA. Invited speakers: - Dario Floreano (Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland) - Wayne D. Gray (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY) - Boicho Kokinov (New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria) - Richard L. Lewis (University of Michigan, Ann Arbour, MI) Organizing Committee: Danilo Fum (University of Trieste) Andrea Stocco (Carnegie Mellon University) Fabio Del Missier (University of Trento) Contacts: website: http://iccm2006.units.it email: iccm2006 at units.it. Organizing secretariat: The Office http://www.theoffice.it/iccm2006 **************************************************************** 3. Post-doc in agent modeling of infection Post-doctoral position available for agent based modeling of infection transmission: The Center for Advancing Microbial Risk Assessment (CAMRA) is an interdisciplinary collaboration of diverse scientist from institutions across the US. Environmental Microbiologists, epidemiologists, information scientists, sociologists, modelers, and other scientists work jointly to understand how infection gets from one person to another and how different mechanisms of transmission determine the shapes of networks through which infection flows. Joe Eisenberg and Jim Koopman in the Epidemiology Dept. at the University of Michigan contribute to CAMRA by developing and analyzing population level transmission models that encompass models of social settings where transmission can take place through air, skin to skin contact between individuals, inanimate objects (fomites) or combinations of these. We also model how different social settings where infection transmission can occur get linked into infection transmission systems. We are looking for a post-doc with a primary interest in agent based modeling of social processes and with skills in programming such models, especially using RePast. This post-doc position would conform to governmental guidelines for support of post-docs but details are negotiable. This position would link this post-doc to a variety of institutions and disciplines providing broad potential for career advancement. It would include collaborations at Michigan's Center for the Study of Complex Systems. Jim Koopman MD MPH (734) 763-5629 office Dept. of Epidemiology (734) 417-9610 Cell (734) 995-2954 home 611 Church St. (906) 484-5119 cottage (734) 998-6837 fax Ann Arbor, MI 48104 e-mail "Koopman, James" Developing Theory that Serves the Public Health http://www.sph.umich.edu/faculty/jkoopman.html