sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive psychology, Cognitive revolution, Experimental psychology, Mental operations, Psychology

Cognitie

Mesulam M M 2000 Principles of Behaioral and Cognitie ism was concerned primarily with the of . Oxford University Press, New York associations, particularly in nonhuman species, and it Moody S L, Wise S P, di Pellegrino G, Zipser D 1998 A model constrained theorizing to –response notions. that accounts for activity in primate frontal cortex during a The overthrow of came not so much from delayed matching-to-sample task. Journal of Neuroscience 18(1): 399–410 within as from three ap- Olson C R, Gettner N 1995 Object-centered direction selectivity proaches external to the field. in the supplementary eye field of the macaque monkey. 269: 985–8 Petersen S E, Fox P T, Posner M I, Mintun M, Raichle M E 1988 Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical 1.1 Communications Research and the Information anatomy of single-word processing. Nature 331: 585–9 Processing Approach Pouget A, Deneve S, Sejnowski T J 1999 Frames of reference in During World War II, new and were hemineglect: A computational approach. Progress in developed about signal processing and communica- Research 121: 81–97 Rumelhart D E, McClelland J L, the PDP Research Group 1986 tion, and these ideas had a profound impact on Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Micro- active during the war years. One im- structure of . Vol. 1: Foundations. MIT Press, portant work was Shannon’s 1948 paper about Infor- Cambridge, MA mation . It proposed that information was Seidenberg M S, McClelland J L 1989 A distributed, devel- communicated by sending a signal through a sequence opmental model of word recognition and naming. Psycho- of stages or transformations. This suggested that logical Reiew 96: 523–68 and might be concep- Tanaka K 1996 Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual  tualized in a similar way: sensory information enters Re iew Neuroscience 19: 109–39 the receptors, then is fed into perceptual analyzers, Ungerleider L G, Mishkin M 1982 Two cortical visual systems. whose outputs in turn are input to memory systems. In: Ingle D J, Goodale M A, Mansfield R J W (eds.) Analysis of Visual Behaior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA This was the start of the ‘’ Wilson M A, McNaughton B L 1994 Reactivation of hippo- approach—the that cognition could be under- campal ensemble during sleep. Science 265: 676–9 stood as a flow of information within the organism, Zipser D, Andersen R A 1988 A back propagation programmed an idea that continues to dominate cognitive psy- network that simulates response properties of a subset of chology. posterior parietal . Nature 331: 679–84 Perhaps the first major theoretical effort in infor- mation processing psychology was Donald Broad- J. L. McClelland bent’s Perception and Communication (Broadbent 1958). According to Broadbent’s model, information output from the perceptual system encountered a filter, which passed only information to which people were attending. Although this notion of an all-or-none filter would prove too strong (Treisman 1960), it : offered a mechanistic account of selective , a that had been banished during behaviorism. Information that passed Broadbent’s filter then moved Since the beginning of in on to a ‘limited capacity decision channel,’ a system the nineteenth century, there had been interest in the that has some of the properties of short-term memory, study of mental processes. But something and from there on to long-term memory. This last part discontinuous happened in the late 1950s, something of Broadbent’s model—the transfer of information so dramatic that it is now referred to as the ‘cognitive from short- to long-term memory—became the salient ,’ and the view of mental processes that it point of the dual-memory models developed in the spawned is called ‘cognitive psychology.’ What hap- . pened was that American psychologists rejected be- Another aspect of that attracted haviorism and adopted a model of based on the ’s interest was a quantitative measure of computer. The brief history that follows (adapted in information in terms of ‘bits’ (roughly, the part from Hilgard (1987) and Kessel and Bevan (1985)) to the base 2 of the number of possible alternatives). In chronicles mainstream cognitive psychology from the a still widely cited paper, George Miller (1956) showed onset of the to the beginning of that the limits of short-term memory had little to do the twenty-first century. with bits. But along the way, Miller’s and others’ interest in the technical aspects of information theory and related work had fostered mathematical psy- 1. Beginnings chology, a subfield that was being fueled by other sources as well (e.g., Estes and Burke 1953, Luce 1959, From roughly the 1920s through the 1950s, American Garner 1962). Over the years, mathematical psychol- psychology was dominated by behaviorism. - ogy has frequently joined forces with the information

