Abstract
A hallmark of Cognitive Science is its interdisciplinary approach to the study of the structures and mechanisms of human and artificial cognitive systems. Over the past decade, sequential pattern acquisition has attracted the attention of researchers from Computer Science, Cognitive Psychology and the Neurosciences. Methodologies for the investigation of sequence learning processes range from the exploration of computational mechanisms to the conduct of experimental studies and the use of event-related brain potentials, functional magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography (Clegg, DiGirolamo, & Keele 1998; Curran 1998). This interest in sequential pattern acquisition is also understandable from an evolutionary perspective: sequencing information and learning of event contingencies are fundamentally important processes without which adaptive behavior in dynamic environments would hardly be possible. From sequencing continuous speech to learning operating sequences of technical devices or acquiring the skill to play a musical instrument, learning of event sequences seems to be an essential capability of human (and artificial) cognition. It is therefore not surprising that we are witnessing a tremendous interest in sequence learning in the disciplines contributing to Cognitive Science. This chapter presents and analyses a model of sequence learning based on the ACT-R theory (Anderson 1993; Anderson & Lebiere 1998). The model is rooted in, and has been successfully applied to, empirical studies using the serial reaction task that was introduced by (1987).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackley, D.H., Hinton, G.E., & Sejnowsky, T.J. (1985). A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines. Cognitive Science, 9, 147–169.
Anderson, J.R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 451–474.
Anderson, J.R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale: Lea.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale: Lea.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Lebiere, C. & Matessa, M. (1998). An integrated theory of list memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, pp. 341–380.
Anderson, J.R. & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah: Lea.
Anderson, J.R. & Schooler, L.J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396–408.
Berry, D.C. & Broadbent, D.E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209–231.
Berry, D.C. & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues. Mahwah: Lea.
Byrne, M.D. & Anderson, J.R. (1998). Perception and action. In J.R. Anderson & C. Lebiere (Eds.). The atomic components of thought (pp. 167–200). Mahwah: Lea.
Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Cleeremans, A. & McClelland, J.L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 235–253.
Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning: news from the front. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 406–416.
Cleeremans, A. & Jimenez, L. (1998). Implicit sequence learning: The truth is in the details. In M.A. Stadler & P.A. Frensch (Eds.). Handbook of implicit learning (p. 323–364). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Clegg, B.A., DiGirolamo, G.J., & Keele, S.W. (1998). Sequence Learning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 275–281.
Cohen, A., Ivry, R., & Keele, S.W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 17–30.
Curran, T. (1998). Implicit sequence learning from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In M.A. Stadler & P.A. Frensch (Eds.). Handbook of implicit learning (p. 365–400). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Curran, T. & Keele, S.W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 189–202.
de Bruijn, N. G. (1946). A combinatorial problem. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. 49, 758–764.
Elman, J.L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.
Ferrer-Gil, E. (1994). La unidad de aprendizaje en procesamiento no consciente: Un análisis experimental [The unit of learning in unconscious processing: An experimental analysis]. Psicologemas, 7, 195–217.
Frensch, P.A. (1998). One concept, multiple meanings: On how to define the concept of implicit learning. In M.A. Stadler & P.A. Frensch (Eds.). Handbook of implicit learning (p. 47–104). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Frensch, P.A., Lin, J., & Buchner, A. (1998). Learning versus behavioral expression of the learned: The effects of a secondary tone-counting task on implicit learning in the serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 61, 83–98.
Gonzalez, C, Lebiere, C., & Lerch, F. J. (1999). Act-R Learning in a Real-Time Dynamic Decision-Making Task. Presented at the 1999 ACT-R, Workshop, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Jimenez, L., Mendez, C., & Cleeremans, A. (1996). Comparing direct and indirect measures of implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 948–969.
Lebiere, C. (1998). The dynamics of cognition: an ACT-R model of cognitive arithmetic. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical Report CMU-CS-98-186. Also available on the web at http://reportsarchive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/
Lebiere, C. (1999). The dynamics of cognition: an ACT-R model of cognitive arithmetic. Kognitionswissenschaft, 8, 5–19.
Lebiere, C., & Wallach, D. (1998). Eine deklarative Theorie des Sequenzlernens. Paper presented at the Forty First Conference of the German Psychological Society, Dresden, Germany.
Lebiere, C., & Wallach, D. (in prep.). Implicit does not imply procedural: A declarative theory of sequence learning. Manuscript in preparation.
Lebiere, C., & West, R. L. (1999). A dynamic ACT-R model of simple games. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 296–301. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Bizot, E. (1988). Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 24–37.
Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.
Nattkemper, D. & Prinz, W. (1997). Stimulus and response anticipation in a serial reaction task. Psychological Research, 60, 98–112.
Newell, A. & Rosenbloom, P.S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the power law of practice. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.). Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–56). Hillsdale, Lea.
Nissen, M.J. & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–32.
Perruchet, P. & Amorim, M.-A. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 785–800.
Perruchet, P., & Gallego, J. & Savy, I. (1990). A critical reappraisal of the evidence for unconscious abstraction of deterministic rules in complex experimental situations. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 493–516.
Reber, A. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, D.C. & Wenzel, A.E. (1990). One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention. Psychological Review, 103, 734–760.
Sejnoski, T.J., Rosenberg, C. R. (1987). Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text. Complex Systems, vol.1, no.1, 145–68.
Stadler, M.A. (1995). Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 819–827.
Stadler, M.A. (1989). On learning complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1061–1069.
Stadler, M.A. & Roediger, H.L. (1998). The question of awareness in research on implicit learning. In M.A. Stadler & P.A. Frensch (Eds.). Handbook of implicit learning (p. 105–132). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Sun, R. (1999). Accounting for the computational basis of consciousness: A connectionist approach. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 529–565.
VanLehn, K., Brown, J.S. & Greeno, J. (1984). Competitive argumentation in computational theories of cognition. In W. Kintsch, J.R. Miller & P.G. Polson (Eds.). Methods and tactics in cognitive science (pp. 235–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lea.
Wallach, D., & Lebiere, C. (1999). Example-based models of control problems. Paper presented at the 1999 ACT-R Workshop, George-Mason University, Fairfax, Va. See http://hfac.gmu.edu/actr99/.
Wallach, D. & Lebiere, C. (2000). Learning of event sequences: An architectural approach. In J. Aasman & N. Taatgen (Eds.). Proceedings of the third international conference on cognitive modeling (pp. 271–279). Groningen: Universal Press.
Willingham, D.B., Nissen, M.J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1047–1060.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lebiere, C., Wallach, D. (2000). Sequence Learning in the ACT-R Cognitive Architecture: Empirical Analysis of a Hybrid Model. In: Sun, R., Giles, C.L. (eds) Sequence Learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1828. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44565-X_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44565-X_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41597-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44565-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive