Modeling paradigms in ACT-R

Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 29-52

  Taatgen, Niels ^a   Lebiere, Christian ^b   Anderson, John ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Micro Analysis and Design ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928302844     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511610721.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill ac- quisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 288-318.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Anderson, J. R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components ofthought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060.
5. Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1999). Practice and retention: A uni- fying analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25,1120-1136.
6. Anderson, J. R., & Schooler, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396-408.
7. Anderson, J. R., Taatgen, N. A., & Byrne, M. D. (in press). Learning to achieve perfect time sharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, & Ivry (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
8. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209-231.
9. Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108, 847-869.
10. Daily, L. Z., Lovett, M. C., & Reder, L. M. (1999). A computational model of individual differences in working memory capacity. Cognitive Science, 25, 315-353.
11. Gobet, F., & Ritter, F. E. (2000). Individual data analysis and unified theories of cognition: A methodological proposal. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Modelling (pp. 150-157). Veenendaal, The Netherlands: Universal Press.
12. Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. (2003). Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 591-635.
13. Lebiere, C., Anderson, J. R., & Bothell, D. (2001). Multi-tasking and cognitive work- load in an ACT-R model of a simplified air traffic control task. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavior Representation. Norfolk, VA.
14. Lebiere, C., & Wallach, D. (2001). Sequence learning in the ACT-R cognitive archi- tecture: Empirical analysis of a hybrid model. In R. Sun & C. L. Gilles (Eds.)., Sequence learning: Paradigms, algorithms, and applications (pp. 188-212). Berlin: Spinger Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
15. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
16. Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection. Cognitive Psychol- ogy, 31,168-217.
17. Lovett, M. C., Reder, L. M., & Lebiere, C. (1999). Modeling working memory in a unified architecture: An ACT-R perspective. In A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms ofactive maintenance and executive long-term memory activation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance. Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 2-65.
19. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1997). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-taskperformance. Paper presented at the 38th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, PA.
21. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101-108.
22. Taatgen, N. A. (2002). A model of individual differences in skill acquisition in the Kanfer-Ackerman Air Traffic Control Task. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(1), 103-112.
23. Taatgen, N. A., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Why do children learn to say –broke—? A model of learning the past tense without feedback. Cognition, 86(2), 123-155.
24. Taatgen, N. A., & Lee, F. J. (2003). Production compilation: A simple mechanism to model complex skill acquisition. Human Factors, 45(1), 61-76.
25. Taatgen, N. A., & Wallach, D. (2002). Whether skill acquisition is rule or instance based is determined by the structure of the task. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(2), 163-204.
26. van Rijn, H., van Someren, M., & van der Maas, H. (2003). Modeling developmental transitions on the balance scale task. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 227-257.
27. Zbrodoff, N. J. (1995). Why is 9 + 7 harder than 2 + 3? Strength and interference as explanations of the problem-size effect. Memory & Cognition, 23(6), 689-700.