The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 672-688

  Wang, Zheng ^a   Busemeyer, Jerome R ^b   Atmanspacher, Harald ^c   Pothos, Emmanuel M ^d  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology   (Germany)

^d CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Classical probability; Cognitive process; Compatibility; Entanglement; Non Boolean logic; Quantum probability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSICAL PROBABILITY; COGNITION; COGNITIVE PROCESS; COMPATIBILITY; ENTANGLEMENT; HUMAN; LOGIC; METHODOLOGY; NON-BOOLEAN LOGIC; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; QUANTUM PROBABILITY; QUANTUM THEORY; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

CLASSICAL PROBABILITY; COGNITIVE PROCESS; COMPATIBILITY; ENTANGLEMENT; NON-BOOLEAN LOGIC; QUANTUM PROBABILITY;

COGNITION; COGNITIVE SCIENCE; HUMANS; LOGIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY THEORY; QUANTUM THEORY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84885481331     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12043     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Aerts, D., Durt, T., Grib, A., Van Bogaert, B., & Zapatrin, A. (1993). Quantum structures in macroscopical reality. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 32, 489-498.
2. Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1994). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science, 1, 85-97.
3. Aerts, D., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013). Concepts and their dynamics: A quantumtheoretic modeling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
4. Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 314-348.
5. Ariely, D., & Norton, M. I. (2008). How actions create - not just reveal - preferences. Trends in Cognitive sciences, 12, 13-16.
6. Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Römer, H. (2004). Quantum Zeno features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics, 90, 33-40.
7. Atmanspacher, H., & Filk, T. (2010). A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 314-321.
8. Atmanspacher, H., & Filk, T. (2013). The Necker-Zeno model for bistable perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
9. Atmanspacher, H., & Römer, H. (2012). Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 274-280.
10. Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32, 379-406.
11. Beck, F., & Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89, 11357-11361.
12. beim Graben, P., & Atmanspacher, H. (2006). Complementarity in classical dynamical systems. Foundations of Physics, 36, 291-306.
13. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195-200.
14. Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823-843.
15. Blutner, R. (2009). Concepts and bounded rationality: An application of Niestegge's approach to conditional quantum probabilities. In L. Accardi, G. Adenier, C. Fuchs, G. Jaeger, A. Y. Khrennikov, J.-Å. Larsson, & S. Stenholm (Eds.), Foundations of probability and physics-5 (pp. 302-310). New-York: American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings.
16. Blutner, Pothos, & Bruza (2013). A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
17. Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature (Supplement), 121, 580-590.
18. Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Wiley.
19. Born, M. (1926). Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. Zeitschrift für Physik, 38, 803-827.
20. Bordley, R., & Kadane, J. B. (1999). Experiment-dependent priors in psychology. Theory and Decision, 47, 213-227.
21. Bordley, R. (1998). Quantum mechanical and human violations of compound probability principles: Toward a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Operations Research, 46, 923-926.
22. Brainerd, C., Wang, Z., & Reyna, V. (2013). Superposition of episodic memories: Overdistribution and quantum models. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
23. Bruza, P. D., Busemeyer, J., & Gabora, L. (2009a). Introduction to the special issue on quantum cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 303-305.
24. Bruza, P. D., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2009b). Is there something quantum like in the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 362-377.
25. Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Busemeyer, J. R., Matthew, M. R., & Wang, Z. (2006a). A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In R. Sun, & N. Miyake (Eds.), The 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society & the 5th International Conference of the Cognitive Science (pp. 131-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review, 118, 193-218.
28. Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. (2010). Quantum probability applied to social and behavioral sciences. In C. Rangacharyulu, & E. Haven (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Interdisciplinary CHESS Interactions Conference (pp. 115-126). Singapore: World Scientific.
29. Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. (2007). Quantum information processing explanation for interactions between inferences and decisions. In P. D. Bruza, W. Lawless, K. van Rijsbergen, & D. A. Sofge (Eds.), Quantum interaction, AAAI Spring Symposium, technical report, SS-07-08 (pp. 91-97). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
30. Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2009). Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 423-433.
31. Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006b). Quantum dynamics of human decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220-241.
32. Carlson, B. W., & Yates, J. F. (1989). Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 368-379.
33. Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L., & Zbilut, J. P. (2009). Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 16, 1-17.
34. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777-780.
35. Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is "special" about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
36. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435.
37. Filk, T., & von Müller, A. (2009). Quantum physics and consciousness: The quest for a common conceptual foundation. Mind and Matter, 7, 59-79.
38. Fuss, I., & Navarro, D. (2013). Open, parallel, cooperative and competitive decision processes: A potential provenance for quantum probability decision models. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
39. Gabora, L., & Aerts, D. (2002). Contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 327-358.
40. Gabora, L., & Aerts, D. (2009). A mathematical model of the emergence of an integrated worldview. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 434-451.
41. Gavanski, I., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1991). Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 181-194.
42. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Griffiths, R. B. (2003). Consistent quantum theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Hameroff, S. R., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3, 36-53.
45. Heisenberg, W. (1927). Ueber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik and Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172-198.
46. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.
47. Holton, G. (1970). The roots of complementarity. Daedalus, 99(4), 1015-1055.
48. Hughes, R. I. G. (1989). The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. James, W. (1890a). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
50. James, W. (1890b). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Holt.
51. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Khrennikov, A. Y. (1999). Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive, psychological, social, and anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 29, 1065-1098.
53. Khrennikov, A. Y. (2010). Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance. Berlin: Springer.
54. Khrennikov, A. Y., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 378-388.
55. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1933). Foundations of the theory of probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing.
56. Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S., & Zwirn, H. (2009). Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT (Kahneman-Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 349-361.
57. LaMura, P. (2009). Projective expected utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 408-414.
58. Leggett, A. J., & Garg, A. (1985). Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the ux there when nobody looks? Physical Review Letters, 54, 857-860.
59. Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 748-768.
60. Murdoch, D. (1987). Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. Murray, F. J., & von Neumann, J. (1936). On rings of operators. Annals of Mathematics, 37(1), 116-229.
62. Murray, F. J., & von Neumann, J. (1937). On rings of operators II. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 41(2), 208-248.
63. Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 80-91.
64. Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., & Pointer, L. (2003). Spreading activation or spooky action at a distance? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 42-52.
65. Niestegge, G. (2008). An approach to quantum mechanics via conditional probablities. Foundations of Physics, 38, 241-256.
66. Payne, J., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
67. Rosenblum, B., & Kuttner, F. (2006). Qunatum enigma. New York: Oxford University Press.
68. Stapp, H. P. (1993). Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. New York: Springer.
69. Pais, A. (1991). Niels Bohr's times: In physics, philosophy and polity. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
70. Peres, A. (1998). Quantum theory: Concepts and methods. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
71. Primas, H. (2007). Non-Boolean descriptions of mind-matter systems. Mind and Matter, 5, 7-44.
72. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability model explanation for violations of "rational" decision making. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276(1665), 2171-2178.
73. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 36, 255-274.
74. Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 555-563.
75. Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25, 638-656.
76. Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.) (1992). Context effects in social and psychological research. NewYork: Springer Verlag.
77. Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21, 1231-1235.
78. Trueblood, J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518-1552.
79. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
80. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
81. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjuctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
82. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305-309.
83. Vitiello, G. (1995). Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 9, 973-989.
84. von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
85. von Neumann, J. (1962). Logic, theory of sets and quantum mechanics. A. H. Taub (Ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
86. Vedral, V. (2008). Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems. Nature, 453, 1004-1007.
87. Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4).
88. Wedell, D. H., & Moro, R. (2008). Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition, 107, 105-136.
89. Wenger, M. J., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Faces as gestalt stimuli: Process characteristics. In M. J. Wenger & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition (pp. 229-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
90. Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2009). Processing information in quantum decision theory. Entropy, 11, 1073-1120.