2140 Cognitie Psychology: History processing approach to provide precise claims about transformational would change the intel- memory, attention, and related processes. lectual landscape of , and usher in a new . Chomsky’s second publication (1959) was a review of Verbal Behaior, a book about learning by 1.2 The Computer Modeling Approach the then most respected behaviorist alive, B. F. Skinner Technical developments during World War II also led (Skinner 1957). Chomsky’s review is arguably one of to the development of digital computers. Questions the most significant documents in the history of soon arose about the comparability of computer and cognitive psychology. It aimed not merely to devastate human (Turing 1950). By 1957, Alan Skinner’s proposals about language, but to undermine Newell, J. C. Shaw, and Herb Simon had designed a behaviorism as a serious scientific approach to psy- computer program that could solve difficult chology. To some extent, it succeeded on both counts. problems, a domain previously to be the unique province of . Newell and Simon soon followed with programs that displayed general 1.4 An Approach Intrinsic to Psychology problem-solving skills much like those of humans, and argued that these programs offered detailed models of At least one source of modern cognitive psychology human (a classic summary is con- came from within the field. This approach had its roots tained in Newell and Simon (1972)). This work would in , and maintained its focus on the also help establish the field of artificial intelligence. higher mental processes. A signal event in this tra- Early on, cross-talk developed between the com- dition was the 1956 book A Study of Thinking,by puter modeling and information-processing ap- Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (Bruner et al. 1956). proaches, which crystallized in the 1960 book Plans The work investigated how people learn new concepts and the Structure of Behaior (Miller et al. 1960). The and categories, and it emphasized strategies of learning book showed that information-processing psychology rather than just associative relations. The proposals fit could use the theoretical language of computer model- perfectly with the information-processing approach— ing even if it did not actually lead to computer indeed, they were information processing proposals— programs. With the ‘bit’ having failed as a psycho- and offered still another to break from be- logical unit, information processing badly needed a haviorism. rigorous but rich means to represent psychological By the early 1960s all was in place. Behaviorism was information (without such representations, what on the wane in academic departments all over America exactly was being processed in the information proces- (it had never really taken strong root in Europe). sing approach?). Computer modeling supplied power- Psychologists interested in the information-processing ful ideas about representations (as data structures), as approach were moving into academia, and Harvard well as about processes that operate on these struc- University went so far as to establish a Center for tures. The resultant idea of human information pro- Cognitive Studies directed by and cessing as sequences of computational processes George Miller. The new view in psychology was operating on mental representations remains the information processing. It likened mind to a computer, cornerstone of modern cognitive psychology (see and emphasized the representations and processes e.g., Fodor 1975). needed to give rise to activities ranging from pattern recognition, attention, , memory, reas- oning, decision making, problem solving, and language. 1.3 The Generatie Linguistics Approach A third external influence that lead to the rise of modern cognitive psychology was the development of 2. The Growth of Cognitie Psychology in linguistics by . Two of Chomsky’s publications in the late 1950s had The 1960s brought progress in many of the above- a profound effect on the nascent cognitive psychology. mentioned topic areas, some of which are highlighted The first was his 1957 book below. (Chomsky 1957). It focused on the mental structures needed to represent the kind of linguistic knowledge that any competent speaker of a language must have. 2.1 Pattern Recognition Chomsky argued that associations per se, and even phrase structure , could not fully represent One of the first areas to benefit from the cognitive our knowledge of syntax (how words are organized revolution was pattern recognition, the study of how into phrases and sentences). What had to be added people perceive and recognize objects. The cognitive was a component capable of transforming one syn- approach provided a general two-stage view of object tactic structure into another. These proposals about recognition: (a) describing the input object in terms of

