Biography John Anderson was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1947.

He entered the University of British Columbia with hopes to become a writer, but left with the dream of practicing psychology as a precise and quantitative science. He graduated at the head of his class in Arts and Science in 1968. Anderson earned his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1972 under Gordon Bower. He then spent one year at Yale as an assistant professor, three years at the University of Michigan as a Junior Fellow, one year at Yale as an associate professor, and a final year as a full professor. He has been at Carnegie Mellon University since 1978. ACT* (Pronounced "A-C-T-star") is a cognitive theory dealing primarily with memory structures. Theory The model describes a spreading activation model of semantic memory, combined with a production system for executing higher level operations. According to this theory, there are three types of memory and three types of learning. Declarative memory (WHAT) encompasses factual components and their associations and sequences. Procedural memory, or production memory, (HOW) are sequences of behaviors (productions) based on conditions and actions stored in declarative memory. A production is a series of "if - then" rules: if x happens, then do y. New productions are formed by linking up existing ones, adding components, and deleting components. Working memory is the part of long-term memory which is currently in consciousness. These three aspects of memory work closely together, and each has its own functions and processes. act Three types of learning are Generalization- in which procedures (productions) are cross-contextualized or more widely applied Discrimination - in which procedures (productions) become more specialized Strengthening - in which procedures (productions) are applied more frequently. The theory includes notions of goal structure, problem-solving context, and feedback. Research with ACT* has showed that reaction time for fact retrieval increase as a function of the number of times the items sought were mentioned in a story. Unique content in stories is easier for the reader to retrieve. Memory ACTIVATION determines the probability of access to memory, and the rate at which a memory can be accessed, after a subject is cued to recall information. Two factors influence the level of activation: how recently the person has accessed the memory, and how much they have practiced or rehearsed the information. SPREADING ACTIVATION proposes that activation travels along a network of connections, so that once cued, a subject may have multiple responses based on the connections among bits of information in memory. Spreading activation is not believed to be entirely under the subject's control, but cueing may activate remote connections without the subject's volition being involved. This tendency for memories to be activated is called ASSOCIATIVE PRIMING. ACT-R is a general theory of cognition developed by John Anderson and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon Univeristy that focuses on memory processes . It is an elaboration of the original ACT theory (Anderson, 1976) and builds upon HAM, a model of semantic memory proposed by Anderson & Bower (1973). Anderson (1983) provides a complete description of ACT-R. In addition, Anderson (1990) provides his own critique of ACT-R and Anderson (1993) provides the outline for a broader development of the theory. See the CMU ACT site for the most up-to-date information on the theory. ACT-R distinguishes among three types of memory structures: declarative, procedural and working memory. Declarative memory takes the form of a semantic net linking propositions, images, and sequences by associations. Procedural memory (also long-term) represents information in the form of productions; each production has a set of conditions and actions based in declarative memory. The nodes of long-term memory all have some degree of activation and working memory is that part of long-term memory that is most highly activated. According to ACT-R, all knowledge begins as declarative information; procedural knowledge is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge. ACT-R supports three fundamental types of learning: generalization, in which productions become broader in their range of application, discrimination, in which productions become narrow in their range of application, and strengthening, in which some productions are applied more often. New productions are formed by the conjunction or disjunction of existing productions. Application ACT-R can explain a wide variety of memory effects as well as account for higher order skills such as geometry proofs, programming and language learning (see Anderson, 1983; 1990). ACT-R has been the basis for intelligent tutors (Anderson, Boyle, Farrell & Reiser, 1987; Ritter et al, 2007). Example One of the strengths of ACT is that it includes both proposition and procedural representation of knowledge as well as accounting for the use of goals and plans. For example, here is a production rule that could be used to convert declarative sentences into a question: IF the goal is to question whether the proposition (LVrelation LVagent LVobject) is true THEN set as subgoals 1. to plan the communication (LVrelation LVagent LVobject) 2. to move the first word in the description of LVrelation to the beginning of the sentence 3. to execute the plan This production rule could be used to convert the sentence: "The lawyer is buying the car." into the question: "Is the lawyer buying the car?" Principles 1. Identify the goal structure of the problem space. 2. Provide instruction in the context of problem-solving. 3. Provide immediate feedback on errors. 4. Minimize working memory load. 5. Adjust the "grain size" of instruction with learning to account for the knowledge compilation process. 6. Enable the student to approach the target skill by successive approximation. The Adaptive Character of Thought - Rational (ACT-R) is a theory of cognition developed principally by John Anderson at Carnegie-Mellon University [4]. ACT-R models how humans recall \chunks" of information from memory and how they solve problems by breaking them down into subgoals and applying knowledge from working memory as needed. 