DOCSLIB.ORG

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS and COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES Systems May Be More Easily Developed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COGNITIVE SYSTEMS and COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES Systems May Be More Easily Developed C COGNITIVE SYSTEMS AND COGNITIVE The eventual objective of cognitive systems research is to ARCHITECTURES construct physically instantiated cognitive systems that can perceive, understand, and interact with their environ- INTRODUCTION ment, and evolve and learn to achieve human-like perfor- mance in complex activities (often requiring context- Cognitive systems refer to computational models and sys- specific knowledge). The readers may look into Refs. 1–4 tems that are in some way inspired by human (or animal) for further information. cognition as we understand it, which is a broad class of systems, not always well defined or clearly delineated. COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES There are a variety of forms of cognitive systems. They have been developed for a variety of different purposes and In this section, we describe cognitive architectures. First, in a variety of different ways. We will describe two broad the question of what a cognitive architecture is is answered. categories below. Next, the importance of cognitive architectures is In general, computational cognitive modeling explores addressed. Then an example cognitive architecture is pre- the essence of cognition through developing computational sented. models of mechanisms (including representations) and processes of cognition, thereby producing realistic cognitive What is a Cognitive Architecture? systems. In this enterprise, a cognitive architecture is a domain-generic and comprehensive computational cogni- As mentioned earlier, a cognitive architecture is a compre- tive model that may be used for a wide range of analysis of hensive computational cognitive model, which is aimed to behavior. It embodies generic descriptions of cognition in capture the essential structure and process of the mind, and computer algorithms and programs. Its function is to pro- can be used for a broad, multiple-level, multiple-domain vide a general framework to facilitate more detailed compu- analysis of behavior (5,6). tatonal modeling and understanding of various compo- Let us explore this notion of architecture with an ana- nents and processes of the mind. Cognitive architectures logy. The architecture for a building consists of its overall occupy a particularly important place among all kinds of framework and its overall design, as well as roofs, founda- cognitive systems, as they aim to capture all basic struc- tions, walls, windows, floors, and so on. Furniture and tures and processes of the mind, and therefore are essential appliances can be easily rearranged and/or replaced and for broad, multiple-level, multiple-domain analyses of therefore they are not part of the architecture. By the same behavior. Developing cognitive architectures has been a token, a cognitive architecture includes overall structures, difficult task. In this article, the importance of developing essential divisions of modules, essential relations between cognitive architectures, among other cognitive systems, modules, basic representations and algorithms within mod- will be discussed, and examples of cognitive architectures ules, and a variety of other aspects (2,7). In general, an will be given. architecture includes those aspects of a system that are Another common approach toward developing cognitive relatively invariant across time, domains, and individuals. systems is the logic-based approach. From the logical It deals with componential processes of cognition in a point of view, a cognitive system is first and foremost a structurally and mechanistically well-defined way. system that, through time, adopts and manages certain In relation to understanding the human mind (i.e., in attitudes toward propositions, and reasons over these pro- relation to cognitive science), a cognitive architecture pro- positions, to perform the actions that will secure certain vides a concrete framework for more detailed computa- desired ends. The most important propositional attitudes tional modeling of cognitive phenomena. Research in are believes that and knows that. (Our focus herein will be computational cognitive modeling explores the essence of on the latter. Other propositional attitudes include wants cognition and various cognitive functionalities through that and hopes that.) A propositional attitude is simply a developing detailed, process-based understanding by spe- relationship holding between an agent (or system) and one cifying corresponding computational models of mechan- or more propositions, where propositions are declarative isms and processes. It embodies descriptions of cognition statements. in concrete computer algorithms and programs. Therefore, We can think of a cognitive system’s life as being a it produces runnable computational models of cognitive cycle of sensing, reasoning, acting; sensing, reasoning, processes. Detailed simulations are then conducted based acting; ..., and so on. In a cognitive system, this cycle on the computational models. In this enterprise, a cognitive repeats ad infinitum, presumably with goal after goal architecture may be used for broad, multiple-level, achieved along the way. In a logic-based cognitive system, multiple-domain analyses of cognition. the knowledge at the heart of this cycle is represented as In relation to building intelligent systems, a cognitive formulas in one or more logics, and the reasoning in architecture specifies the underlying infrastructure for question is also regimented by these logics. intelligent systems, which includes a variety of capabilities, modules, and subsystems. On that basis, application 1 2 COGNITIVE SYSTEMS AND COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES systems may be more easily developed. A cognitive archi- of a task (as often happens with specialized, narrowly