2141 Cognitie Psychology: History

Figure 1 (a) Part of a Collins and Quillian (1969) semantic network. Circles designate concepts and lines (arrows) between circles designate relations between concepts. There are two kinds of relations: subset–superset (‘Robin is a bird’) and property (e.g., ‘Robins can fly’). The network is strictly hierarchical, as properties are stored only at the highest level at which they apply. (b) Part of an Anderson and Bower (1973) propositional network. Circles represent concepts and lines between them labeled relations. All have a subject–predicate structure, and the network is not strictly hierarchical. (c) Part of a simplified connectionist network. Circles represent concepts, or parts of concepts, lines with arrowheads depict excitatory connections, and lines with filled circles designate inhibitory connections; typically numbers are put on the lines indicate the strength of the connections. The network is not strictly hierarchical, and is more interconnected than the preceding networks relatively primitive features (e.g., ‘it has two diagonal descriptions in , and selecting the best lines and one horizontal line connecting them’); and match as the of the input object (‘this (b) matching this object description to stored object description best matches the letter A’). This two-stage

2142 Cognitie Psychology: History view was not entirely new to psychology, but ex- that in STM reflected a loss of information pressing it in information-processing terms allowed from due to either decay or interference (e.g., one to connect empirical studies of object perception Wickelgren 1965), whereas some apparent losses of to computer models of the process. The psychologist information in LTM often reflected a temporary Ulrich Neisser (1964) used a computer model of failure in retrieval, (Tulving and Pearlstone 1966).To a pattern recognition (Selfridge 1959) to direct his large extent, these findings have held up during over 30 empirical studies and provided dramatic evidence that years of research, although many of the findings would an object could be matched to multiple visual mem- now be seen as more limited in scope (e.g., the findings ories in parallel. about STM are now seen as reflecting only one Other research indicated that the processing under- component of , e.g., Baddeley (1986), lying object perception could persist after the stimulus and the findings about LTM are seen as characterizing was removed. For this to happen, there had to be a only one of several LTM systems, e.g., Schacter visual memory of the stimulus. Evidence for such an (1987)). ‘iconic’ memory was supplied by Sperling in classic One of the most important innovations of 1960s in 1960 (Sperling 1960). Evidence for a research was the emphasis on reaction time as a comparable brief auditory memory was soon provided dependent measure. Because the focus was on the flow as well (e.g., Crowder and Morton 1969). Much of the of information, it made to characterize various work on object recognition and sensory memories was processes by their temporal extent. In a seminal paper integrated in Neisser’s influential 1967 book Cognitie in 1966, reported (Sternberg 1966) that Psychology (Neisser 1967). The book served as the first the time to retrieve an item from STM increased comprehensive statement of existing research in cog- linearly with the number of items in store, suggesting nitive psychology, and it gave the new field its name. that retrieval was based on a rapid scan of STM. Sternberg (1969) gave latency measures another boost when he developed the ‘additive factors’ method, which, given assumptions about serial processing, 2.2 Memory Models and Findings allowed one to attribute changes in reaction times to Broadbent’s model of attention and memory stimu- specific processing stages involved in the task (e.g., a lated the formulation of rival models in the 1960s. decrease in the perceptibility of information affected These models assumed that short-term memory (STM) the of information into STM but not its and long-term memory (LTM) were qualitatively storage and retrieval). These advances in ‘mental different structures, with information first entering chronometry’ quickly spread to areas other than STM and then being transferred to LTM (e.g., Waugh memory (e.g., Fitts and Posner 1967, see also and Norman 1965). The Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) Schneider and Shiffrin 1977). model proved particularly influential. With its em- phases on information flowing between memory stores, control