MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767108711

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

2014· article· en· W2767108711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Sample (material)CognitionPsychologyObject (grammar)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it