Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 10 - Micro-Process Models of Decision Making

  • from Part III - Computational Modeling of Various Cognitive Functionalities and Domains
  • Edited by Ron Sun
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology
    Published online:
    05 June 2012
    Print publication:
    28 April 2008, pp 302-321

  • Summary

    Cognitive architectures are on the one hand echoes of the original goal of creating an intelligent machine faithful to human intelligence and on the other hand attempts at theoretical unification in the field of cognitive psychology. This chapter discusses the current state of cognitive architectures to characterize four prime examples: The States, Operators, And Reasoning (SOAR) architecture, the Adaptive Control of Thought, Rational (ACT-R) theory, Executive-Process Interactive Control (EPIC) architecture, and Connectionist Learning with Adaptive Rule Induction Online (CLARION) architecture. The chapter examines a number of topics that can serve as constraints on modeling and discusses how four architectures offer solutions to help modeling in that topic area. The viewpoint of cognitive constraint is different from the perspective of how much functionality an architecture can provide, as expressed by, for example, Anderson and Lebiere.