processes regulating that flow, and 2.3 The New Psycholinguistics mathematical descriptions of these processes, the model was a quintessential example of the informa- Beginning in the early 1960s there was great interest in tion-processing approach. The model was related to determining the psychological reality of Chomsky’s various findings about memory. For example, when theories of language (these theories had been formu- people have to a long list of words they do best lated with listeners and speakers in mind). Some on the first words presented, a ‘primacy’ effect, and on of these linguistically inspired experiments presented the last few words presented, a ‘recency’ effect. Various sentences in perception and memory paradigms, and experiments indicated that the recency effect reflected showed that sentences deemed more syntactically retrieval from STM, whereas the primacy effect by were harder to reflected enhanced retrieval from LTM due to greater perceive or store (Miller 1962). Subtler experiments rehearsal for the first items presented (e.g., Murdock tried to show that syntactic units, like phrases, 1962, Glanzer and Cunitz 1966). At the time these functioned as units in perception, STM, and LTM results were seen as very supportive of dual-memory (Fodor et al. (1974) is the classic review). While many models (although alternative interpretations would of these results are no longer seen as critical, this soon be proposed—particularly by Craik and research effort created a new subfield of cognitive Lockhart 1972). psychology, a psycholinguistics that demanded soph- Progress during this period also involved empiri- istication in modern linguistic theory. cally determining the characteristics of encoding, Not all psycholinguistic studies focused on syntax. storage, and retrieval processes in STM and LTM. Some dealt with , particularly the represen- The results indicated that verbal material was encoded tation of the meanings of words, and a few of these and stored in a phonologic code for STM, but a more studies made use of the newly developed mental -based code for LTM (Conrad 1964, Kintsch chronometry. One that proved seminal and Buschke 1969). Other classic studies demonstrated was reported by Collins and Quillian (1969). Partici-

2143 Cognitie Psychology: History pants were asked simple questions about the meaning tions. Whereas the memory-for-language models de- of a word, such as ‘Is a robin a bird,’ and ‘Is a robin an scribed earlier had assumed representations that were animal?’; the greater the categorical difference between language-like, or propositional, other researchers ar- the two terms in a question, the longer it took to gued that representations could also be imaginal, like answer. These results were taken to support a model of a visual image. Shepard and Cooper (1972) provided semantic knowledge in which meanings were organ- evidence that people could mentally rotate their ized in a hierarchical network, e.g., the concept ‘robin’ representations of objects, and Kosslyn (1980) sur- is directly connected to the concept ‘bird,’ which in veyed numerous phenomena that further implicated turn is directly connected to the concept ‘animal,’ and visual imagery. In keeping with the interdisciplinari- information can flow from ‘robin’ to ‘animal’ only by ness of , AI researchers and philoso- going through ‘bird’ (see the top of Fig. 1). Models like phers entered the debate about propositional versus this were to proliferate in the next stage of cognitive imaginal representations (e.g., Block 1981, Pylyshyn psychology. 1981). In addition to questions about the modality of representations, there were concerns about the struc- ture of representations. While it had long been  assumed that propositional representations of objects 3. The Rise of Cogniti e Science were like definitions, researchers now proposed the representations were prototypes of the objects, fitting 3.1 Memory and Language some examples better than others (Tversky 1977, Mervis and Rosch 1981, Smith and Medin 1981). Early in the 1970s the fields of memory and language Again the issues sparked interest in disciplines other began to intersect. In 1973 John Anderson and than psychology (e.g., Lakoff 1987). Gordon Bower published Human Associatie Memory The cognitive science movement affected most areas (Anderson and Bower 1973), which presented a model of cognitive psychology, ranging from object rec- of memory for linguistic materials. The model com- ognition (Marr 1982) to reasoning (e.g., Johnson- bined information processing with recent develop- Laird 1983) to expertise in problem solving (e.g., ments in linguistics and artificial intelligence (AI), Chase and Simon 1973). The movement continues to thereby linking the three major research directions be influential and