An ecological perspective to cognitive limits: Modeling environment-mind interactions with ACT-R

Contrary to the common belief that more information is always better, Gigerenzer et al. (1999) showed that simple decision strategies which rely on little information can be quite successful. The success of simple strategies depends both on bets about the structure of the environment and on the core capacities of the human mind, such as recognition memory (Gigerenzer, 2004). However, the interplay between the environment and the mind’s core capacities has rarely been precisely modeled. We illustrate how these environment-mind interactions could be formally modeled within the cognitive architecture ACT-R (J. R. Anderson et al., 2004). ACT-R is an integrated theory of mind that is tuned to the statistical structure of the environment, and it can account for a variety of phenomena such as learning, problem solving, and decision making. Here, we focus on studying decision strategies and show how the success of theses strategies in particular environments depends on characteristics of core cognitive capacities, such as recognition and short term memory.

[1]  J. Yellott.  Probability learning with noncontingent success , 1969 .

[2]  Anderson Sample Size 1 Running Head : DETECTION OF CORRELATION SAMPLE SIZE AND THE DETECTION OF CORRELATION : A SIGNAL DETECTION ACCOUNT , 2004 .

[3]  Yaakov Kareev,et al.  Positive bias in the perception of covariation. , 1995 .

[4]  David R Shanks,et al.  On the role of recognition in decision making. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[6]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  Subjective reports and process dissociation: Fluency, knowing, and feeling , 1998 .

[7]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[8]  A Bayesian model for implicit effects in perceptual identification. , 2001 .

[9]  P. Todd,et al.  More Is Not Always Better: The Benefits of Cognitive Limits , 2003 .

[10]  Arndt Bröder,et al.  The use of recognition information and additional cues in inferences from memory. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[11]  B. W. Whittlesea,et al.  Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart) , 2003 .

[12]  M. Bauer.  RELATIONS BETWEEN PREDICTION‐ AND ESTIMATION‐RESPONSES IN CUE‐PROBABILITY LEARNING AND TRANSFER , 1972 .

[13]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Forgetting to Remember: The Functional Relationship of Decay and Interference , 2002, Psychological science.

[14]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Modeling paradigms in ACT-R , 2006 .

[15]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Search of associative memory. , 1981 .

[16]  L. Jacoby,et al.  On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Thorsten Pachur,et al.  On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Iddo Gal,et al.  Understanding Repeated Simple Choices , 1996 .

[19]  Y. Kareev.  And Yet the Small-Sample Effect Does Hold: Reply to Juslin and Olsson (2005) and Anderson, Doherty, Berg, and Friedrich (2005). , 2005 .

[20]  Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos,et al.  The use of recognition in group decision-making , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  C. Gettys,et al.  MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. , 1999 .

[22]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  D R Shanks,et al.  Continuous monitoring of human contingency judgment across trials , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  The Left Hemisphere's Role in Hypothesis Formation , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  J R Anderson,et al.  Practice and retention: a unifying analysis. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Simple predictions fueled by capacity limitations: when are they successful? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  David R. Shanks,et al.  Acquisition functions in contingency judgment , 1987 .

[28]  J. Goodnow.  Determinants of choice-distribution in two-choice situations. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

[29]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Hedderik van Rijn,et al.  Modeling Lexical Decision as Ordinary Retrieval , 2003 .

[31]  Henrik Olsson,et al.  Capacity limitations and the detection of correlations: comment on Kareev (2000). , 2005, Psychological review.

[32]  Y. Kareev,et al.  Through a narrow window: Sample size and the perception of correlation , 1997 .

[33]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): rethinking the recognition heuristic , 2003, Cognition.

[34]  Nir Vulkan.  An Economist's Perspective on Probability Matching , 2000 .

[35]  D. Shanks,et al.  A Re-examination of Probability Matching and Rational Choice , 2002 .

[36]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  C. Lebiere,et al.  An integrated theory of list memory. , 1998 .

[38]  R. Hertwig,et al.  How forgetting aids heuristic inference. , 2005, Psychological review.

[39]  A. Bröder,et al.  Predicting Wimbledon 2005 tennis results by mere player name recognition , 2007 .

[40]  Y. Brackbill,et al.  Supplementary report: the utility of correctly predicting infrequent events. , 1962, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[41]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. , 2002, Psychological review.

[42]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  The Rise of Cognitive Architectures , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[43]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[44]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The Role of Process in the Rational Analysis of Memory , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  Y. Kareev.  Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. , 2000, Psychological review.

[46]  Sample size, confidence, and contingency judgement. , 2002, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[47]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  A. Newell.  You can't play 20 questions with nature and win : projective comments on the papers of this symposium , 1973 .

[49]  J. Unturbe,et al.  Probability matching involves rule-generating ability: a neuropsychological mechanism dealing with probabilities. , 2007, Neuropsychology.

[50]  Y. Kareev.  On The Perception Of Consistency , 2003 .

[51]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[52]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  Tobias Richter,et al.  Recognition is used as one cue among others in judgment and decision making. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[54]  Marci S. DeCaro,et al.  Individual differences in category learning: Sometimes less working memory capacity is better than more , 2008, Cognition.

[55]  Peter Ayton,et al.  The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy: Two faces of subjective randomness? , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[56]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[57]  B. W. Whittlesea.  Illusions of familiarity. , 1993 .

[58]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[59]  Heidelberg Stefani. Nellen.  The use of the “ Take The Best ” Heuristic under different conditions , modeled with ACT-R Stefani Nellen , 2003 .

[60]  R M Shiffrin,et al.  A Bayesian model for implicit effects in perceptual identification. , 2001, Psychological review.

[61]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  On the binary quality of recognition and the inconsequentiality of further knowledge: two critical tests of the recognition heuristic , 2006 .

[62]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality , 2004 .

[63]  Julian N. Marewski,et al.  The recognition heuristic in memory‐based inference: is recognition a non‐compensatory cue? , 2008 .

[64]  M. Brüne.  The evolutionary psychology of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the role of cognitive metarepresentation. , 2006, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[65]  Danilo Fum,et al.  Adaptive Selection of Problem Solving Strategies , 2001 .

[66]  Lael J. Schooler,et al.  From Disintegrated Architectures of Cognition to an Integrated Heuristic Toolbox , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[67]  U. Staudinger,et al.  Lifespan psychology: theory and application to intellectual functioning. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[68]  Lola L. Lopes.  Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness. , 1982 .

[69]  L. Schooler,et al.  The aging decision maker: cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. , 2007, Psychology and aging.

[70]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

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

[72]  S. Siegel,et al.  Decision making behavior in a two-choice uncertain outcome situation. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology.

[73]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[74]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[75]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Reflections of the Environment in Memory Form of the Memory Functions , 2022 .

[76]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  Searching for patterns in random sequences. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[77]  E. H. Shuford,et al.  Comparison of predictions and estimates in a probability learning situation. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[78]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[79]  Iver Mysterud,et al.  Take the best , 2000 .

[80]  Rüdiger F. Pohl,et al.  Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic , 2006 .

[81]  Y. Kareev.  Through a narrow window: working memory capacity and the detection of covariation , 1995, Cognition.

[82]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making , 2003 .

[83]  Christian Lebiere,et al.  Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation , 2006 .

[84]  B. Newell.  Re-visions of rationality? , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[85]  Christian Frings,et al.  Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events , 2006 .