This article describes the Adaptive Control of Thought–Rational (ACT–R) cognitive architecture (Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998) and its detailed application to the learning of algebraic symbol manipulation. The theory is applied to modeling the data from a study by Qin, Anderson, Silk, Stenger, & Carter (2004) in which children learn to solve linear equations and perfect their skills over a 6-day period. Functional MRI data show that: (a) a motor region tracks the output of equation solutions, (b) a prefrontal region tracks the retrieval of declarative information, (c) a parietal region tracks the transformation of mental representations of the equation, (d) an anterior cingulate region tracks the setting of goal information to control the information flow, and (e) a caudate region tracks the firing of productions in the ACT–R model. The article concludes with an architectural comparison of the competence children display in this task and the competence that monkeys have shown in tasks that require manipulations of sequences of elements.

memory retrieval

Abstract not found

This research tests a model of the computational role of three cortical regions in tasks like algebra equation solving. The model assumes that there is a left parietal region-of-interest (ROI) where the problem expression is represented and transformed, a left prefrontal ROI where information for solving the task is retrieved, and a motor ROI where hand movements to produce the answer are programmed. A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of an abstract symbolmanipulation task was performed to articulate the roles of these three regions. Participants learned to associate words with instructions for transforming strings of letters. The study manipulated the need to retrieve these instructions, the need to transform the strings, and whether there was a delay between

This research uses fMRI to understand the role of eight cortical regions in a relatively complex information-processing task. Modality of input (visual versus auditory) and modality of output (manual versus vocal) are manipulated. Two perceptual regions (auditory cortex and fusiform gyrus) only reflected perceptual encoding. Two motor regions were involved in information rehearsal as well as programming of overt actions. Two cortical regions (parietal and prefrontal) performed processing (retrieval and representational change) independent of input and output modality. The final two regions (anterior cingulate and caudate) were involved in control of cognition independent of modality of input or output and content of the material. An information-processing model, based on the ACT-R theory, is described that predicts the BOLD response in these regions. Different modules in the theory vary in the degree to which they are modality-specific and the degree to which they are involved in central versus peripheral cognitive processes.

In functional neuroimaging studies of episodic retrieval (ER), activations in prefrontal, parietal, anterior cingulate, and thalamic regions are typically attributed to episodic retrieval processes. However, these activations are also frequent during visual attention (VA) tasks, suggesting that their role in ER may reflect attentional rather than mnemonic processes. To investigate this possibility, we directly compared brain activity during ER and VA tasks using event-related fMRI. The ER task was a word recognition test with a retrieval mode component, and the VA task was a target detection task with a sustained attention component. The study yielded three main findings. First, a common fronto-parietal-cingulate-thalamic network was found for ER and VA, suggesting that the involvement of these regions during ER reflects general attentional processes. This idea is compatible with some of the interpretations proposed in the ER literature (e.g. postretrieval monitoring), which may be rephrased in terms of attentional processes. Second, several subregions were differentially involved in ER versus VA. For example, the frontopolar cortex and the precuneus were more activated for ER than for VA, possibly reflecting retrieval mode and processing of internally generated stimuli, respectively. Finally, the study yielded an unexpected finding: some medial temporal lobe regions were similarly activated for ER and VA. This finding suggests that the medial temporal lobes may be involved in indexing representations within the focus of consciousness, regardless of whether they are mnemonic or perceptual. Overall, the present results suggest that many of the activations attributed to specific cognitive processes, such as episodic memory, may actually reflect more general cognitive oper...

Abstract not found

We propose a new hypothesis concerning the lateralization of prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity during verbal episodic memory retrieval. The hypothesis states that the left PFC is differentially more involved in semantically guided information production than is the right PFC, and that the right PFC is differentially more involved in monitoring and verification than is the left PFC. This "production-monitoring hypothesis" differs from the existing "systematic -- heuristic hypothesis," which proposes that the left PFC is primarily involved in systematic retrieval operations, and the right PFC in heuristic retrieval operations. To compare the two hypotheses, we measured PFC activity using positron emission tomography (PET) during the performance of four episodic retrieval tasks: stem cued recall, associative cued recall, context recognition (source memory), and item recognition. Recall tasks emphasized production processes, whereas recognition tasks emphasized monitoring processes. Stem cued recall and context-recognition tasks underscored systematic operations, whereas associative cued recall and item-recognition tasks underscored heuristic operations. Consistent with the production-monitoring hypothesis, the left PFC was more activated for recall than for recognition tasks and the right PFC was more activated for recognition than for recall tasks. Inconsistent with the systematic -- heuristic hypothesis, the left PFC was more activated for heuristic than for systematic tasks and the right PFC showed the converse result. Additionally, the study yielded activation differences outside the PFC. In agreement with a previous recall/ recognition PET study, anterior cingulate, cerebellar, and striatal regions were more activated for recall than for recognition tasks, and the co...

Attention-dependent modulation of neural activity in visual association cortex (VAC) is thought to depend on top-down modulatory control signals emanating from the prefrontal cortex (PFC). In a previous functional magnetic resonance imaging study utilizing a working memory task, we demonstrated that activity levels in scene-selective VAC (ssVAC) regions can be enhanced above or suppressed below a passive viewing baseline level depending on whether scene stimuli were attended or ignored (Gazzaley, Cooney, McEvoy, et al. 2005). Here, we use functional connectivity analysis to identify possible sources of these modulatory influences by examining how network interactions with VAC are influenced by attentional goals at the time of encoding. Our findings reveal a network of regions that exhibit strong positive correlations with a ssVAC seed during all task conditions, including foci in the left middle frontal gyrus (MFG). This PFC region is more correlated with the VAC seed when scenes were remembered and less correlated when scenes were ignored, relative to passive viewing. Moreover, the strength of MFG--VAC coupling correlates with the magnitude of attentional enhancement and suppression of VAC activity. Although our correlation analyses do not permit assessment of directionality, these findings suggest that PFC biases activity levels in VAC by adjusting the strength of functional coupling in accordance with stimulus relevance.

We build an ACT-R model of a geometry-proof task based on behavioral, verbal Traveling 2 protocol, eye movement, from proficient adult participants and then assess the model using neuroimaging data. Our geometry proof problems differed in terms of the number of steps of inference required to find a proof. Participants ’ verbal protocols and eye movements indicated that they first encoded the goal statement, then made a number of inferences, and finally came to a conclusion and made their response. In the imaging study we determined the involvement of a number of brain regions in the various stages of the task. The ACT-R model provided reasonable fits to participant accuracy, latency, and the BOLD response in most of the brain regions. However, there was unexpected activity in the motor region early in the problem solution, unexpected activity in the fusiform late in problem solution, and unexpected anterior prefrontal activity after the problem solution. We conclude that the model underestimates the perceptual-motor involvement in geometry learning just as does much of the educational curriculum.