increasingly focuses on computa- that led to the cognitive revolution. The model used tional models of cognition. What has changed since its networks similar to that considered above to represent inception in the 1970s is the kind of computational semantic knowledge, and used memory-search pro- model in favor. cesses to interrogate these networks (see the middle of Fig. 1). The Anderson and Bower book was quickly followed by other large-scale theoretical efforts that 4. Newer Directions: and combined information processing, modern linguistics, Cognitie Neuroscience and computer models. These efforts included Kintsch (1974), which focused on memory for paragraphs rather than sentences, and Norman, Rumelhart, and 4.1 Connectionist Modeling the LNR Research Group (1975), Anderson (1976), The computer models that dominated cognitive psy- and Schank and Abelson (1977), which took a more chology from its inception used complex symbols as computer-science perspective and focused on stories representations, and processed these representations and other large linguistic units. in a rule-based fashion (for example, in a model of As psychologists became aware of related develop- object recognition, the representation for a frog might ments in linguistics and artificial intelligence, so consist of a conjunction of complex properties, and researchers in the latter disciplines become aware of the rule for recognition might look something like ‘If pertinent work in psychology. Thus evolved the it’s green, small, and croaks, it’s a frog’). Starting in interdisciplinary movement called ‘cognitive science.’ the early 1980s, an alternative kind of In addition to psychology, AI, and linguistics, the started to attract interest, namely ‘connectionist’ (or fields of cultural and of ‘parallel distributed processing’) models. These propo- mind also became involved. The movement eventuated sals have the form of neural networks, consisting of in numerous interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., nodes (representations) that are densely intercon- Rumelhart et al. 1986), as well as in individual nected, with the connections varying in strength (see psychologists becoming more interdisciplinary. the bottom of Fig. 1). In 1981 Hinton and Anderson published a book surveying then existent connectionist models (Hinton and Anderson 1981), and in the same year McClelland 3.2 Representational Issues and Rumelhart (1981) presented a connectionist model In the 1970s and early 1980s, cognitive science was of word recognition that explained a wide variety of much concerned with issues about mental representa- experimental results. The floodgates had been opened,

2144 Cognitie Psychology: History and connectionist models of perception, memory, and While many factors may have been responsible for language proliferated, to the point where they now the change in view, three be mentioned here. First, dominate computational approaches to cognition. the rise of connectionist models that were loosely Why the great appeal? One frequently cited reason is inspired by brain function had the side effect of neurological plausibility: the models are clearly closer increasing interest in what was known in detail about to brain function than are traditional rule-based brain function. Indeed, these two recent movements models. A second reason is that connectionist models have become increasingly intertwined as connectionist permit parallel constraint satisfaction: different sources models have increasingly incorporated findings from of activation can converge simultaneously on the same . Second, in the 1970s and 1980s representations or response. A third reason is that there were breakthroughs in systems-level neuro- connectionist models manifest graceful degradation: science that had implications for mainstream cognitive when the model is damaged, performance degrades psychology. As one example, research with neuro- slowly, much as is found in human neurological logical patients as well as with nonhuman species disorders (Rumelhart et al. 1986). established that structures in the medial temporal lobe From a historical viewpoint, there is an ironic aspect were essential for the formation of memories that about the ascendancy of connectionist models. Such could serve as the basis for recall (‘’), models return to the pure that charac- but not for other kinds of ‘implicit memories’ (e.g., terized behaviorism. While connectionist models Schacter 1987, Squire 1992). As another example, hardly fit with all behaviorist dictums—their repre- research with nonhuman primates showed that two sentations are not restricted to stimuli and responses, distinct systems were involved in the early stages of and they routinely assume massively parallel pro- : a ‘where’ system that is responsible cessing—still their