1.1 Roadmap We rst introduce the crucial distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge in Section2. The document then proceeds in a top-down fashion: Under the assumption that the agent (a human,or possibly a computer) already has all of the knowledge he/she needs, we examine in Section 3 how the decision-making process is made on a rational basis under ACT-R. In particular, we describe the mechanism by which a particular \production rule," corresponding to the \actions" of ACT-R, is chosen out of many possible alternatives. In Section 4, we remove the assumption that knowledge is already available, and describe the ACT-R processes by which new knowledge is acquired. This includes both the creation of new memories, as well as the strengthening (and decay) of existing ones. Finally, in Sections 6 and 7, we discuss how ACT-R partially models the Spacing Effect and the Power Laws of Learning/Forgetting. 12 Declarative versus Procedural Knowledge Under ACT-R, human knowledge is divided into two disjoint but related sets of knowledge { declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge comprises many knowledge chunks, which are the current set of facts that are known and goals that are active. Two examples of chunks are \The bank is closed on Sundays," and \The current goal is to run up a hill." Notice that each chunk may refer to other chunks. For instance, our first example chunk refers to the concepts of \bank," \closed," and \Sunday," which presumably arethemselves all chunks in their own right. When a chunk i refers to, or is referred to by, another chunk j, then chunk i is said to be connected to chunk j. This relationship is not clearly defined in ACT-R { for instance, whether the relationship is always symmetrical, or whether it can be re exive (i.e., a chunk referring to itselfin recursive fashion), is not speci ed. Procedural knowledge is the set of production rules { if/then statements that specify how a particular goal can be achieved when a speci ed pre-condition is met { that the agent currently knows. A productionrule might state, for instance, \If I am hungry, then eat." For the domain of intelligent tutoring systems,for which ACT* and ACT-R were partly conceived, a more typical rule might be, \If the goal is to prove triangle similarity, then prove that any two pairs of angles are congruent." The human memory contains many declarative knowledge chunks and production rules. At any point in time, when a person is trying to complete some task, a production rule, indicating the next step to take in order to solve the problem, may \ re" if the rule's pre-condition, which is a conjunction of logical propositions that must hold true according to the current state of declarative memory, is fulfilled. Sincethe currently available set of knowledge chunks may fulfill the pre-conditions of multiple production rules, a competition exists among production rules to select the one that will actually fire. (This competition will be described later.) Whichever rule ends up firing may result either in the goal being achieved, or in thecreation of new knowledge chunks in working memory, which may then trigger more production rules, and so on. \Process columns" is pushed onto the \goal stack." ACT* THEORY Explaining memory effects History and Orientation ACT* is a general theory of cognition developed by John Anderson that focuses on memory processes. ACT* distinguishes among three types of memory structures: declarative, procedural and working memory. Declarative memory takes the form of a semantic net linking propositions, images, and sequences by associations. Procedural memory (also long-term) represents information in the form of productions; each production has a set of conditions and actions based in declarative memory. The nodes of long-term memory all have some degree of activation and working memory is that part of long-term memory that is most highly activated. Core Assumptions and Statements According to ACT*, all knowledge begins as declarative information; procedural knowledge is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge. ACT* supports three fundamental types of learning: generalization, in which productions become broader in their range of application, discrimination, in which productions become narrow in their range of application, and strengthening, in which some productions are applied more often. New productions are formed by the conjunction or disjunction of existing productions. Conceptual Model

ACT* can explain a wide variety of memory effects as well as account for higher order skills such as geometry proofs, programming and language learning (see Anderson, 1983; 1990). ACT* has been the basis for intelligent tutors (Anderson, Boyle, Farrell & Reiser, 1987). Example One of the strengths of ACT is that it includes both proposition and procedural representation of knowledge as well as accounting for the use of goals and plans. For example, here is a production rule that could be used to convert dec larative sentences into a question: IF the goal is to question whether the proposition (LVrelation LVagent LVobject) is true THEN set as subgoals 1. to plan the communication (LVrelation LVagent LVobject) 2. to move the first word in the description of LVrelation to the beginning of the sentence 3. to execute the plan This production rule could be used to convert the sentence: "The lawyer is buying the car." into the question: "Is the lawyer buying the car?" From Ebbinghaus onward psychology has seen an enormous amount of research invested in the study of learning and memory. This research has produced a steady stream of results and, with a few "mini-revolutions" along the way, a steady increase in our understanding of how knowledge is acquired, retained, retrieved, and utilized. Throughout this history there has been a concern with the relationship of this research to its obvious application to education. The first author has written two textbooks (Anderson, 1995a, 1995b) summarizing some of this research. In both textbooks he