From laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil Mon Apr 22 10:27:18 2013 From: laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil (Laura Hiatt) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:27:18 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending Message-ID: Hi All, I am looking for pointers to papers or work on partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on numerical values (like blending utility values). Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to be able to compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to similarity. Thanks, Laura From troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil Tue Apr 23 08:35:01 2013 From: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil (Kelley, Troy D CIV (US)) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:35:01 +0000 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laura, "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. Troy D. Kelley RDRL-HRS-E Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking for pointers to papers or work on partial-matching/blending that > utilizes similarity values between chunks. Much of what I have read using > these mechanisms relies on numerical values (like blending utility values). > Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and how we > can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to be able to > compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to similarity. > > Thanks, > Laura > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users Troy D. Kelley RDRL-HRS-E Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil From aoltrama at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Apr 23 09:11:39 2013 From: aoltrama at andrew.cmu.edu (Alessandro Oltramari) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:11:39 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B4764E9-6546-41FE-AA81-778C99625E35@andrew.cmu.edu> On Apr 23, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Kelley, Troy D CIV (US) wrote: > Laura, > > "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking > that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity > values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. Laura, Troy, I've recently used Ted Pedersen's suite of similarity measures over WordNet semantic network. http://marimba.d.umn.edu/cgi-bin/similarity/similarity.cgi In particular, gloss vectors measures seems to be the most adequate to set initial values. Best, Alessandro Oltramari Research Associate Psychology Department Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213 Tel.: +1-412-268-6284 Mobile: +1-412-689-1514 Fax.: +1-412-268-2798 Homepage: http://fms.psy.cmu.edu/member/aoltrama Twitter: oltramale "There?s no such thing as the unknown? only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.? (Capt. James Tiberius Kirk) > > Troy D. Kelley > RDRL-HRS-E > Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader > Human Research and Engineering Directorate > U.S. Army Research Laboratory > Aberdeen, MD 21005 > Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 > Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil > > > > On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on partial-matching/blending that >> utilizes similarity values between chunks. Much of what I have read using >> these mechanisms relies on numerical values (like blending utility values). >> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and how we >> can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to be able to >> compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to similarity. >> >> Thanks, >> Laura >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > Troy D. Kelley > RDRL-HRS-E > Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader > Human Research and Engineering Directorate > U.S. Army Research Laboratory > Aberdeen, MD 21005 > Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 > Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jerry.Ball at wpafb.af.mil Tue Apr 23 09:11:16 2013 From: Jerry.Ball at wpafb.af.mil (Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:11:16 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Laura, Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set similarity values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a paper: Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: A Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, 1-44. The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: Analogy and Metaphor". Jerry -----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 Kelley, Troy D CIV (US) Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending Laura, "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. Troy D. Kelley RDRL-HRS-E Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking for pointers to papers or work on > partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between > chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on numerical values (like blending utility values). > Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and > how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to > be able to compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to similarity. > > Thanks, > Laura > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users Troy D. Kelley RDRL-HRS-E Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil _______________________________________________ ACT-R-users mailing list ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5621 bytes Desc: not available URL: From laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil Wed Apr 24 10:24:19 2013 From: laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil (Laura Hiatt) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:24:19 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending In-Reply-To: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: Thanks for the great feedback, everyone! We have a new ACT-R-based approach to similarity that we are developing here, based on base-level / spreading activation values as the model runs (paper at CogSci this sumer); I am looking to test it in a variety of situations (such as blending). Thanks again, Laura On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: > Laura, > > Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set similarity > values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a paper: > > Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: A > Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, 1-44. > > The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: > Analogy and Metaphor". > > Jerry > > -----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 Kelley, Troy D > CIV (US) > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM > To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending > > Laura, > > "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking > that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity > values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. > > Troy D. Kelley > RDRL-HRS-E > Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering > Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone > 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: > troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil > > > > On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on >> partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between >> chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on > numerical values (like blending utility values). >> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and >> how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to >> be able to compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to > similarity. >> >> Thanks, >> Laura >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > Troy D. Kelley > RDRL-HRS-E > Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering > Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone > 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: > troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From reder at cmu.edu Wed Apr 24 10:32:37 2013 From: reder at cmu.edu (Lynne Reder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:32:37 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending In-Reply-To: References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: I have a tiny model based on earlier versions of ACT (no production system, just nodes and spreading activation). Many of the assumptions are the same as the declarative side of ACT-R but some aren't, either by accident (I used what I thought was in the system) or design. In any case I have been modeling partial matching for years. The way it works in SAC is that if the component features are activated/primed, they spread activation to associated nodes. If enough of the features are primed, it can get sufficient activation to get the wrong node over threshold. We have modeled this in Feeling of Knowing tasks (where we swapped operators), in recognition tasks where the unique font of the probe word matches a studied word and the person FAs, etc. If anyone is curious I can point you to the work (some is in the process of being written up for an invited chapter). Cheers, Lynne On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Laura Hiatt wrote: > Thanks for the great feedback, everyone! We have a new ACT-R-based approach to similarity that we are developing here, based on base-level / spreading activation values as the model runs (paper at CogSci this sumer); I am looking to test it in a variety of situations (such as blending). > > Thanks again, > Laura > > > On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: > >> Laura, >> >> Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set similarity >> values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a paper: >> >> Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: A >> Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, 1-44. >> >> The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: >> Analogy and Metaphor". >> >> Jerry >> >> -----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 Kelley, Troy D >> CIV (US) >> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM >> To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending >> >> Laura, >> >> "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking >> that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity >> values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. >> >> Troy D. Kelley >> RDRL-HRS-E >> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering >> Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone >> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >> >> >> >> On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on >>> partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between >>> chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on >> numerical values (like blending utility values). >>> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and >>> how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to >>> be able to compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to >> similarity. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Laura >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >> >> Troy D. Kelley >> RDRL-HRS-E >> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering >> Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone >> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > > _______________________________________________ > ACT-R-users mailing list > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users From reder at cmu.edu Wed Apr 24 10:35:00 2013 From: reder at cmu.edu (Lynne Reder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:35:00 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] to Elaborate last message In-Reply-To: References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: there is no need for similarity values bc I only try to model similarity when I have manipulated the features explicitly in the experiment (e.g., font and fan of font, or the operator). So the overlap in features is objectively determined. I'm sure it is not adequate for most of what one needs to do however so I inhibited writing for the last week, but my guard is down... On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Lynne Reder wrote: > I have a tiny model based on earlier versions of ACT (no production system, just nodes and spreading activation). Many of the assumptions are the same as the declarative side of ACT-R but some aren't, either by accident (I used what I thought was in the system) or design. In any case I have been modeling partial matching for years. The way it works in SAC is that if the component features are activated/primed, they spread activation to associated nodes. If enough of the features are primed, it can get sufficient activation to get the wrong node over threshold. We have modeled this in Feeling of Knowing tasks (where we swapped operators), in recognition tasks where the unique font of the probe word matches a studied word and the person FAs, etc. > > If anyone is curious I can point you to the work (some is in the process of being written up for an invited chapter). > > Cheers, > Lynne > > On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Laura Hiatt wrote: > >> Thanks for the great feedback, everyone! We have a new ACT-R-based approach to similarity that we are developing here, based on base-level / spreading activation values as the model runs (paper at CogSci this sumer); I am looking to test it in a variety of situations (such as blending). >> >> Thanks again, >> Laura >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: >> >>> Laura, >>> >>> Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set similarity >>> values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a paper: >>> >>> Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: A >>> Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, 1-44. >>> >>> The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: >>> Analogy and Metaphor". >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> -----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 Kelley, Troy D >>> CIV (US) >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM >>> To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending >>> >>> Laura, >>> >>> "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been thinking >>> that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or the similarity >>> values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. >>> >>> Troy D. Kelley >>> RDRL-HRS-E >>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering >>> Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone >>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on >>>> partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between >>>> chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on >>> numerical values (like blending utility values). >>>> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, and >>>> how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would love to >>>> be able to compare what we've come up with to some other approaches to >>> similarity. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >>> >>> Troy D. Kelley >>> RDRL-HRS-E >>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and Engineering >>> Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD 21005 Phone >>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > From Jerry.Ball at wpafb.af.mil Wed Apr 24 10:57:28 2013 From: Jerry.Ball at wpafb.af.mil (Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] to Elaborate last message In-Reply-To: References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493C3C8@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> We also get the effect of partial matching in the word recognition component of our language analysis model by spreading activation from letters and trigrams in the perceptual input to words in declarative memory which have slots for the letters and trigrams. The problem with partial matching in ACT-R is that when it is turned on, all DM chunks are candidates for retrieval. There is not even a chunk type constraint. With 58,000 word chunks in our mental lexicon, the amount of computation to retrieve a word is prohibitive when partial matching is on. Our word retrieval mechanism is constrained to at least match on a word chunk type with a matching first letter (as a computational compromise), which limits the amount of computation. The theoretically interesting question is whether or not partial matching is needed given spreading activation... Jerry P.S. I hope someone will correct my comments about ACT-R, if they are incorrect -----Original Message----- From: Lynne Reder [mailto:reder at cmu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:35 AM To: Laura Hiatt Cc: Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC; Kelley, Troy D CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu Subject: to Elaborate last message there is no need for similarity values bc I only try to model similarity when I have manipulated the features explicitly in the experiment (e.g., font and fan of font, or the operator). So the overlap in features is objectively determined. I'm sure it is not adequate for most of what one needs to do however so I inhibited writing for the last week, but my guard is down... On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Lynne Reder wrote: > I have a tiny model based on earlier versions of ACT (no production system, just nodes and spreading activation). Many of the assumptions are the same as the declarative side of ACT-R but some aren't, either by accident (I used what I thought was in the system) or design. In any case I have been modeling partial matching for years. The way it works in SAC is that if the component features are activated/primed, they spread activation to associated nodes. If enough of the features are primed, it can get sufficient activation to get the wrong node over threshold. We have modeled this in Feeling of Knowing tasks (where we swapped operators), in recognition tasks where the unique font of the probe word matches a studied word and the person FAs, etc. > > If anyone is curious I can point you to the work (some is in the process of being written up for an invited chapter). > > Cheers, > Lynne > > On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Laura Hiatt wrote: > >> Thanks for the great feedback, everyone! We have a new ACT-R-based approach to similarity that we are developing here, based on base-level / spreading activation values as the model runs (paper at CogSci this sumer); I am looking to test it in a variety of situations (such as blending). >> >> Thanks again, >> Laura >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: >> >>> Laura, >>> >>> Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set >>> similarity values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a paper: >>> >>> Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: >>> A Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, 1-44. >>> >>> The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: >>> Analogy and Metaphor". >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> -----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 Kelley, >>> Troy D CIV (US) >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM >>> To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending >>> >>> Laura, >>> >>> "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been >>> thinking that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or >>> the similarity values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the initial values. >>> >>> Troy D. Kelley >>> RDRL-HRS-E >>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and >>> Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD >>> 21005 Phone >>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on >>>> partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between >>>> chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on >>> numerical values (like blending utility values). >>>> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, >>>> and how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would >>>> love to be able to compare what we've come up with to some other >>>> approaches to >>> similarity. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >>> >>> Troy D. Kelley >>> RDRL-HRS-E >>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and >>> Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD >>> 21005 Phone >>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ACT-R-users mailing list >> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5621 bytes Desc: not available URL: From laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil Wed Apr 24 11:03:03 2013 From: laura.hiatt at nrl.navy.mil (Laura Hiatt) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:03:03 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] to Elaborate last message In-Reply-To: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493C3C8@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493C3C8@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <7DCB2C7F-456B-4856-A9AE-982039DE464A@nrl.navy.mil> My intuition says that partial-matching wouldn't be necessary if spreading activation was used "in place of" similarity, but so far we've just matched data involving explicit similarity ratings, not retrievals. Laura On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:57 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: > We also get the effect of partial matching in the word recognition component > of our language analysis model by spreading activation from letters and > trigrams in the perceptual input to words in declarative memory which have > slots for the letters and trigrams. > > The problem with partial matching in ACT-R is that when it is turned on, all > DM chunks are candidates for retrieval. There is not even a chunk type > constraint. With 58,000 word chunks in our mental lexicon, the amount of > computation to retrieve a word is prohibitive when partial matching is on. > Our word retrieval mechanism is constrained to at least match on a word > chunk type with a matching first letter (as a computational compromise), > which limits the amount of computation. > > The theoretically interesting question is whether or not partial matching is > needed given spreading activation... > > Jerry > > P.S. I hope someone will correct my comments about ACT-R, if they are > incorrect > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynne Reder [mailto:reder at cmu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:35 AM > To: Laura Hiatt > Cc: Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC; Kelley, Troy D CIV (US); > ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu > Subject: to Elaborate last message > > there is no need for similarity values bc I only try to model similarity > when I have manipulated the features explicitly in the experiment (e.g., > font and fan of font, or the operator). So the overlap in features is > objectively determined. I'm sure it is not adequate for most of what one > needs to do however so I inhibited writing for the last week, but my guard > is down... > > On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Lynne Reder wrote: > >> I have a tiny model based on earlier versions of ACT (no production > system, just nodes and spreading activation). Many of the assumptions are > the same as the declarative side of ACT-R but some aren't, either by > accident (I used what I thought was in the system) or design. In any case I > have been modeling partial matching for years. The way it works in SAC is > that if the component features are activated/primed, they spread activation > to associated nodes. If enough of the features are primed, it can get > sufficient activation to get the wrong node over threshold. We have modeled > this in Feeling of Knowing tasks (where we swapped operators), in > recognition tasks where the unique font of the probe word matches a studied > word and the person FAs, etc. >> >> If anyone is curious I can point you to the work (some is in the process > of being written up for an invited chapter). >> >> Cheers, >> Lynne >> >> On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Laura Hiatt wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the great feedback, everyone! We have a new ACT-R-based > approach to similarity that we are developing here, based on base-level / > spreading activation values as the model runs (paper at CogSci this sumer); > I am looking to test it in a variety of situations (such as blending). >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Laura >>> >>> >>> On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:11 AM, "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" > wrote: >>> >>>> Laura, >>>> >>>> Troy's comment reminds me that Raluca Bidiu used LSA to set >>>> similarity values in her research on "the Moses illusion". Here's a > paper: >>>> >>>> Budiu, R. & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Interpretation-Based Processing: >>>> A Unified Theory of Semantic Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science 28, > 1-44. >>>> >>>> The paper is available on the ACT-R web site under "Language Processing: >>>> Analogy and Metaphor". >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>>> -----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 Kelley, >>>> Troy D CIV (US) >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:35 AM >>>> To: Magill, Laura M CIV (US); ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>>> Subject: Re: [ACT-R-users] similarity in partial-matching/blending >>>> >>>> Laura, >>>> >>>> "Dynamically during runs" sounds interesting. I have also been >>>> thinking that using something like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) or >>>> the similarity values in ConceptNet might be a useful way of setting the > initial values. >>>> >>>> Troy D. Kelley >>>> RDRL-HRS-E >>>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and >>>> Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD >>>> 21005 Phone >>>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/22/13 10:27 AM, "Laura Hiatt" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I am looking for pointers to papers or work on >>>>> partial-matching/blending that utilizes similarity values between >>>>> chunks. Much of what I have read using these mechanisms relies on >>>> numerical values (like blending utility values). >>>>> Lately we have been working on studying similarity between chunks, >>>>> and how we can calculate it dynamically during model runs; I would >>>>> love to be able to compare what we've come up with to some other >>>>> approaches to >>>> similarity. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Laura >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>>>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>>>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >>>> >>>> Troy D. Kelley >>>> RDRL-HRS-E >>>> Cognitive Robotics and Modeling Team Leader Human Research and >>>> Engineering Directorate U.S. Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen, MD >>>> 21005 Phone >>>> 410-278-5869 or 410-278-6748 Note my new email address: >>>> troy.d.kelley6.civ at mail.mil >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ACT-R-users mailing list >>> ACT-R-users at act-r.psy.cmu.edu >>> https://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/act-r-users >> >> > From db30 at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Apr 24 11:18:25 2013 From: db30 at andrew.cmu.edu (db30 at andrew.cmu.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:18:25 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] to Elaborate last message In-Reply-To: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493C3C8@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> References: <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493BDE0@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> <69850E40C37BAF4C8BE0CBCDD4A738010493C3C8@VFOHMLAO01.Enterprise.afmc.ds.af.mil> Message-ID: <34572D81064838B876285D24@actr6b.cmu.edu> --On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:57 AM -0400 "Ball, Jerry T Civ USAF AFMC 711 HPW/RHAC" wrote: > The problem with partial matching in ACT-R is that when it is turned on, all > DM chunks are candidates for retrieval. There is not even a chunk type > constraint. The chunk-type of the retrieval request is a fixed constraint even when partial matching is on. Only chunks of the specified type (and any subtypes of that type) are considered for retrieval. Dan From cl at cmu.edu Fri Apr 26 14:43:36 2013 From: cl at cmu.edu (Christian Lebiere) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:43:36 -0400 Subject: [ACT-R-users] 2013 ACT-R Workshop Message-ID: 2013 ACT-R Workshop This year we will hold a 1-day ACT-R Workshop before the ICCM conference in Ottawa on Thursday, July 11, the day before the main ICCM program begins.? The workshop will consist of updates on ACT-R, presentations on architectural issues, and symposium discussions.?? The goal is to provide a forum for communication and discussion among the ACT-R community with a focus on architectural issues.? Registration for the workshop is free but required for planning purposes.? Registration, together with requests for presentation and suggestions for symposium topics, should be sent to Christian Lebiere at cl at cmu.edu using the form below.? Requests for presentations will be accommodated based on available time and relation to architectural themes. 2013 ACT-R Workshop Registration Name: ________________________ Presentation title (optional): _______________________________________________________ Symposium topic (optional): ______________________________________________________