tecture also carries with it theories of cognition and under- scoped models), that is, to generate explanations of a deeper standing of intelligence gained from studying human kind. To describe a task in terms of available mechanisms cognition. Therefore, the development of intelligent sys- and processes of a cognitive architecture is to generate tems can be more cognitively grounded, which may be explanations centered on primitives of cognition as advantageous in many circumstances (1,2). envisioned in the cognitive architecture (e.g., ACT-R or Existing cognitive architectures include Soar (8), ACT-R CLARION), and therefore such explanations are deeper (9), CLARION (6), and many others. explanations. Because of the nature of such deeper expla- For further (generic) information about cognitive archi- nations, this style of theorizing is also more likely to lead to tectures, the readers may turn to the following websites: unified explanations for a large variety of data and/or phenomena, because potentially a large variety of tasks, http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun/arch.html data, and phenomena can be explained on the basis of the http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309060966 same set of primitives provided by the same cognitive as well as the following websites for specific individual architecture. Therefore, using cognitive architectures cognitive architectures (Soar, ACT-R, and CLARION): leads to comprehensive theories of the mind (5,6,9), unlike using more specialized, narrowly scoped models. http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~rsun/clarion.html Although the importance of being able to reproduce the http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/ nuances of empirical data from specific psychological http://sitemaker.umich.edu/soar/home experiments is evident, broad functionality in cognitive architectures is also important (9), as the human mind needs to deal with the full cycle that includes all of the Why are Cognitive Architectures Important? following: transducing signals, processing them, storing them, representing them, manipulating them, and gener- For cognitive science, the importance of cognitive architec- ating motor actions based on them. There is clearly a need tures lies in the fact that they are beneficial to understand- to develop generic models of cognition that are capable of a ing the human mind. In understanding cognitive wide range of functionalities to avoid the myopia often phenomena, the use of computational simulation on the resulting from narrowly-scoped research (in psychology basis of cognitive architectures forces one to think in terms in particular). of process and in terms of detail. Instead of using vague, In all, cognitive architectures are believed to be essential purely conceptual theories, cognitive architectures force in advancing the understanding of the mind (5,6,9). There- theoreticians to think clearly. They are, therefore, critical fore, developing cognitive architectures is an important tools in the study of the mind. Researchers who use cogni- enterprise in cognitive science. tive architectures must specify a cognitive mechanism in On the other hand, for the fields of artificial intelligence sufficient detail to allow the resulting models to be imple- and computational intelligence (AI/CI), the importance of mented on computers and run as simulations. This cognitive architectures lies in the fact that they support the approach requires that important elements of the models central goal of AI/CI—building artificial systems that are as be spelled out explicitly, thus aiding in developing better, capable as human beings. Cognitive architectures help us conceptually clearer theories. It is certainly true that more to reverse engineer the best existing intelligent system— specialized, narrowly scoped models may also serve this the human mind. They constitute a solid basis for building purpose,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ouroboros Model, Proposal for Self-Organizing General Cognition Substantiated
    Opinion The Ouroboros Model, Proposal for Self-Organizing General Cognition Substantiated Knud Thomsen Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen-PSI, Switzerland; [email protected] Abstract: The Ouroboros Model has been proposed as a biologically-inspired comprehensive cog- nitive architecture for general intelligence, comprising natural and artificial manifestations. The approach addresses very diverse fundamental desiderata of research in natural cognition and also artificial intelligence, AI. Here, it is described how the postulated structures have met with supportive evidence over recent years. The associated hypothesized processes could remedy pressing problems plaguing many, and even the most powerful current implementations of AI, including in particular deep neural networks. Some selected recent findings from very different fields are summoned, which illustrate the status and substantiate the proposal. Keywords: biological inspired cognitive architecture; deep neural networks; auto-catalytic genera- tion; self-reflective control; efficiency; robustness; common sense; transparency; trustworthiness 1. Introduction The Ouroboros Model was conceptualized as the basic structure for efficient self- Citation: Thomsen, K. The organizing cognition some time ago [1]. The intention there was to explain facets of natural Ouroboros Model, Proposal for cognition and to derive design recommendations for general artificial intelligence at the Self-Organizing General Cognition same time. Whereas it has been argued based on general considerations that this approach Substantiated. AI 2021, 2, 89–105. can shed some light on a wide variety of topics and problems, in terms of specific and https://doi.org/10.3390/ai2010007 comprehensive implementations the Ouroboros Model still is severely underexplored. Beyond some very rudimentary realizations in safeguards and safety installations, no Academic Editors: Rafał Drezewski˙ actual artificially intelligent system of this type has been built so far.