reliance on associations runs coun- for spatial localization, and a ‘what’ system that is ter to Chomsky’s arguments that sheer associationism responsible for recognition of the object (e.g., cannot explain language (Chomsky 1957, 1959). This Ungerleider and Mishkin 1982). Both of these dis- issue has formed part of the basis for critiques of coveries had major implications for the cognitive level connectionist models (e.g., Fodor and Pylyshyn 1988). of analyses, e.g., computational models of object Newell (1990), one of the founders of traditional recognition or memory would do well to divide the computational models, suggested a plausible resol- labor into separate subsystems. ution: lower-level cognitive processes like object rec- The third factor responsible for the rise of cognitive ognition may be well modeled by connectionist neuroscience is methodological: the development of models, but higher-level cognitive processes like techniques that produce maps of neural reasoning and language may require traditional sym- activity while the brain is performing some cognitive bolic modeling. task. One major technique is positron emission tom- ography (PET). In 1988, Michael Posner, , and colleagues used PET in a ground- 4.2 Cognitie Neuroscience breaking experiment to localize neurally different The other major new direction in cognitive psychology subprocesses of reading—PET images obtained while is the growing interest in the neural bases of cognition, participants looked at words showed activated regions a movement referred to as ‘cognitive neuroscience.’ in the posterior temporal cortex; images obtained There had been little interest in biological work in the while participants read the words revealed additional research that brought about the cognitive revolution. regions activated in the motor cortex; and images That early work was as much concerned with fighting obtained while participants generated constrained behaviorism as it was with advancing cognitive psy- associations to the words revealed still additional chology, and consequently much of the research fo- regions in frontal areas (Posner et al. 1988). PET cused on higher-level processes and was completely analyses of object recognition, memory, and language removed from anything going on in the neurobiology soon followed. A more recent technique is functional of its day. Subsequent generations of cognitive psy- magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). It is now being chologists solidified their commitments to a purely used to study virtually every domain of human cognitive level of analyses, by arguing that the dist- cognition. inction between cognitive and neural levels of analyses was analogous to that between computer software and hardware, and that cognitive psychology (and cog- 5. Conclusion nitive science) was concerned primarily with the soft- ware. Since the early 1990s, views about the impor- This article has given short shrift to important contri- tance of neural analyses have changed dramatically. butions that tend to fall off the mainstream of cognitive There is a growing consensus that the standard psychology. One such case is the work done by Dan information processing analyses of cognition can be Kahneman and (e.g., Kahneman and substantially enlightened by knowing how cognition is Tversky 1973, Tversky and Kahneman 1983) on the implemented in the brain. use of in decision making, which can result

2145 Cognitie Psychology: History in deviations from rational behavior. Another example Kahneman D, Tversky A 1973 Psychology of prediction. is the cognitively inspired study of memory and Psychological Reiew 80: 237–51 language deficits in neurological patients (Shallice Kessel F S, Bevan W 1985 Notes toward a history of cognitive (1988) provides a review). There are other cases like psychology. In: Buxton C E (ed.) Points of View in the Modern . Academic Press, New York these which deserve a prominent place in a fuller Kintsch W 1974 The Representation of Meaning in Memory. history of cognitive psychology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Kintsch W, Buschke H 1969 Homophones and synonyms in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 80: 403–7 Bibliography Kosslyn S M 1980 Image and Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Anderson J R 1976 Language, Memory, and Thought. Erlbaum, Lakoff G 1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Hillsdale, NJ Categories Reeal About the Mind. University of Chicago  Anderson J R, Bower G H 1973 Human Associati e Memory. Press, Chicago Winston, Washington, DC Luce R D 1959 Indiidual Behaior: a Theoretical Atkinson R C, Shiffrin R M 1968 Human memory: a proposed Analysis. Wiley, New York system and its control processes. In: Spence K, Spence J (eds.) Marr D 1982 Vision: a Computational Inestigation into the  The Psychology of Learning and Moti ation. Academic Press, Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Diego, CA, Vol. 2 Freeman, San Francisco Baddeley A D 1986 Working Memory. Oxford University Press, McClelland J L, Rumelhart D E 1981 An interactive activation Oxford, UK model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of Block N J 1981 Imagery. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA basic findings. Psychological Reiew 88: 375–407 Broadbent D E 1958 Perception and Communication. Pergamon, Miller G A 1956 The magical number seven, plus or minus two: New York some limits on our capacity for processing information. Bruner J S, Goodnow J J, Austin G A 1956 A Study of Thinking. Psychological Reiew 63: 81–97 Wiley, New York Miller G A et al. 1960 Plans and the Structure of Behaior. Holt, Chase W G, Simon H A 1973 Perception in . Cognitie New York Psychology 4: 55–81 Miller G A 1962 Some psychological studies of grammar. Chomsky N 1957 Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague, American Psychologist 17: 748–62 The Netherlands Murdock Jr B B 1962 The serial position effect in the recall. Chomsky N 1959 Review of B F Skinner’s Verbal Behaior. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64: 482–8 Language 35: 26–58 Neisser U 1964 Visual Search. Scientific American 210: 94–102 Collins A M, Quillian R M 1969 Retrieval time from semantic Neisser U 1967 Cognitie Psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaior 8: New York 240–7 Neisser U 1968 The processes of vision. Scientific American 219: Conrad R 1964 Acoustic confusions in immediate memory. 204–14 British Journal of Psychology 55: 75–84 Newell A 1990 Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Craik F I, Lockhart R S 1972 Levels of processing: a framework Press, Cambridge, MA for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Newell A, Shaw J C, Simon H A 1958 Elements of a theory of Behaior 11: 671–84 human problem solving. Psychological Reiew 65: 151–66 Crowder R G, Morton J 1969 Precategorical acoustic storage Newell A, Simon H A 1972 Human Problem Soling. Prentice- (PAS). Perception and . 5: 365–73 Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Estes W K, Burke C J 1953 A theory of stimulus variability in Norman D A, Rumelhart D E, and the LNR Research learning. Psychological Reiew 60: 276–86 Group1975 Explorations in Cognition. Freeman, San Fran- Fitts P M, Posner M I 1967 Human Performance. Brooks\Cole, cisco Belmont, CA Posner M I, Petersen S E, Fox P T, Raichle M E 1988 Localiza- Fodor J A 1975 The Language of Thought. Crowell, New York tion of cognitive operations in the . Science 240: Fodor J A, Bever T G, Garrett M F 1974 The Psychology of 1627–31 Language: an Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generatie Pylyshyn Z W 1981 The imagery debate: analogue media versus Grammar. McGraw-Hill, New York tacit knowledge. Psychological Reiew 88: 16–45 Fodor J A, Pylyshyn Z W 1988 Connectionism and cognitive Rosch E, Mervis C B 1981 Categorization of natural objects. architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28: 3–71 Annual Reiew of Psychology 32: 89–115 Garner W R 1962 and Structure as Psychological Rumelhart D E, Hinton G E, Williams R J 1986 Learning Concepts. Wiley, New York representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323: Glanzer M, Cunitz A R 1966 Two storage mechanisms in free 533–6 recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaior 5: Rumelhart D E, McClelland J L, PDP Research Group 1986 351–60 Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Micro- Hilgard E R 1987 Psychology in America: a Historical Surey. structure of Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, San Diego, CA Schacter D L 1987 : history and current status. Hinton G E, Anderson J A 1981 Parallel Models of Associatie Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Memory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Cognition 13: 501–18 Johnson-Laird P N 1983 Mental Models: Towards a Cognitie Schank R C, Abelson R P 1977 Scripts, Plans, Goals and Science of Language, , and . Cambridge : an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. University Press, Cambridge, MA Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

2146 Cognitie Psychology: Oeriew

