Rice University Graduate Research

Permanent URI for this community

https://hdl.handle.net/1911/64825

Browse

Browsing Rice University Graduate Research by Subject "ACT-R"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Computational Model of Routine Procedural Memory
    (Rice University, 2009) Tamborello, Franklin Patrick, II; Byrne, Michael D.
    Cooper and Shallice (2000) implemented a computational version of the Norman and Shallice’s (1986) Contention Scheduling Model (CSM). The CSM is a hierarchically organized network of action schemas and goals. Botvinick and Plaut (2004) instead took a connectionist approach to modeling routine procedural behavior. They argued in favor of holistic, distributed representation of learned step co-occurrence associations. Two experiments found that people can adapt routine procedural behavior to changing circumstances quite readily and that other factors besides statistical co-occurrence can have influence on action selection. A CSM-inspired ACT-R model of the two experiments is the first to postdict differential error rates across multiple between-subjects conditions and trial types. Results from the behavioral and modeling studies favor a CSM-like theory of human routine procedural memory that uses discrete, hierarchically-organized goal and action representations that are adaptable to new but similar procedures.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Visual Displays: Developing a Computational Model Explaining the Global Effect
    (Rice University, 2009) Stanley, Clayton; Byrne, Michael D.
    This work aims to integrate Byrne’s theory of visual salience computation (2006) with Salvucci’s model of eye movements (2001) by testing participants on a visual search task similar to Findlay (1997). By manipulating the number, salience, and spacing of targets, participants exhibited the global effect averaging phenomena during the first recorded saccade, whereby short‐latency saccades land in between adjacent objects. Previous work has argued that the saccadic targeting system causing the averaging is influenced both by the salience and arrangement of objects displayed (Rao, Zelinsky, Hayho, & Ballard, 2002). However, to accurately account for these results, we did not have to couple the salience system with the saccadic targeting system. Instead, the systems work sequentially and in isolation, whereby the salience system simply hands off the next object to examine to the targeting system, whose accuracy depends only on saccadic latency and the location of the targeted and non‐targeted items.