    [Show full text]
  • A Distributed Computational Cognitive Model for Object Recognition
    SCIENCE CHINA xx xxxx Vol. xx No. x: 1{15 doi: A Distributed Computational Cognitive Model for Object Recognition Yong-Jin Liu1∗, Qiu-Fang Fu2, Ye Liu2 & Xiaolan Fu2 1Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China, 2State Key Lab of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Received Month Day, Year; accepted Month Day, Year Abstract Based on cognitive functionalities in human vision processing, we propose a computational cognitive model for object recognition with detailed algorithmic descriptions. The contribution of this paper is of two folds. Firstly, we present a systematic review on psychological and neurophysiological studies, which provide collective evidence for a distributed representation of 3D objects in the human brain. Secondly, we present a computational model which simulates the distributed mechanism of object vision pathway. Experimental results show that the presented computational cognitive model outperforms five representative 3D object recognition algorithms in computer science research. Keywords distributed cognition, computational model, object recognition, human vision system 1 Introduction Object recognition is one of fundamental tasks in computer vision. Many recognition algorithms have been proposed in computer science area (e.g., [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]). While the CPU processing speed can now be reached at 109 Hz, the human brain has a limited speed of 100 Hz at which the neurons process their input. However, compared to state-of-the-art computational algorithms for object recognition, human brain has a distinct advantage in object recognition, i.e., human being can accurately recognize one from unlimited variety of objects within a fraction of a second, even if the object is partially occluded or contaminated by noises.
    [Show full text]
  • The Place of Modeling in Cognitive Science
    The place of modeling in cognitive science James L. McClelland Department of Psychology and Center for Mind, Brain, and Computation Stanford University James L. McClelland Department of Psychology Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 650-736-4278 (v) / 650-725-5699 (f) [email protected] Running Head: Modeling in cognitive science Keywords: Modeling frameworks, computer simulation, connectionist models, Bayesian approaches, dynamical systems, symbolic models of cognition, hybrid models, cognitive architectures Abstract I consider the role of cognitive modeling in cognitive science. Modeling, and the computers that enable it, are central to the field, but the role of modeling is often misunderstood. Models are not intended to capture fully the processes they attempt to elucidate. Rather, they are explorations of ideas about the nature of cognitive processes. As explorations, simplification is essential – it is only through simplification that we can fully understand the implications of the ideas. This is not to say that simplification has no downsides; it does, and these are discussed. I then consider several contemporary frameworks for cognitive modeling, stressing the idea that each framework is useful in its own particular ways. Increases in computer power (by a factor of about 4 million) since 1958 have enabled new modeling paradigms to emerge, but these also depend on new ways of thinking. Will new paradigms emerge again with the next 1,000-fold increase? 1. Introduction With the inauguration of a new journal for cognitive science, thirty years after the first meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, it seems essential to consider the role of computational modeling in our discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Computing Systems: Potential and Future
    Cognitive Computing Systems: Potential and Future Venkat N Gudivada, Sharath Pankanti, Guna Seetharaman, and Yu Zhang March 2019 1 Characteristics of Cognitive Computing Systems Autonomous systems are self-contained and self-regulated entities which continually evolve them- selves in real-time in response to changes in their environment. Fundamental to this evolution is learning and development. Cognition is the basis for autonomous systems. Human cognition refers to those processes and systems that enable humans to perform both mundane and specialized tasks. Machine cognition refers to similar processes and systems that enable computers perform tasks at a level that rivals human performance. While human cognition employs biological and nat- ural means – brain and mind – for its realization, machine cognition views cognition as a type of computation. Cognitive Computing Systems are autonomous systems and are based on machine cognition. A cognitive system views the mind as a highly parallel information processor, uses vari- ous models for representing information, and employs algorithms for transforming and reasoning with the information. In contrast with conventional software systems, cognitive computing systems effectively deal with ambiguity, and conflicting and missing data. They fuse several sources of multi-modal data and incorporate context into computation. In making a decision or answering a query, they quantify uncertainty, generate multiple hypotheses and supporting evidence, and score hypotheses based on evidence. In other words, cognitive computing systems provide multiple ranked decisions and answers. These systems can elucidate reasoning underlying their decisions/answers. They are stateful, and understand various nuances of communication with humans. They are self-aware, and continuously learn, adapt, and evolve.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bayesian Computational Cognitive Model ∗
    A Bayesian Computational Cognitive Model ∗ Zhiwei Shi Hong Hu Zhongzhi Shi Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing Institute of Computing Technology, CAS, China Kexueyuan Nanlu #6, Beijing, China 100080 {shizw, huhong, shizz}@ics.ict.ac.cn Abstract problem solving capability and provide meaningful insights into mechanisms of human intelligence. Computational cognitive modeling has recently Besides the two categories of models, recently, there emerged as one of the hottest issues in the AI area. emerges a novel approach, hybrid neural-symbolic system, Both symbolic approaches and connectionist ap- which concerns the use of problem-specific symbolic proaches present their merits and demerits. Al- knowledge within the neurocomputing paradigm [d'Avila though Bayesian method is suggested to incorporate Garcez et al., 2002]. This new approach shows that both advantages of the two kinds of approaches above, modal logics and temporal logics can be effectively repre- there is no feasible Bayesian computational model sented in artificial neural networks [d'Avila Garcez and concerning the entire cognitive process by now. In Lamb, 2004]. this paper, we propose a variation of traditional Different from the hybrid approach above, we adopt Bayesian network, namely Globally Connected and Bayesian network [Pearl, 1988] to integrate the merits of Locally Autonomic Bayesian Network (GCLABN), rule-based systems and neural networks, due to its virtues as to formally describe a plausible cognitive model. follows. On the one hand, by encoding concepts
    [Show full text]
  • Connectionist Models of Language Processing
    Cognitive Studies Preprint 2003, Vol. 10, No. 1, 10–28 Connectionist Models of Language Processing Douglas L. T. Rohde David C. Plaut Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Traditional approaches to language processing have been based on explicit, discrete represen- tations which are difficult to learn from a reasonable linguistic environment—hence, it has come to be accepted that much of our linguistic representations and knowledge is innate. With its focus on learning based upon graded, malleable, distributed representations, connectionist modeling has reopened the question of what could be learned from the environment in the ab- sence of detailed innate knowledge. This paper provides an overview of connectionist models of language processing, at both the lexical and sentence levels. Although connectionist models have been applied to the full and processes of actual language users: Language is as lan- range of perceptual, cognitive, and motor domains (see Mc- guage does. In this regard, errors in performance (e.g., “slips Clelland, Rumelhart, & PDP Research Group, 1986; Quin- of the tongue”; Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran, & Gagnon, lan, 1991; McLeod, Plunkett, & Rolls, 1998), it is in their 1997) are no less valid than skilled language use as a measure application to language that they have evoked the most in- of the underlying nature of language processing. The goal is terest and controversy (e.g., Pinker & Mehler, 1988). This not to abstract away from performance but to articulate com- is perhaps not surprising in light of the special role that lan- putational principles that account for it. guage plays in human cognition and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • A Knowledge-Based Cognitive Architecture Supported by Machine Learning Algorithms for Interpretable Monitoring of Large-Scale Satellite Networks
