The Place of Modeling in Cognitive Science

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 11-38

  Mcclelland, James L ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian approaches; Cognitive architectures; Computer simulation; Connectionist models; Dynamical systems; Hybrid models; Modeling frameworks; Symbolic models of cognition

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COGNITIVE SCIENCE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER);

EID: 65349180644     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01003.x     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture-speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child's state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 468-523.
2. Anderson, J. A. (1977). Neural models with cognitive implications. In D. La Berge, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 27-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Ashby, F. G. (1982). Deriving exact predictions from the cascade model. Psychological Review, 89, 599-607.
5. Bengio, Y., Lamblin, P., Popovici, D., & Larochelle, H. (2007) Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Besner, D., Twilley, L., Mc Cann, R. S., & Seergobin, K. (1990). On the connection between connectionism and data: Are a few words necessary? Psychological Review, 97, 432-446.
7. Borges, J. L. (1998). On the exactitude of science. In Collected fictions, trans. A. Hurley (p. 325). London: Penguin.
8. Bringsjord, S. (2008). Declarative/logic-based cognitive models. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 127-169). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Broadbent, D. (1985). A question of levels: Comment on Mc Clelland and Rumelhart. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 189-192.
10. Brown, J. S., & Van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4, 379-426.
11. Buzsaki, G., Horvath, Z., Urioste, R., Hetke, J., & Wise, K. (1992). High frequency network oscillation in the hippocampus. Science, 256, 1025-1027.
12. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265-289.
14. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.
15. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, E., & Hailer, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589-608.
16. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Was natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187-276.
17. Elman, J. L. (in press). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, forthcoming.
18. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.
19. Geisler, W. S., & Perry, J. S. (in press). Contour statistics in natural images: grouping across occlusions. Visual Neuroscience.
20. Gould, S. J. (1980). The panda's thumb. New York: W. W. Norton.
21. Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 59-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M. X., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211-244.
23. Grossberg, S. (1978). A theory of human memory: Self-organization and performance of sensory-motor codes, maps, and plans. In R. Rosen & F. Snell (Eds.), Progress in theoretical biology, Vol. 5 (pp. 233-374), New York: Academic Press.
24. Hasselmo, M. E., Bodelón, C., & Wyble, B. P. (2002). A proposed function for hippocampal theta rhythm: Separate phases of encoding and retrieval enhance reversal of prior learning. Neural Computation, 14, 793-817.
25. Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313, 504-507.
26. IBM Website. (2008). 704 Data processing system. IBM Archives. Available at: Accessed November 13, 2008.
27. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28. Jackendoff, R. (2007). Linguistics in cognitive science: The state of the art. The Linguistic Review, 24, 347-401.
29. Jilk, D. J., Lebiere, C., O'Reilly, R. C., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). SAL: An explicitly pluralistic cognitive architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20, 197-218.
30. Joanisse, M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 7592-7597.
31. Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Structured models of semantic cognition. Commentary on Rogers and Mcclelland. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 717-718.
32. Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (in press). Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, forthcoming.
33. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking Penguin.
35. Kwok, K. (2003). A computational investigation into the successes and failures of semantic learning in normal humans and amnesics. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.
36. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
37. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2005). Bayesian statistical inference in psychology: Comment on Trafimow (2003). Psychological Review, 112, 662-668.
38. Van Der Maas, H. L., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2009). Transitions in cognitive development: Prospects and limitations of a neural dynamic approach. In J. Spencer, M. S. C. Thomas, & J. L. Mcclelland (Eds.), Toward a new grand theory of development: Connectionism and dynamical systems theory re-considered (pp. 229-312). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39. Mac Whinney, B., & Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition, 40, 121-157.
40. Marcus, G. F. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
42. Massaro, D. W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 213-234.
43. Massaro, D. W. (1989). Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 398-421.
44. Mcclelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330.
45. Mcclelland, J. L. (1991). Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1-44.
46. Mcclelland, J. L. (1992). Can connectionist models discover the structure of natural language? In R. Morelli, W. M. Brown, D. Anselmi, K. Haberlandt, & D. Lloyd (Eds.), Minds, brains & computers (pp. 168-189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
47. Mcclelland, J. L. (1995). A connectionist approach to knowledge and development. In T. J. Simon, & G. S. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 157-204). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
48. Mcclelland, J. L. (1998). Connectionist models and Bayesian inference. In M. Oaksford, & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 21-53). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
49. Mcclelland, J. L., & Bybee, J. (2007). Gradience of gradience: A reply to Jackendoff. The Linguistic Review, 24, 437-455.
50. Mcclelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724-760.
51. Mcclelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
