An Integrated Theory of the Mind

1. Psychological Review, 2004, Vol. 111, No. 4, 1036-1060 An Integrated Theory of the Mind John R. Anderson and Daniel Bothell Michael D. Byrne Lim, Soo Yong

2. Contents • Introduction • The ACT-R 5.0 Architecture • The Perceptual-Motor System • The Goal Module • The Declarative Module • Procedural Memory • Putting It All Together: The Effects of Instruction and Practice in a Dynamic Task • Putting It All Together: Tracking Multiple Buffers in an fMRI Study

3. 1. Introduction • There has been a move toward viewing the mind as consisting of a set of specialized components. • “How is it all put back together?” • Newell (1990) argued for cognitive architectures that would explain how all the components of the mind worked to produce coherent cognition – Soar system • John R. Anderson et al. - ACT-R is best hypothesis about the architecture. • The goal of this article • To describe how cognition is integrated in the ACT-R theory • This article develops two advantages • producing a theory that is capable of attacking real-world problems • producing a theory that is capable of integrating the mass of data from cognitive neuroscience methods like brain imaging

4. 2. The ACT-R 5.0 Architecture

5. 3. The Perceptual-Motor System • ACT-R historically was focused on higher level cognition and not perception or action. • However, this division of labor tends to lead to a treatment of cognition that is totally abstracted from the perceptual-motor systems, and there is reason to suppose that the nature of cognition is strongly determined by its perceptual and motor processes. • The primary difference between ACT-R’s perceptual-motor machinery and EPIC’s • Visual System • ACT-R : visual-location module and visual-object module • the fixed-time approximation : 185ms • Salvucci’s (2001) EMMA (Eye Movements and Movement of Attention)

6. 3. The Perceptual-Motor System (Cont’) • Schumacheret al. (1997) • An instance of perfect time sharing

7. 4. The Goal Module • The goal module has this responsibility of keeping track of what these intentions are so that behavior will serve that goal. • the Towerof Hanoi task – Subgoals • Imaginal Module

8. 5. The Declarative Module • Activation theory • Behavior is controlled by a set of equations and parameters

9. 5. The Declarative Module (Cont’) • The Fan Effect • Sji = S – ln (fanj) • A hippie is in the park. • A hippie is in the store. • A doctor is in the park. • A fireman is in the bank. • ⁞

10. 6. Procedural Memory • At any point in time multiple production rules might apply, only one can be selected, and this is the one with the highest utility. • seriality in production rule execution • Production Compilation (Pair Test) • “Vanilla – 7” “Bank – 0” • “Jack – 6” “Xray – 8”

11. 7. Putting It All Together: The Effects of Instruction and Practice in a Dynamic Task • We now turn to discussing how they work together to contribute to modeling complex real-world tasks. • The Dynamic Task: The Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (AAWC)

12. 7. Putting It All Together: The Effects of Instruction and Practice in a Dynamic Task (Cont’) • The Dynamic Task: The Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (AAWC)

13. 7. Putting It All Together: The Effects of Instruction and Practice in a Dynamic Task (Cont’) • The Dynamic Task: The Anti-Air Warfare Coordinator (AAWC)

14. 8. Putting It All Together: Tracking Multiple Buffers in an fMRI Study • One of the goals of this research is to find neural anchors for the concepts in the ACT–R model. • ②P③4 ↔ ②5. – 0 trans • ②P ↔ ②5②4. – 1 trans • P ↔ ③5③4. – 2 trans motor area - manual posterior parietal lobe - imaginal Prefrontal region - retrieval

15. 8. Putting It All Together: Tracking Multiple Buffers in an fMRI Study

16. 9. General Discussion • The ACT–R architecture is incomplete. • It is missing certain modules. • Although the analysis in ACT–R is certainly neither complete nor totally correct, we close with review of the answer it gives to how cognition is integrated.

17. Q & A ? Q & A