    sensors Article A Knowledge-Based Cognitive Architecture Supported by Machine Learning Algorithms for Interpretable Monitoring of Large-Scale Satellite Networks John Oyekan 1, Windo Hutabarat 1, Christopher Turner 2,* , Ashutosh Tiwari 1, Hongmei He 3 and Raymon Gompelman 4 1 Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, Portobello Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK; j.oyekan@sheffield.ac.uk (J.O.); w.hutabarat@sheffield.ac.uk (W.H.); a.tiwari@sheffield.ac.uk (A.T.) 2 Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK 3 School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK; [email protected] 4 IDirect UK Ltd., Derwent House, University Way, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AZ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Cyber–physical systems such as satellite telecommunications networks generate vast amounts of data and currently, very crude data processing is used to extract salient information. Only a small subset of data is used reactively by operators for troubleshooting and finding problems. Sometimes, problematic events in the network may go undetected for weeks before they are reported. This becomes even more challenging as the size of the network grows due to the continuous prolif- Citation: Oyekan, J.; Hutabarat, W.; eration of Internet of Things type devices. To overcome these challenges, this research proposes a Turner, C.; Tiwari, A.; He, H.; knowledge-based cognitive architecture supported by machine learning algorithms for monitoring Gompelman, R. A Knowledge-Based satellite network traffic. The architecture is capable of supporting and augmenting infrastructure Cognitive Architecture Supported by Machine Learning Algorithms for engineers in finding and understanding the causes of faults in network through the fusion of the Interpretable Monitoring of results of machine learning models and rules derived from human domain experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Psychology for Deep Neural Networks: a Shape Bias Case Study
    Cognitive Psychology for Deep Neural Networks: A Shape Bias Case Study Samuel Ritter * 1 David G.T. Barrett * 1 Adam Santoro 1 Matt M. Botvinick 1 Abstract to think of these models as black boxes, and to question whether they can be understood at all (Bornstein, 2016; Deep neural networks (DNNs) have advanced Lipton, 2016). This opacity obstructs both basic research performance on a wide range of complex tasks, seeking to improve these models, and applications of these rapidly outpacing our understanding of the na- models to real world problems (Caruana et al., 2015). ture of their solutions. While past work sought to advance our understanding of these models, Recent pushes have aimed to better understand DNNs: none has made use of the rich history of problem tailor-made loss functions and architectures produce more descriptions, theories, and experimental methods interpretable features (Higgins et al., 2016; Raposo et al., developed by cognitive psychologists to study 2017) while output-behavior analyses unveil previously the human mind. To explore the potential value opaque operations of these networks (Karpathy et al., of these tools, we chose a well-established analy- 2015). Parallel to this work, neuroscience-inspired meth- sis from developmental psychology that explains ods such as activation visualization (Li et al., 2015), abla- how children learn word labels for objects, and tion analysis (Zeiler & Fergus, 2014) and activation maxi- applied that analysis to DNNs. Using datasets mization (Yosinski et al., 2015) have also been applied. of stimuli inspired by the original cognitive psy- Altogether, this line of research developed a set of promis- chology experiments, we find that state-of-the-art ing tools for understanding DNNs, each paper producing one shot learning models trained on ImageNet a glimmer of insight.