has made efforts to identify the implications of this research for education. However, he left both textbooks feeling very dissatisfied -- that the intricacy of research and theory on the psychological side was not showing through in the intricacy of educational application. One finds in psychology many claims of relevance of cognitive psychology research for education. However, these claims are loose and vague and contrast sharply with the crisp theory and results that exist in the field. To be able to rigorously understand what the implications are of cognitive psychology research one needs a rigorous theory that bridges the gap between the detail of the laboratory experiment and the scale of the educational enterprise. This chapter is based on the ACT-R theory (Anderson, 1993, 1996) which has been able to explain learning in basic psychology experiments and in a number of educational domains. ACT-R has been advertised as a "simple theory of learning and cognition". It proposes that complex cognition is composed of relatively simple knowledge units which are acquired according to relatively simple principles. Human cognition is complex but this complexity reflects complex composition of the basic elements and principles just as a computer can produce complex aggregate behavior from simple computing elements. The ACT-R perspective places a premium on the practice which is required to learn permanently the components of the desired competence. The ACT-R theory claims that to learn a complex competence each component of that competence must be mastered. It is a sharp contrast to many educational claims, supposedly based in cognitive research, that there are moments of insight or transformations when whole knowledge structures become reorganized or learned. In contrast, ACT-R implies that there is no free lunch and each piece of knowledge requires its own due of learning. Given the prevalence of the free lunch myth we will endeavor to show that it is not true empirically and to explain why it can not be true within the ACT-R theory. This chapter will have the following organization. First we will describe the ACT-R theory and its learning principles. In the light of this theory, we will identify what we think are the important implications of psychological research for education. We will also address the issue of why so much of the research on learning and memory falls short of significant educational application. We will devote special attention to the issues of insight, learning with understanding, and transfer which are part of the free lunch myth. Finally, we will describe how we have tried to bring the lessons of this analysis to bear in the design of our cognitive tutors (Anderson, Boyle, Corbett, & Lewis, 1990; Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995). The ACT-R Theory The ACT-R theory admits of three basic binary distinctions. First, there is a distinction between two types of knowledge -declarative knowledge of facts and procedural knowledge of how to3 do various cognitive tasks. Second, there is the distinction between the performance assumptions about how ACT-R deploys what it knows to solve a task and the learning assumptions about how it acquires new knowledge. Third, there is a distinction between the symbolic level in ACT-R which involves discrete knowledge structures and a sub-symbolic level which involves neural-like activation-based processes that determine the availability of these symbolic structures. We will first describe ACT-R at the symbolic level. A symbolic-level analysis of the knowledge structures in a domain corresponds basically to a task analysis of what needs to be learned in that domain. However, as we will see, the availability of these symbolic structures depends critically on the subsymbolic processes. Declarative and Procedural Knowledge Declarative knowledge reflects the factual information that a person knows and can report. According to ACT-R declarative knowledge is represented as a network of small units of primitive knowledge called chunks. Figure 1 is a graphical display of a chunk encoding the addition fact that 3+4=7 and some of its surrounding facts. These are some of the many facts that a child might have involving these numbers. Frequently, one encounters the question What does it mean to understand 3 or to understand numbers in general? The answer in ACT-R is quite definite on this matter: Understanding involves a large number of declarative chunks like those in Figure 1 plus a large number of procedural units which determine how this knowledge is used. According to the ACT-R theory, understanding requires nothing more or less than such a set of knowledge units. Understanding of a concept results when we have enough knowledge about the concept that we can flexibly solve significant problems involving the concept. Procedural knowledge, such as mathematical problem-solving skill, is represented by a large number of rule-like units called productions. Production rules are condition-action units which respond to various problem-solving conditions with specific cognitive actions. The steps of thought in a production system correspond to a sequence of such condition-action rules which execute or (in the terminology of production systems) fire. Production rules in ACT-R specify in their condition the existence of specific goals and often involve the creation of subgoals. For instance, suppose a child was at the point illustrated below in the solution of a multi-column addition problem: 534 +248 2 Focused on the tens column the following production rule might apply taken from the ACT-Rsimulation of multi-column addition in Anderson (1993): IF the goal is to add n1 and n2 in a column and n1 + n2 = n3 THEN set as a subgoal to write n3 in that column This production rule specifies in its condition the goal of working on the tens column and involves a retrieval of a declarative chunk like the 3+4=7 fact in Figure 1. In its action it creates a subgoal which might involve things like processing a carry. It is many procedural rules like this along with the chunks which in total produce what we recognize as competence in a domain like mathematics.

