Extending the Influence of Contextual Information in ACT-R using Buffer Decay Robert Thomson (thomsonr@andrew.cmu.edu) Stefano Bennati (sbennati@andrew.cmu.edu) Christian Lebiere (cl@cmu.edu) Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA Abstract An Overview of the ACT-R Architecture In this paper, we describe an extension of the theory of short- term memory decay for the ACT-R cognitive architecture. By including a short-term decay for elements recently cleared from active memory, we have extended the functionality of spreading activation as a source of implicit contextual information for the model. In ACT-R models of serial memory and decision-making, contextual information has generally been modeled using either explicit markers (e.g., positional indices) or fixed-length windows of prior elements (e.g., a lag-based representation). While markers and fixed- length windows do capture some patterns of human errors, they are inflexible, are set by the modeler and not the model, and are not psychologically-plausible representations of contextual information. In conjunction with our associative learning mechanism (Thomson & Lebiere, 2013), we show how buffer decay can provide more flexible and implicit contextual information which explains refraction, positional confusion errors, and repetition facilitation and inhibition. Keywords: cognitive architectures; human memory; context ACT-R is a cognitive architecture defined as a set of modules which are integrated and coordinated through a centralized production system (see Figure 1). Modules access information from buffers, while the production system only responds to the contents of the buffers and not the internal processing of the modules themselves. The set of buffers therefore implicitly constitute the working memory of the architecture. The declarative memory and production system modules store and retrieve information that corresponds to declarative and procedural knowledge, respectively. Declarative knowledge is the kind of knowledge that a person can attend to, reflect upon, and usually articulate in some way, while procedural knowledge consists of the skills we display in our behavior, generally without conscious awareness. Introduction Over the last 50 years there has been a substantial body of literature describing how contextual information interacts with memory encoding and recall. More specifically, when the context changes between encoding and retrieval time, recall is relatively reduced compared to when retrieval occurs in the same context as encoding. Beginning with Godden and Baddeley’s (1975; 1980) seminal work on context-dependent recall in natural environments (see also Smith & Vela, 2001), research has shown both internal-state (e.g., physiological) and external-cue (e.g., environmental) dependence on recall (Eich, 1980). For instance, Godden and Baddeley found that when deep sea divers learned a list underwater, they experienced reduced list recall when recalling this list on the surface as compared to recall while underwater again. Other examples of context-dependence include mood-dependence (Eich, Macaulay, & Ryan, 1994), language-dependence (Marian & Neisser, 2000), and motivation-dependence (Delgado, Stenger, & Fiez, 2004). While context is a complex real-world phenomenon, it is much more constrained in a cognitive architecture such as ACT-R, where the information flow between a model and the environment is abstracted to a set of symbolic elements (see Anderson, Bothell, Byrne, et al., 2004). In this sense context is limited to the information available in the buffer system and the spread of activation from those items currently in working memory. Before delving more deeply into the role of contextual information in ACT-R we will present a brief overview of ACT-R and describe how context has previously been modeled in tasks involving serial memory and decision-making. Figure 1. An overview of ACT-R’s modules and their dependent buffers. Declarative knowledge in ACT-R is represented formally in terms of chunks, which corresponds to the episodic and semantic knowledge that promotes long-term coherence in behavior. Chunks have an explicit type, and consist of a set of slot-value pairs of information. Chunks are retrieved from declarative memory (DM) by an activation process. When a retrieval request is made the most active matching chunk is returned, where activation is computed as the sum of base- level activation, spreading activation, mismatch penalty and stochastic noise. Base-level activation reflects a chunk’s recency and frequency of occurrence. Activation spreads from the current focus of attention through associations among chunks in declarative memory. These associations are built up from experience, and reflect how chunks co- occur in cognitive processing. Chunks are also compared to
[1]
D. Norris,et al.
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 49A (1), 80 ± 115 Unchained Memory: Error Patterns Rule out Chaining Models of Immediate Serial Recall
,
2022
.
[2]
J. Eich.
The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval
,
1980,
Memory & cognition.
[3]
Peter A. Tucker,et al.
Primary Memory
,
1965,
Encyclopedia of Database Systems.
[4]
U. Neisser,et al.
Language-dependent recall of autobiographical memories.
,
2000,
Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[5]
S. Sternberg.
High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory
,
1966,
Science.
[6]
John R Anderson,et al.
An integrated theory of the mind.
,
2004,
Psychological review.
[7]
Hermann Ebbinghaus (1885).
Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology
,
2013,
Annals of Neurosciences.
[8]
R. Rescorla,et al.
A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement
,
1972
.
[9]
C. Lebiere,et al.
The Atomic Components of Thought
,
1998
.
[10]
C. Lebiere,et al.
Applying Cognitive Architectures to Decision-Making: How Cognitive Theory and the Equivalence Measure Triumphed in the Technion Prediction Tournament
,
2009
.
[11]
Lael J. Schooler,et al.
Recency and Context: An Environmental Analysis of Memory
,
2008
.
[12]
Niels Taatgen,et al.
Pre-attentive and attentive vision module
,
2013,
Cognitive Systems Research.
[13]
M. Delgado,et al.
Motivation-dependent responses in the human caudate nucleus.
,
2004,
Cerebral cortex.
[14]
Christian Lebiere,et al.
Memory activation and the availability of explanations in sequential diagnostic reasoning.
,
2011,
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[15]
L. R. Peterson,et al.
Short-term retention of individual verbal items.
,
1959,
Journal of experimental psychology.
[16]
Steven M. Smith,et al.
Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis
,
2001,
Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[17]
Dario D. Salvucci,et al.
Choice and Learning under Uncertainty: A Case Study in Baseball Batting
,
2003
.
[18]
D. Godden,et al.
Context-dependent memory in two natural environments : On land under water
,
1975
.
[19]
John R. Anderson,et al.
The fan effect: New results and new theories.
,
1999
.
[20]
A. Baddeley,et al.
When does context influence recognition memory
,
1980
.
[21]
M. Manosevitz.
High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory
,
.
[22]
John R. Anderson.
How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe
,
2007
.
[23]
H. Simon,et al.
Perception in chess
,
1973
.
[24]
L Ryan,et al.
Mood dependent memory for events of the personal past.
,
1994,
Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[25]
C. Lebiere,et al.
Balancing long-term reinforcement and short-term inhibition
,
2009
.
[26]
Christian Lebiere,et al.
Sequence Learning in the ACT-R Cognitive Architecture: Empirical Analysis of a Hybrid Model
,
2001,
Sequence Learning.
[27]
John R. Anderson,et al.
A hybrid model of categorization
,
2001,
Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[28]
Y. Dan,et al.
Spike timing-dependent plasticity: a Hebbian learning rule.
,
2008,
Annual review of neuroscience.
[29]
C. Lebiere,et al.
An integrated theory of list memory.
,
1998
.
[30]
R. Conrad,et al.
Order error in immediate recall of sequences
,
1965
.