Situated Decision-Making and Recognition-Based Learning: Applying Symbolic Theories to Interactive Tasks

This paper describes two research projects that study typical Situated Action tasks using traditional cognitive science methodologies. The two tasks are decision making in a complex production environment and interaction with an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). Both tasks require that the decision maker and the user search for knowledge in the environment in order to execute their tasks. The goal of these projects is to investigate the interaction between internal knowledge and dependence on external cues in these kinds of tasks. We have used the classical expert-novice paradigm to study information search in the decision making task and cognitive modeling to predict the behavior of ATM users. The results of the first project strongly indicate that decision makers are forced to rely on environmental cues (knowledge in the environment) to make decisions, independently of their level of expertise. We also found that performance and information search are radically different between experts and novices. Our explanation is that prior experience in dynamic decision tasks improves performance by changing information search behavior instead of inducing superior decision heuristics. In the second study we describe a computer model, based on the Soar cognitive architecture, that learns part of the task of using an ATM machine. The task is performed using only the external cues available from the interface itself, and knowledge assumed of typical human users (e.g., how to read, how to push buttons). These projects suggest that tasks studied by Situated Action research pose interesting challenges for traditional symbolic theories. Extending symbolic theories to such tasks is an important step toward bridging these theoretical

[1]  John E. Laird Preface for Special Section on Integrated Cognitive Architectures , 1991, SGAR.

[2]  Allen Newell,et al.  Production Systems: Models of Control Structures , 1973 .

[3]  Michael Hucka,et al.  Robo-Soar: An integration of external interaction, planning, and learning using Soar , 1991, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[4]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[5]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[6]  A. Newell Unified Theories of Cognition , 1990 .

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[8]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Display-Based Action at the User Interface , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[9]  John E. Laird,et al.  Towards the knowledge level in Soar: the role of the architecture in the use of knowledge , 1993 .

[10]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[11]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Integrating knowledge sources in language comprehension , 1993 .

[12]  David Jechiel Mostow,et al.  Mechanical transformation of task heuristics into operational procedures , 1981 .

[13]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  An Architecturally-based Theory of Human Sentence Comprehension , 2001 .

[14]  John E. Laird,et al.  Dimensions of complexity in learning from interactive instruction , 1992, Other Conferences.

[15]  Richard L. Lewis Architecture matters: What Soar has to say about modularity , 1993 .

[16]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  A comparative study of soar and the construction-integration model , 1994 .

[17]  Allen Newell,et al.  Toward a Soar theory of taking instructions for immediate reasoning tasks , 1993 .

[18]  P. Agre Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Commuinication (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987) , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[20]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology , 1984 .

[21]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Behavior-based artificial intelligence , 1993 .