Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Action Execution Process Implemented in Different Cognitive Architectures: A Review Cover

The Action Execution Process Implemented in Different Cognitive Architectures: A Review

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence
Volume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (December 2014)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Dec 2014
References

References

  1. ACT-R 6.0 Tutorial. 2012. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/themes/ACT-R/actr6/actr6.zip
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Albus, J. S., and Barbera, A. J. 2005. RCS: A cognitive architecture for intelligent multi-agent systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 29(1):87-99.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. 2007. How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? : Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., and Qin, Y. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4):1036-1060.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Arrabales, R., Ledezma, A., and Sanchis, A. 2009. CERA-CRANIUM: A test bed for machine consciousness research. International Workshop on Machine Consciousness.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Baars, B. J. 1988. A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Baars, B. J. 2002. The conscious access hypothesis: origins and recent evidence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(1):47-52.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Bothell, D. n.d. ACT-R 6.0 Reference Manual (Working Draft). Retrieved from http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/themes/ACT-R/actr6/reference-manual.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, R. A. 1991. How to build complete creatures rather than isolated cognitive simulators.Architectures for Intelligence: The Twenty-second Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition:225-239.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Budiu, R. 2013. ACT-R Website. from http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Byrne, M. D., and Anderson, J. R. 2001. Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108(4):847-869.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Castiello, U. 2005. The neuroscience of grasping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(9):726-736.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Dickmanns, E. D. 1992. A general dynamic vision architecture for UGV and UAV. Applied Intelligence, 2(3):251-270.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Dickmanns, E. D. 2000. An expectation-based, multi-focal, saccadic (EMS) vision system for vehicle guidance. Paper presented at the International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR’99), 421-430, Snowbird Utah, USA.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Dong, D., and Franklin, S. 2014. Sensory Motor System: Modeling the process of action execution. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2145-2150, Austin TX, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Duch, W., Oentaryo, R. J., and Pasquier, M. 2008. Cognitive Architectures: Where do we go from here? Paper presented at the AGI, 122-136, Memphis TN, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, S., and Graesser, A. 1997. Is it an Agent, or just a Program?: A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents Intelligent agents III agent theories, architectures, and languages, 21-35.London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Franklin, S., Madl, T., D’Mello, S., and Snaider, J. 2014. LIDA: A Systems-level Architecture for Cognition, Emotion, and Learning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(1):19-41. doi: 10.1109/TAMD.2013.2277589
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Goertzel, B., Lian, R., Arel, I., De Garis, H., and Chen, S. 2010. A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures. Neurocomputing, 74(1):30-49.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Goodale, M. A., and Milner, A. D. 1992. Separate visual pathways for perception and action.Trends in neurosciences, 15(1):20-25.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Grafton, S. T. 2010. The cognitive neuroscience of prehension: recent developments. Experimental brain research, 204(4):475-491. Jeannerod, M. 2006. Motor cognition: What actions tell the self. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. 1996. The EPIC architecture: Principles of operation. Unpublished manuscript from ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras/EPICarch.ps.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. 1997. An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-computer interaction, 12(4):391-438.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Laird, J. 2012. The Soar cognitive architecture: MIT Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Laird, J. E. 2008. Extending the Soar cognitive architecture. Paper presented at the Artificial General Intelligence 2008, 224-235, Memphis TN, USA.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. Laird, J. E., Congdon, C. B., Coulter, K. J., Derbinsky, N., and Xu, J. 2012. The Soar User’s Manual Version 9.3.2. Computer Science and Engineering Department. University of Michigan. Unpublished manuscript.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Langley, P., and Choi, D. 2006. A unified cognitive architecture for physical agents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1469-1474, Boston MA, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Langley, P., Laird, J. E., and Rogers, S. 2009. Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(2):141-160.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Milner, D., and Goodale, M. A. 2008. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3):774-785.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. Rohrer, B. 2012. BECCA: Reintegrating AI for natural world interaction. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Designing Intelligent Robots: Reintegrating AI, Stanford California, USA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Russell, S. J., and Norvig, P. 2009. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach (Third ed.): Prentice hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Shapiro, S. C., and Bona, J. P. 2010. The GLAIR cognitive architecture. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 2(2):307-332.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Sun, R. 2003. A tutorial on CLARION 5.0. Unpublished manuscript.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Sun, R. 2006. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modeling to social simulation. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cognition and multi-agent interaction, 79-99. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2014-0002 | Journal eISSN: 1946-0163
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 49 - 68
Accepted on: Nov 30, 2014
Published on: Dec 30, 2014
Published by: Artificial General Intelligence Society
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
action execution,
cognitive model,
cognitive architecture
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Artificial intelligence

© 2014 Daqi Dong, Stan Franklin, published by Artificial General Intelligence Society
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (December 2014)
Previous article