Schneider W, Shiffrin R M 1977 Controlled and automatic within the boundaries of the field of Cognitive Psy- human information processing: I. Detection, search, and chology. Second, the term alludes to the fact that  attention. Psychological Re iew 84: 1–66 cognitive psychologists attempt to explain intelligent Selfridge O G 1959 Pandemonium: A for Learning. by reference to a cognitie system that The Mechanization of Thought Processes. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London intervenes between environmental input and behavior. Selfridge O G, Neisser U 1960 Pattern recognition by machine. The second meaning of Cognitive Psychology thus Scientific American 203: 60–8 refers to a of assumptions governing the operations Shallice T 1988 From to Mental Structure. of the proposed cognitive system. Third, Cognitive Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Psychology means a particular methodological ap- Shannon C E 1948 A mathematical theory of communication. proach to studying, that is, to empirically addressing Bells Systems Technical Journal 27: 379–423, 623–56 potential explanations of human behavior. The two Shannon C E, Weaver W 1949 The Mathematical Theory of latter meanings of Cognitive Psychology are discussed Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL in some depth below, after a very brief consideration Shepard R N, Cooper L A 1972 Mental Images and their Transformations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA of the scope of modern Cognitive Psychology and its Skinner B F 1957 Verbal Behaior. Appleton-Century-Crofts, historical roots. New York Smith E E, Medin D L 1981 Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA  Sperling G 1960 The information available in brief visual 2. The Scope of Cogniti e Psychology presentations. Psychological Monographs 77(3, no. 478) At present, Cognitive Psychology is a broad field Squire L R 1992 Memory and the : A synthesis from findings with , monkeys, and humans. Psychological concerned with many different topic areas, such as, for Reiew 99(2): 195–231 instance, human memory, perception, attention, pat- Sternberg S 1966 High-speed scanning in human memory. tern recognition, consciousness, neuroscience, rep- Science 153: 652–4 resentation of knowledge, , Sternberg S 1969 The discovery of processing stages: extensions language, and thinking. The common denominator of of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica 30: 276–315 these phenomena appears to be that all of the Treisman A M 1960 Contextual cues in selective listening. phenomena reflect the operation of ‘intelligence’ in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12: 242–8 one way or another, at least if intelligence is broadly Tulving E, Pearlstone Z 1966 Availability versus accessibility of defined as skill of an indiidual to act purposefully, information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning  think rationally, and interact efficiently with the en- and Verbal Beha ior 5: 381–91  Turing A M 1950 Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind ironment. Thus, at a general level, Cognitive Psy- 59: 433–60 chology is concerned with explaining the structure and Tversky A 1977 Features of similarity. Psychological Reiew 84: of intelligence as well as its be- 327–52 havioral manifestations. Tversky A, Kahneman D 1983 Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction in probability judgment. Psychological Reiew 90: 293–315 Ungerleider L G, Mishkin M 1982 Two cortical visual systems. 3. Historical Roots of Cognitie Psychology In: Engle D J, Goodale M A, Mansfield R J (eds.) Analysis of Visual Behaior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 549–86 Waugh N C, Norman D A 1965 Primary memory. Psychological 3.1 The Term Cognitie Psychology Reiew 72: 89–104 Wickelgren W A 1965 Acoustic similarity and intrusion errors in The term Cognitive Psychology (: cognoscere; short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 70: greek: gignoskein l to know, perceive) is rather 102–8 young. Although we do find the related term ‘cog- nition’ mentioned occasionally in the psychologies of E. E. Smith the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (e.g., James, Spence, Wundt) where it denoted the basic Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. elements of consciousness and their combinations, the All rights reserved. present meanings of the term cognitive psychology owe little to the early theoretical and philosophical considerations of the human mind. Rather, the current Cognitive Psychology: Overview modern meanings of the term owe much more to (a) the fact that the study of cognition emerged in 1. Meanings of the Term ‘Cognitie Psychology’ opposition to the prevailing behavioristic view in the 1940s and 1950s that was trying to explain human Cognitive Psychology has at least three different behavior primarily in terms of its antecedent en- meanings. First, the term refers to ‘a simple collection vironmental conditions, and to (b) the availability of of topic areas,’ that is, of behaviorally observable or both new theoretical concepts (e.g., information the- theoretically proposed phenomena that are studied ory [Shannon], [Wiener],

2147

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral ISBN: 0-08-043076-7