MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2767108711

ACT-R models of a delayed match-to sample task - eScholarship

2014· article· en· W2767108711 sur OpenAlex
Sarah Cebulski, Sterling Somers

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTask (project management)Sample (material)CognitionPsychologyObject (grammar)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ACT-R models of a delayed match-to sample task Sarah Cebulski (sarahcebulski@cmail.carleton.ca) Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, On., Canada Sterling Somers (sterling@sterlingsomers.com) Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, On., Canada to examine, as a primary focus, the rehearsal mechanism involved in actively maintaining complex visual stimuli in memory for a brief period of time. Specifically, we are interested in determining whether an ACT-R model implementing a serial rehearsal strategy can account for human performance differences observed across two versions of a delayed match-to sample task. Versions of the delayed match-to sample task exist throughout the literature (Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, Allamano, & Wilson, 1999; Warrington & James, 1967). In its most basic form, the task requires participants to encode a matrix grid pattern, rehearse it across a delay period, and compare it to a test grid. This task was selected for a number of reasons. First, its simplicity reduces many of the major confounds introduced by individual differences in strategy use, such as the tendency to recode presented visual information verbally. This notion is supported by the finding that articulatory suppression does not impair performance on similar tasks (Salway & Logie, 1995; Vandierendonck, Kemps, Fastame, & Szmalec, 2004). Second, the randomized nature of the grid pattern ensures that the structure does not become more familiar with time, so there is no expectation that implicit learning occurs resulting in faster and more efficient linking of environmental features to object-locations (Winkelholz & Schlick, 2006). Third, the instituted delay period between encoding and retrieval is longer than the time visual information is purported to survive in sensory memory (Phillips, 1974). This necessitates some form of active maintenance or rehearsal strategy. Finally, it is possible to create different versions of the selected task that vary only in complexity, such that a high-workload version contains more visual data to be encoded and rehearsed than a low- workload version. The present paper describes two ACT-R models of visual rehearsal. As a starting point, both models assume similar low-level processes, with absolute screen position used to encode visual stimuli in a serial fashion (i.e. objects are encoded as single chunks, without any Gestalt-type grouping). If model performance employing this serial encoding and rehearsal strategy does not fit the experimental data, it would suggest differences in encoding strategies (i.e., perceptual grouping of visual information) should be investigated in future work. The two models diverge in their implementation insofar as whether they represent each trial as an episode. While one model allows Abstract The current paper presents two ACT-R models of a delayed match-to sample task, and performs equivalence testing against human performance data to evaluate them. Success of an episodic model which avoids interference from previously encountered visual stimuli, and implements a serial search and rehearsal strategy lends insight into how individuals may encode, maintain and retrieve visual information. Keywords: ACT-R, visual memory, rehearsal Introduction ACT-R (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998) is a cognitive architecture that includes a theory of how higher-level processes interact with a visual system. ACT-R’s visual module identifies objects in the visual environment and through the use of buffers passes this information to the declarative memory module in the form of chunks. A chunk is a vector representation of individual properties, and in the case of visual information, is often represented with vector locations of the presented stimuli. Once visual information is represented in declarative memory, it can be retrieved according to task demands. In the past there has been little in the way of research which connects low-level visual processes with high-level cognition. Fortunately, this trend has been reversing over the last several decades and a wealth of research in the ACT-R community examines exactly how low-level processing constrains and influences visual encoding. These constraints include, among others: the time required for visual attentional shifts, the noise accompanying conjunction searches and the feature scale directing object recognition (Anderson, Matessa, & Lebiere, 1997). Despite strides towards understanding encoding constraints, most computational models of high-level visual processing continue to take visual representations for granted. Many of these models assume representations are deposited into declarative memory once they have been successfully encoded without accounting for intermediate processes between encoding and chunk formation. Often, for example, models do not account for rehearsal strategies that actively maintain complex visual stimuli in memory in order to prevent their decay. Extant models that do include visual rehearsal processes (e.g., Winkelholz & Schlick, 2006) do not do so as a primary research focus, and it is thus difficult to disentangle observed effects owing to rehearsal from those owing to other lines of inquiry. It is thus our aim

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,434

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,247
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle