Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):621-621 (2003)
|Abstract||This commentary examines one aspect of the target article – the comparison of ACT-R with connectionist models. It argues that conceptions of connectionist models should be broadened to cover the whole spectrum of work in this area, especially the so-called hybrid models. Doing so may change drastically ratings of connectionist models, and consequently shed more light on the developing field of cognitive architectures.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Opie (1998). Connectionist Modelling Strategies. Psycoloquy 9 (30).
John Hawthorne (1989). On the Compatibility of Connectionist and Classical Models. Philosophical Psychology 2 (1):5-16.
William Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. M. Rumelhart (eds.) (1991). Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keith Butler (1995). Representation and Computation in a Deflationary Assessment of Connectionist Cognitive Science. Synthese 104 (1):71-97.
James W. Garson (2003). Simulation and Connectionism: What is the Connection? Philosophical Psychology 16 (4):499-515.
Benny Shanon (1992). Are Connectionist Models Cognitive? Philosophical Psychology 5 (3):235-255.
Gerard O'Brien (1991). Is Connectionism Commonsense? Philosophical Psychology 4 (2):165-78.
Daniel C. Dennett (1991). Mother Nature Versus the Walking Encyclopedia. In William Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?