Developing a domain-general framework for cognition: What is the best approach?

We share with Anderson & Lebiere (A&L) (and with Newell before them) the goal of developing a domain-general framework for modeling cognition, and we take seriously the issue of evaluation criteria. We advocate a more focused approach than the one reflected in Newell's criteria, based on analysis of failures as well as successes of models brought into close contact with experimental data. A&L attribute the shortcomings of our parallel-distributed processing framework to a failure to acknowledge a symbolic level of thought. Our framework does acknowledge a symbolic level, contrary to their claim. What we deny is that the symbolic level is the level at which the principles of cognitive processing should be formulated. Models cast at a symbolic level are sometimes useful as high-level approximations of the underlying mechanisms of thought. The adequacy of this approximation will continue to increase as symbolic modelers continue to incorporate principles of parallel distributed processing.

[1]  Morris Halle,et al.  The rules of language , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[2]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[3]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On learning the past-tenses of English verbs: implicit rules or parallel distributed processing , 1986 .

[5]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition : Psychological and Biological Models , 1986 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[8]  D. Massaro.  Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[10]  Ken N. Seergobin,et al.  On the association between connectionism and data: Are a few words necessary? , 1990 .

[11]  V. Marchman,et al.  U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition , 1991, Cognition.

[12]  M. Gopnik,et al.  Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder , 1991, Cognition.

[13]  James L. McClelland.  Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  D. Massaro,et al.  Integration versus interactive activation: The joint influence of stimulus and context in perception , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  James L. McClelland,et al.  READING EXCEPTION WORDS AND PSEUDOWORDS - ARE 2 ROUTES REALLY NECESSARY , 1992 .

[16]  Paul W. B. Atkins,et al.  Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. , 1993 .

[17]  G. Kane.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol 1: Foundations, vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models , 1994 .

[18]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Regular morphology and the lexicon. , 1995 .

[19]  R. Passingham,et al.  Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Yasuhiro Shirai,et al.  The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology: A Prototype Account. , 1995 .

[21]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[22]  S. Pinker,et al.  A Neural Dissociation within Language: Evidence that the Mental Dictionary Is Part of Declarative Memory, and that Grammatical Rules Are Processed by the Procedural System , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: a connectionist model. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  U. Hahn,et al.  German Inflection: Single Route or Dual Route? , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[26]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The Morton-Massaro law of information integration: implications for models of perception. , 2001, Psychological review.

[27]  Michael Ramscar.  The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  S. Pinker,et al.  Combination and structure, not gradedness, is the issue , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  James L. McClelland,et al.  ‘Words or Rules’ cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Why do children learn to say “Broke”? A model of learning the past tense without feedback , 2002, Cognition.

[31]  S. Pinker,et al.  The past and future of the past tense , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  B. Hayes,et al.  Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study , 2003, Cognition.

[34]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Deficits in phonology and past-tense morphology: What's the connection? , 2003 .

[35]  Laura Collins.  THE L2 ACQUISITION OF TENSE-ASPECT MORPHOLOGY , 2004, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.