Abstract not found

This article addresses the question of how the processor decides on its initial strategy for syntactic ambiguity resolution. At a point of ambiguity, more than one analysis is possible. An effective strategy might be to adopt the analysis that has most frequently turned out to be correct in the past. Assuming that the world stays the same in most respects, the analysis that has most frequently been correct in the past should provide a good estimate of which analysis is most likely to be correct again. Hence, by adopting this analysis, the processor should make fewer errors than if it chose any other analysis

The integration of visual, lexical, and oculomotor information is a critical part of reading. Mr. Chips is an ideal-observer model that combines these sources of information optimally to read simple texts in the minimum number of saccades. In the model, the concept of the visual span (the number of letters that can be identified in a single fixation) plays a key, unifying role. The behavior of the model provides a computational framework for reexamining the literature on human reading saccades. Emergent properties of the model, such as regressive saccades and an optimal-viewing position, suggest new interpretations of human behavior. Because Mr. Chip's "retina" can have any (one-dimensional) arrangement of high-resolution regions and scotomas, the model can simulate common visual disorders. Surprising saccade strategies are linked to the pattern of scotomas. For example, Mr. Chips sometimes plans a saccade that places a decisive letter in a scotoma. This article provides the first quantitative model of the effects of scotomas on reading.

Soft constraints hypothesis (SCH) is a rational analysis approach that holds that the mixture of perceptual-motor and cognitive resources allocated for interactive behavior is adjusted based on temporal cost-benefit tradeoffs. Alternative approaches maintain that cognitive resources are in some sense protected or conserved in that greater amounts of perceptual-motor effort will be expended to conserve lesser amounts of cognitive effort. One alternative, the minimum memory hypothesis (MMH), holds that people favor strategies that minimize the use of memory. SCH is compared with MMH across 3 experiments and with predictions of an Ideal Performer Model that uses ACT-R’s memory system in a reinforcement learning approach that maximizes expected utility by minimizing time. Model and data support the SCH view of resource allocation; at the under 1000-ms level of analysis, mixtures of cognitive and perceptual-motor resources are adjusted based on their cost-benefit tradeoffs for interactive behavior.

People routinely make sophisticated causal inferences unconsciously, effortlessly, and from very little data – often from just one or a few observations. We argue that these inferences can be explained as Bayesian computations over a hypothesis space of causal graphical models, shaped by strong top-down prior knowledge in the form of intuitive theories. We present two case studies of our approach, including quantitative models of human causal judgments and brief comparisons with traditional bottom-up models of inference. 1

An evidence accumulation model of forced-choice decision making is proposed to unify the fast and frugal take the best (TTB) model and the alternative rational (RAT) model with which it is usually contrasted. The basic idea is to treat the TTB model as a sequential-sampling process that terminates as soon as any evidence in favor of a decision is found and the rational approach as a sequential-sampling process that terminates only when all available information has been assessed. The unified TTB and RAT models were tested in an experiment in which participants learned to make correct judgments for a set of real-world stimuli on the basis of feedback, and were then asked to make additional judgments without feedback for cases in which the TTB and the rational models made different predictions. The results show that, in both experiments, there was strong intraparticipant consistency in the use of either the TTB or the rational model but large interparticipant differences in which model was used. The unified model is shown to be able to capture the differences in decision making across participants in an interpretable way and is preferred by the minimum description length model selection criterion. A simple but pervasive type of decision requires choosing which of two alternatives has the greater (or the lesser) value on some variable of interest. Examples of

Memory evolved to supply useful, timely information to the organism’s decision-making systems. Therefore, decision rules, multiple memory systems, and the search engines that link them should have coevolved to mesh in a coadapted, functionally interlocking way. This adaptationist perspective suggested the scope hypothesis: When a generalization is retrieved from semantic memory, episodic memories that are inconsistent with it should be retrieved in tandem to place boundary conditions on the scope of the generalization. Using a priming paradigm and a decision task involving person memory, the authors tested and confirmed this hypothesis. The results support the view that priming is an evolved adaptation. They further show that dissociations between memory systems are not—and should not be—absolute: Independence exists for some tasks but not others. Memory is a gift of nature, the ability of living organisms to retain and to utilize acquired information or knowledge.... Owners of biological memory systems are capable of behaving more appropriately at a later time because of their experiences at an earlier time, a feat not possible for organisms without memory. (Tulving, 1995a, p. 751) If there is one proposition on which all psychologists seem to

Much research on judgment and decision making has focussed on the adequacy of classical rationality as a description of human reasoning. But more recently it has been argued that classical rationality should also be rejected even as normative standards for human reasoning. For example, Gigerenzer and Goldstein (1996) and Gigerenzer and Todd (1999a) argue that reasoning involves ‘‘fast and frugal’ ’ algorithms which are not justified by rational norms, but which succeed in the environment. They provide three lines of argument for this view, based on: (A) the importance of the environment; (B) the existence of cognitive limitations; and (C) the fact that an algorithm with no apparent rational basis, Take-the-Best, succeeds in an judgment task (judging which of two cities is the larger, based on lists of features of each city). We reconsider (A)–(C), arguing that standard patterns of explanation in psychology and the social and biological sciences, use rational norms to explain why simple cognitive algorithms can succeed. We also present new computer simulations that compare Take-the-Best with other cognitive models (which use connectionist, exemplarbased, and decision-tree algorithms). Although Take-the-Best still performs well, it does not perform noticeably better than the other models. We conclude that these results provide no strong reason to prefer Take-the-Best over alternative cognitive models.

The literature in cognitive psychology has described a variety of shortcomings that prevent individuals from learning effectively. We review this literature and provide examples ofa number oforganizational practices that may effectively repair thecognitive shortcomings of individuals. We call these practices cognitive repairs. We then discuss six tradeoffs that affect the success of cognitive repairs. We close by considering how a cognitive perspective might benefit those who study organizational learning and those who manage it.

When participants assess the relationship between two variables, each with levels of presence and absence, the two most robust phenomena are that: (a) observing the joint presence of the variables has the largest impact on judgment and observing joint absence has the smallest impact, and (b) participants’ prior beliefs about the variables ’ relationship influence judgment. Both phenomena represent departures from the traditional normative model (the phi coefficient or related measures) and have therefore been interpreted as systematic errors. However, both phenomena are consistent with a Bayesian approach to the task. From a Bayesian perspective: (a) joint presence is normatively more informative than joint absence if the presence of variables is rarer than their absence, and (b) failing to incorporate prior beliefs is a normative error. Empirical evidence is reported showing that joint absence is seen as more informative than joint presence when it is clear that absence of the variables, rather than their presence, is rare.