More recently, ACT-R has been used to predict patterns of brain activation during imaging experiments. In this field, ACT[29] R models have been successfully used to predict prefrontal and parietal activity in memory retrieval, anterior cingulate [30] [31] activity for control operations, and practice-related changes in brain activity. Education[edit] [32][33] ACT-R has been often adopted as the foundation for cognitive tutors. These systems use an internal ACT-R model to mimic the behavior of a student and personalize his/her instructions and curriculum, trying to "guess" the difficulties that students may have and provide focused help. Such "Cognitive Tutors" are being used as a platform for research on learning and cognitive modeling as part of the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center. Some of the most successful applications, like the Cognitive Tutor for Mathematics, are used in thousands of schools across the United States. Brief history[edit] Early years: 1973-1990[edit] ACT-R is the ultimate successor of a series of increasingly precise models of human cognition developed by John R. Anderson. Its roots can be backtraced to the original HAM (Human Associative Memory) model of memory, described by John R. [34] [35] Anderson andGordon Bower in 1973. The HAM model was later expanded into the first version of the ACT theory. This was the first time the procedural memory was added to the original declarative memory system, introducing a computational [36] dichotomy that was later proved to hold in human brain. The theory was then further extended into the ACT* model of [37] human cognition. Integration with rational analysis: 1990-1998[edit] In the late eighties, Anderson devoted himself to exploring and outlining a mathematical approach to cognition that he [38] named Rational Analysis. The basic assumption of Rational Analysis is that cognition is optimally adaptive, and precise [39] estimates of cognitive functions mirror statistical properties of the environment. Later on, he came back to the development of the ACT theory, using the Rational Analysis as a unifying framework for the underlying calculations. To highlight the importance of the new approach in the shaping of the architecture, its name was modified to ACT-R, with the [40] "R" standing for "Rational" In 1993, Anderson met with Christian Lebiere, a researcher in connectionist models mostly famous for developing with Scott [41] Fahlmanthe Cascade Correlation learning algorithm. Their joint work culminated in the release of ACT-R 4.0. Thanks to Mike Byrne (now atRice University), version 4.0 also included optional perceptual and motor capabilities, mostly inspired from the EPIC architecture, which greatly expanded the possible applications of the theory. Current developments 1998-present[edit] After the release of ACT-R 4.0, John Anderson became more and more interested in the underlying neural plausibility of his life-time theory, and began to use brain imaging techniques pursuing his own goal of understanding the computational underpinnings of human mind. The necessity of accounting for brain localization pushed for a major revision of the theory. ACT-R 5.0 introduced the concept of modules, specialized sets of procedural and declarative representations that could be mapped to known brain [42] systems. In addition, the interaction between procedural and declarative knowledge was mediated by newly introduced buffers, specialized structures for holding temporarily active information (see the section above). Buffers were thought to reflect cortical activity, and a subsequent series of studies later confirmed that activations in cortical regions could be successfully related to computational operations over buffers. A new version of the code, completely rewritten, was presented in 2005 as ACT-R 6.0. It also included significant improvements in the ACT-R coding language. Spin Offs[edit] The long development of the ACT-R theory gave birth to a certain number of parallel and related projects. The most important ones are the PUPS production system, an initial implementation of Anderson's theory, later abandoned; [6] and ACT-RN, a neural network implementation of the theory developed by Christian Lebiere. Lynne Reder, also at Carnegie Mellon University, developed in the early nineties SAC, a model of conceptual and perceptual aspects of memory that shares many features with the ACT-R core declarative system, although differing in some assumptions. 1 Definition John R. Anderson's et al.s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT*) theories are human information processing and knowledge representation theories. ACT theory started out in the Simon-Newell tradition, i.e. as a purely symbolic model of human thought and memory. The latest version is Adaptive control of thought-rational (ACT-R Version 6) (Anderson et al., 2004) and incorporates more recent ideas about embodyment (perception and action) and subsymbolic processes. 