52. Mcclelland, J. L., Mc Naughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102, 419-457.
53. Mcclelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465-472.
54. Mcclelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
55. Mcclelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & Hinton, G. E. The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. Mcclelland & the PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. I, pp. 3-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Mc Closkey, M. (1991). Networks and theories: The place of connectionism in cognitive science. Psychological Science, 2, 387-395.
57. Mc Cullogh, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115-133.
58. Mehta, M. R., Lee, A. K., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Role of experience and oscillations in transforming a rate code into a temporal code. Nature, 417, 741-746.
59. Minsky, M. L., & Papert, S. A. (1969). Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Movellan, J. R., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2001). The Morton-Massaro law of information integration: Implications for models of perception. Psychological Review, 108, 113-148.
61. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton Century Croft.
62. Newell, A. (1973). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-308). New York: Academic Press.
63. Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Rational explanation of the selection task. Psychological Review, 103, 381-391.
65. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. T., & Regier, T. (2006). Poverty of the stimulus: A rational approach. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 26-29 (pp. 663-669). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-555.
67. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
68. Plaut, D. C., Mcclelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
69. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper.
70. Ranzato, M., Poultney, C., Chopra, A., & Le Cun, Y. (2007). Efficient learning of sparse representations with an energy-based model. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) (pp. 1137-1144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Van Rijn, H., Van Someren, M., & Van Der Maas, H. (2003). Modeling developmental transitions on the balance scale task. Cognitive Science, 27, 227-257.
72. Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing Psychological Review, 107, 358-367.
73. Roberts, S., & Sternberg, S. (1993). The meaning of additive reaction-time effects: Tests of three alternatives. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 611-653). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Rogers, T. T., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Rogers, T. T., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2008). Precis of Semantic Cognition, a Parallel Distributed Processing Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 689-749.
76. Rosenblatt, F. (1961). Principles of neurodynamics. Washington, DC: Spartan Books.
77. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VI, pp. 573-603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In J. L. Mcclelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. I, pp. 318-362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
79. Rumelhart, D. E., & Mcclelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The context enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
80. Rumelhart, D. E., & Mcclelland, J. L. (1985). Levels indeed! A response to Broadbent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 193-197.
81. Rumelhart, D. E., & Mcclelland, J. L. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. Mcclelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. II, pp. 216-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Schapiro, A. C., & Mcclelland, J. L. (in press). A connectionist model of a continuous developmental transition in the balance scale task. Cognition, forthcoming.
83. Schöner, G. (2008). Dynamical systems approaches to cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 101-126). New York: Cambridge University Press.
84. Seidenberg, M. S., & Mcclelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
85. Shepard, R. N. (1987). Towards a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
86. Sibley, D. E., Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Large-scale modeling of wordform learning and representation. Cognitive Science, 32, 741-754.
87. Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481-520.
88. Simon, H. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
89. Simon, H. (1991). Models of my life. New York: Basic Books.
90. Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11 (1), 1-23. discussion: 23-74.
91. Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S. C., & Mcclelland, J. L. (Eds.) (2009). Toward a unified theory of development: connectionism and dynamic systems theory re-considered. New York: Oxford University Press.
92. Steels, L. (2007). Fifty years of AI: From symbols to embodiment-and back. In M. Lungarella, F. Iida, J. Bongard, & R. Pfeifer (Eds.), 50 Years of artificial intelligence, essays dedicated to the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence, LNAI 4850 (pp. 18-28). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
93. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
94. Sun, R. (2002). Duality of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
95. Sun, R. (2008). Introduction to computational cognitive modeling. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 3-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
96. Taatgen, N. A., & Anderson, J. A. (2008). Constraints in cognitive architectures. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 170-185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
97. Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24, 1-86.
98. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamics systems approach to the development of perception and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
99. Thomas, M. S. C., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2008). Connectionist models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 23-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
100. Usher, M., & Mcclelland, J. L. (2001). On the time course of perceptual choice: the leaky competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592.
101. Vallabha, G. K., Mcclelland, J. L., Pons, F., Werker, J., & Amano, S. (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 13273-13278.
102. Wason, F. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135-151). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
103. Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245-272.