    [Show full text]
  • Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Theory of Mind in the Sigma Cognitive Architecture
    Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Theory of Mind in the Sigma Cognitive Architecture David V. Pynadath1, Paul S. Rosenbloom1;2, and Stacy C. Marsella3 1 Institute for Creative Technologies 2 Department of Computer Science University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA, USA 3 Northeastern University, Boston MA, USA Abstract. One of the most common applications of human intelligence is so- cial interaction, where people must make effective decisions despite uncertainty about the potential behavior of others around them. Reinforcement learning (RL) provides one method for agents to acquire knowledge about such interactions. We investigate different methods of multiagent reinforcement learning within the Sigma cognitive architecture. We leverage Sigma’s architectural mechanism for gradient descent to realize four different approaches to multiagent learning: (1) with no explicit model of the other agent, (2) with a model of the other agent as following an unknown stationary policy, (3) with prior knowledge of the other agent’s possible reward functions, and (4) through inverse reinforcement learn- ing (IRL) of the other agent’s reward function. While the first three variations re-create existing approaches from the literature, the fourth represents a novel combination of RL and IRL for social decision-making. We show how all four styles of adaptive Theory of Mind are realized through Sigma’s same gradient descent algorithm, and we illustrate their behavior within an abstract negotiation task. 1 Introduction Human intelligence faces the daily challenge of interacting with other people. To make effective decisions, people must form beliefs about others and generate expectations about the behavior of others to inform their own behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Cognitive Architectures for Never-Ending Learning
    Neural Cognitive Architectures for Never-Ending Learning Author Committee Emmanouil Antonios Platanios Tom Mitchelly www.platanios.org Eric Horvitzz [email protected] Rich Caruanaz Graham Neubigy Abstract Allen Newell argued that the human mind functions as a single system and proposed the notion of a unified theory of cognition (UTC). Most existing work on UTCs has focused on symbolic approaches, such as the Soar architecture (Laird, 2012) and the ACT-R (Anderson et al., 2004) system. However, such approaches limit a system’s ability to perceive information of arbitrary modalities, require a significant amount of human input, and are restrictive in terms of the learning mechanisms they support (supervised learning, semi-supervised learning, reinforcement learning, etc.). For this reason, researchers in machine learning have recently shifted their focus towards subsymbolic processing with methods such as deep learning. Deep learning systems have become a standard for solving prediction problems in multiple application areas including computer vision, natural language processing, and robotics. However, many real-world problems require integrating multiple, distinct modalities of information (e.g., image, audio, language, etc.) in ways that machine learning models cannot currently handle well. Moreover, most deep learning approaches are not able to utilize information learned from solving one problem to directly help in solving another. They are also not capable of never-ending learning, failing on problems that are dynamic, ever-changing, and not fixed a priori, which is true of problems in the real world due to the dynamicity of nature. In this thesis, we aim to bridge the gap between UTCs, deep learning, and never-ending learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Modeling, Symbolic
    Cognitive modeling, symbolic Lewis, R.L. (1999). Cognitive modeling, symbolic. In Wilson, R. and Keil, F. (eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Symbolic cognitive models are theories of human cognition that take the form of working computer programs. A cognitive model is intended to be an explanation of how some aspect of cognition is accomplished by a set of primitive computational processes. A model performs a specific cognitive task or class of tasks and produces behavior that constitutes a set of predictions that can be compared to data from human performance. Task domains that have received considerable attention include problem solving, language comprehension, memory tasks, and human-device interaction. The scientific questions cognitive modeling seeks to answer belong to cognitive psychology, and the computational techniques are often drawn from artificial intelligence. Cognitive modeling differs from other forms of theorizing in psychology in its focus on functionality and computational completeness. Cognitive modeling produces both a theory of human behavior on a task and a computational artifact that performs the task. The theoretical foundation of cognitive modeling is the idea that cognition is a kind of COMPUTATION (see also COMPUTATIONAL THEORY OF MIND). The claim is that what the mind does, in part, is perform cognitive tasks by computing. (The claim is not that the computer is a metaphor for the mind, or that the architectures of modern digital computers can give us insights into human mental architecture.) If this is the case, then it must be possible to explain cognition as a dynamic unfolding of computational processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Connectionist Models of Cognition Michael S. C. Thomas and James L
    Connectionist models of cognition Michael S. C. Thomas and James L. McClelland 1 1. Introduction In this chapter, we review computer models of cognition that have focused on the use of neural networks. These architectures were inspired by research into how computation works in the brain and subsequent work has produced models of cognition with a distinctive flavor. Processing is characterized by patterns of activation across simple processing units connected together into complex networks. Knowledge is stored in the strength of the connections between units. It is for this reason that this approach to understanding cognition has gained the name of connectionism. 2. Background Over the last twenty years, connectionist modeling has formed an influential approach to the computational study of cognition. It is distinguished by its appeal to principles of neural computation to inspire the primitives that are included in its cognitive level models. Also known as artificial neural network (ANN) or parallel distributed processing (PDP) models, connectionism has been applied to a diverse range of cognitive abilities, including models of memory, attention, perception, action, language, concept formation, and reasoning (see, e.g., Houghton, 2005). While many of these models seek to capture adult function, connectionism places an emphasis on learning internal representations. This has led to an increasing focus on developmental phenomena and the origins of knowledge. Although, at its heart, connectionism comprises a set of computational formalisms,
    [Show full text]