2 Overview Related to the distinction of declarative vs. procedural knowledge, the critical atomic components of cognition and human memory are identified as chunks and productions. According to Yates (2007:32), Anderson (1996) claims the following: All that there is to intelligence is the simple accrual and tuning of many small units of knowledge that in total produce complex cognition. The whole is no more than the sum of its parts, but it has a lot of parts. (p. 356). According to Yates (2007:33): Procedural knowledge consists of condition-action (IF-THEN) pairs called productions which are activated according to rules relating to a goal structure (Anderson, 1983). Within the ACT framework, all knowledge is initially declarative and is interpreted by general procedures. Productions, then, connect declarative knowledge with behavior. Procedural knowledge represents "how to do things." It is knowledge that is displayed in our behavior, but that we do not hold consciously (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). As a task is performed, interpretive applications are gradually replaced with productions that perform the task directly, a process called proceduralization. For example, rehearsing how to manually shift gears in a car is gradually replaced by a production that recognizes and executes the production. In other words, explicit declarative knowledge is replaced by direct application of procedural knowledge (Anderson, 2005). Sequences of productions may be combined into a single production, a process called composition. Together, proceduralization and composition are called knowledge compilation, which creates task-specific productions during practice. The process of proceduralization affects working memory by reducing the load resulting from information being retrieved from long-term memory. See production system and Soar for some technical background. According to ACT*, all knowledge begins as declarative information; procedural knowledge is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge. ACT* supports three fundamental types of learning: generalization, in which productions become broader in their range of application, discrimination, in which productions become narrow in their range of application, and strengthening, in which some productions are applied more often. New productions are formed by the conjunction or disjunction of existing productions. (Kearsley: 1994) Summary of ACT-R (Anderson et al. 2004). 1. There are multiple independent modules whose information processing is encapsulated. 2. The modules can place chunks reflecting their processing in their buffers and the production system can detect when critical patterns are satisfied among these chunks. 3. From those productions whose conditions are satisfied a single production will be selected at any time and fire, leading to updates to various buffers that in turn can trigger information processing in their respective modules. 4. While chunks and productions are the symbolic components of the system reflecting its overall information flow, chunks have subsymbolic activations and productions have subsymbolic utilities that control which chunks and productions get used. 5. Learning can involve either acquiring new chunks and productions or tuning their subsymbolic parameters. 6. These processes are stochastic and take place in real time. 3 ACT as modeling framework ACT-R is a cognitive architecture: a theory about how human cognition works. On the exterior, ACT-R looks like a programming language; however, its constructs reflect assumptions about human cognition. These assumptions are based on numerous facts derived from psychology experiments (About, retrieved 11:05, 16 November 2007 (MET)). 4 ACT theory in education ACT* theory can explain a range of learning types and therefore influence instructional design models. It also is popular in research onintelligent tutoring systems since the ACT* is a model of a cognitive architecture embedded in a modeling/programming language. As such it can be used to model learners, e.g. "understand" what difficulties they might have. (This section needs to be expanded a lot ...) Overview ACT-R is a model of the human cognitive process developed and used by cognitive psychologists, which can be applied to HCI. It is an acronym for "The Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational". While it is often referred to as "the ACTR theory", it is not properly considered a theory of cognition, but rather a cognitive architecture that can accommodate different theories. The scope of ACT-R is greater than the scope of any particular theory, and multiple (possibly competing) theories can fit within the framework of ACT-R. It was developed to model problem solving, learning and memory. ACT-R is generally used by researchers in cognitive psychology, but researchers have also found applications in HCI. Production rules A fundamental characteristic of ACT-R is that it is a production system theory. The basic premise of a production system theory is that a cognitive skill is composed of conditional statements known as production rules . A production rule is a statement that describes an action which should be taken if a condition is met, sometimes referred to as a condition-action pair. For example: IF the goal is to classify a shape and the shape has four equal sides THEN classify the shape as a square. Cognitive tasks are achieved by stringing together production rules, and applying them to working memory. Such a collection of production rules is referred to simply as a production. When a production rule is applied, it is said to fire. Principles In ACT-R, there are two different categories of long-term memory: declarative and procedural. Declarative memory consists of facts such as "Annapolis is the capital of Maryland", "A square has four equal sides", or "8*7=56". Procedural memory consists of our knowledge of how to do things, though we may not be able to verbalize how we are able to do these things. Examples of procedural knowledge include our ability to drive a car or speak English. Declarative knowledge is represented in ACT-R by units called chunks. Procedural knowledge is represented by productions, which are collections of production rules. ACT-R defines a syntax to represent chunks and productions. An ACT-R model can be represented as a computer program in the LISP programming language, and can be executed. In this syntax, chunks have a schema-like representation containing an "isa" field specifying the category of knowledge, and additional fields to encode the knowledge. Below is an encoding of the fact "8*7=56" fact8*7 isa multiplication-fact multiplicand1 eight multiplicand2 seven product fifty-six Below is an encoding of the production rules for counting from one number from another. It is taken from the ACT-R Research Groupwebsite. (P increment =goal> ISA count-from number =num1 =retrieval> ISA count-order first =num1 second =num2 ==> =goal> number =num2 +retrieval> ISA count-order first =num2 ) Within this production rules paradigm, cognitive tasks are performed by assembling production rules by setting goals, and by reading and writing to working memory (sometimes referred to as buffers). Goals (and subgoals) are represented on a structure called the goal stack. Two other important concepts in ACT-R are pattern matching and conflict resolution. Pattern matching is the process which determines if a production's conditions are met by the current state of working memory. Conflict resolution is the process that determines which production should be applied if several production rules are applicable. ACT-R models are defined on two levels of abstraction: the symbolic level and the subsymbolic level. The symbolic level is concerned with productions and chunks as described above. These high-level concepts are implemented by a subsymbolic structure, which consists of a collection of massively parallel processes which are modeled by a set of mathematical equations. These subsymbolic elements affect the high-level chunks and productions. They can be used to determine which production to select for execution, and they determine the speed at which information can be retrieved from declarative memory. They are also responsible for most of the learning processes in ACT-R. The ideal is that this subsymbolic system accurately models the neurological information processing units of the human brain. Scope and Application Since ACT-R is a cognitive architecture, it covers a wide range of human cognitive tasks, focusing on learning and problem solving. It has been previously applied to modeling such tasks as solving the Tower of Hanoi puzzle, memory for text or for lists of words, language comprehension, communication and aircraft controlling. To develop an ACT-R model, one must add domain-specific knowledge to the ACT-R architecture. Examples ACT-R models tend to be quite large for all but the most non-trivial of tasks. A prototypical example is the ACTR model for solving the standard Tower of Hanoi problem. This example can be found at the ACT-R research group website. ACT-R has only recently been applied to HCI. Many of these applications are at a preliminary "proof-ofconcept" stage. Byrne (1999) used ACT-R (specifically, ACT-R/PM) to model random menu selection. Users searched for a target item on a menu, timings were recorded and compared to an ACT-R model. Another interesting example of the use of ACT-R applied specifically to HCI is given by Ritter et al (2002). They suggest the use of ACT-R/PM to design a Cognitive Model Interface Evaluation (CMIE) tool. Such a tool can display a user interface, run a cognitive model to interact with the interface, provide display facilities for model traces, and predict performance. They are currently developing a prototype system.

[28]

ACT-R ACT-R (pronounced act-ARE: Adaptive Control of ThoughtRational) is a cognitive architecture mainly developed by John Robert Anderson at Carnegie Mellon University. Like any cognitive architecture, ACT-R aims to define the basic and irreducible cognitive and perceptual operations that enable the human mind. In theory, each task that humans can perform should consist of a series of these discrete operations. Most of the ACT-R basic assumptions are also inspired by the progress of cognitive neuroscience, and ACT-R can be seen and described as a way of specifying how the brain itself is organized in a way that enables individual processing modules to produce cognition.

Inspiration[edit] ACT-R has been inspired by the work of Allen Newell, and especially by his lifelong championing the idea of unified theories [1] as the only way to truly uncover the underpinnings of cognition. In fact, John Anderson usually credits Allen Newell as the major source of influence over his own theory. What ACT-R looks like[edit] Like other influential cognitive architectures (including Soar, CLARION, and EPIC), the ACT-R theory has a computational implementation as an interpreter of a special coding language. The interpreter itself is written in Lisp, and might be loaded into any of the most common distributions of the Lisp language. This means that any researcher may download the ACT-R code from the ACT-R website, load it into a Lisp distribution, and gain full access to the theory in the form of the ACT-R interpreter. Also, this enables researchers to specify models of human cognition in the form of a script in the ACT-R language. The language primitives and data-types are designed to reflect the theoretical assumptions about human cognition. These assumptions are based on numerous facts derived from experiments in cognitive psychology and brain imaging. Like a programming language, ACT-R is a framework: for different tasks (e.g., Tower of Hanoi, memory for text or for list of words, language comprehension, communication, aircraft controlling), researchers create "models" (i.e., programs) in ACTR. These models reflect the modelers' assumptions about the task within the ACT-R view of cognition. The model might then be run. Running a model automatically produces a step-by-step simulation of human behavior which specifies each individual cognitive operation (i.e., memory encoding and retrieval, visual and auditory encoding, motor programming and execution, mental imagery manipulation). Each step is associated with quantitative predictions of latencies and accuracies. The model can be tested by comparing its results with the data collected in behavioral experiments. In recent years, ACT-R has also been extended to make quantitative predictions of patterns of activation in the brain, as detected in experiments with fMRI. In particular, ACT-R has been augmented to predict the shape and time-course of the BOLD response of several brain areas, including the hand and mouth areas in the motor cortex, the left prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and thebasal ganglia. Brief outline[edit] ACT-R's most important assumption is that human knowledge can be divided into two irreducible kinds of representations: declarativeand procedural. Within the ACT-R code, declarative knowledge is represented in the form of chunks, i.e. vector representations of individual properties, each of them accessible from a labelled slot. Chunks are held and made accessible through buffers, which are the front-end of what are modules, i.e. specialized and largely independent brain structures. There are two types of modules:

Perceptual-motor modules, which take care of the interface with the real world (i.e., with a simulation of the real world). The most well-developed perceptual-motor modules in ACT-R are the visual and the manual modules.

Memory modules. There are two kinds of memory modules in ACT-R:

Procedural memory, made of productions. Productions represent knowledge about how we do things: for instance, knowledge about how to type the letter "Q" on a keyboard, about how to drive, or about how to perform addition. All the modules can only be accessed through their buffers. The contents of the buffers at a given moment in time represents the state of ACT-R at that moment. The only exception to this rule is the procedural module, which stores and applies procedural knowledge. It does not have an accessible buffer and is actually used to access other module's contents. Procedural knowledge is represented in form of productions. The term "production" reflects the actual implementation of ACT-R as aproduction system, but, in fact, a production is mainly a formal notation to specify the information flow from cortical areas (i.e. the buffers) to the basal ganglia, and back to the cortex. At each moment, an internal pattern matcher searches for a production that matches the current state of the buffers. Only one such production can be executed at a given moment. That production, when executed, can modify the buffers and thus change the state of the system. Thus, in ACT-R, cognition unfolds as a succession of production firings. The symbolic vs. connectionist debate[edit] In the cognitive sciences, different theories are usually ascribed to either the "symbolic" or the "connectionist" approach to [2] cognition. ACT-R clearly belongs to the "symbolic" field and is classified as such in standard textbooks and collections. Its entities (chunks and productions) are discrete and its operations are syntactical, that is, not referring to the semantic content of the representations but only to their properties that deem them appropriate to participate in the computation(s). This is seen clearly in the chunk slots and in the properties of buffer matching in productions, both of which function as standard symbolic variables. Members of the ACT-R community, including its developers, prefer to think of ACT-R as a general framework that specifies how the brain is organized, and how its organization gives birth to what is perceived (and, in cognitive psychology, investigated) as mind, going beyond the traditional symbolic/connectionist debate. None of this, naturally, argues against the classification of ACT-R as symbolic system, because all symbolic approaches to cognition aim to describe the mind, as a product of brain function, using a certain class of entities and systems to achieve that goal. A common misunderstanding suggests that ACT-R may not be a symbolic system because it attempts to characterize brain function. This is incorrect on two counts: First, because all approaches to computational modeling of cognition, symbolic or otherwise, must in some respect characterize brain function, because the mind is brain function. And second, because all such approaches, including connectionist approaches, attempt to characterize the mind at a cognitive level of description [3] and not at the neural level, because it is only at the cognitive level that important generalizations can be retained. Further misunderstandings arise because of the associative character of certain ACT-R properties, such as chunks spreading activation to each other, or chunks and productions carrying quantitative properties relevant to their selection. None of these properties counter the fundamental nature of these entities as symbolic, regardless of their role in unit selection and, ultimately, in computation. Theory vs. implementation, and Vanilla ACT-R[edit] The importance of distinguishing between the theory itself and its implementation is usually highlighted by ACT-R developers. In fact, much of the implementation does not reflect the theory. For instance, the actual implementation makes use of additional 'modules' that exist only for purely computational reasons, and are not supposed to reflect anything in the brain (e.g., one computational module contains the pseudo-random number generator used to produce noisy parameters, while another holds naming routines for generating data structures accessible through variable names). Also, the actual implementation is designed to enable researchers to modify the theory, e.g. by altering the standard parameters, or creating new modules, or partially modifying the behavior of the existing ones. Finally, while Anderson's laboratory at CMU maintains and releases the official ACT-R code, other alternative [4] implementations of the theory have been made available. These alternative implementations include jACT-R (written in Java by Anthony M. Harrison at theNaval Research Laboratory) and Python ACT-R (written in Python by Terrence C. [5] Stewart and Robert L. West at Carleton University, Canada). [6] Similarly, ACT-RN (now discontinued) was a full-fledged neural implementation of the 1993 version of the theory. All of these versions were fully functional, and models have been written and run with all of them. Because of these implementational degrees of freedom, the ACT-R community usually refers to the "official", lisp-based, version of the theory, when adopted in its original form and left unmodified, as "Vanilla ACT-R". Applications[edit] Over the years, ACT-R models have been used in more than 700 different scientific publications, and have been cited in many more. Memory, attention, and executive control[edit] The ACT-R declarative memory system has been used to model human memory since its inception. In the course of years, it has been adopted to successfully model a large number of known effects. They include the fan effect of interference for [7] [8] [9] associated information, primacy and recency effects for list memory, and serial recall. ACT-R has been used to model attentive and control processes in a number of cognitive paradigms. These include [10][11] [12][13] [14] [15] the Stroop task, task switching, the psychological refractory period, and multi-tasking. Natural language[edit] A number of researchers have been using ACT-R to model several aspects of natural language understanding and [16] [17] [18] production. They include models of syntactic parsing, language understanding, language acquisition and metaphor [19] comprehension. Complex tasks[edit] [20] ACT-R has been used to capture how humans solve complex problems like the Tower of Hanoi, or how people solve [21] [22] algebraic equations. It has also been used to model human behavior in driving and flying. With the integration of perceptual-motor capabilities, ACT-R has become increasingly popular as a modeling tool in human factors and human-computer interaction. In this domain, it has been adopted to model driving behavior under different [23][24] [25][26] [27] conditions, menu selection and visual search on computer application, and web navigation. Cognitive neuroscience[edit]

Declarative memory, consisting of facts such as Washington, D.C. is the capital of United States, France is a country in Europe, or 2+3=5

Source: Anderson (1976). Favorite Methods Experimental research and Computational simulations.
Scope and Application