14 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Graeme S. Halford [13]Graeme Sydney Halford [1]
  1. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (2010). Relational Knowledge: The Foundation of Higher Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (11):497-505.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Graeme S. Halford (2009). Complexity Provides a Better Explanation Than Probability for Confidence in Syllogistic Inferences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):91-91.
    Bayesian rationality is an important contribution to syllogistic inference, but it has limitations. The claim that confidence in a conclusion is a function of informativeness of the max-premise is anomalous because this is the least probable premise. A more plausible account is that confidence is inversely related to complexity. Bayesian rationality should be supplemented with principles based on cognitive complexity.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips & William H. Wilson (2008). The Missing Link: Dynamic, Modifiable Representations in Working Memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):137-138.
    We propose that the missing link from nonhuman to human cognition lies with our ability to form, modify, and re-form dynamic bindings between internal representations of world-states. This capacity goes beyond dynamic feature binding in perception and involves a new conception of working memory. We propose two tests for structured knowledge that might alleviate the impasse in empirical research in nonhuman animal cognition.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Graeme S. Halford, Nelson Cowan & Glenda Andrews (2007). Separating Cognitive Capacity From Knowledge: A New Hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (6):236-242.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips, William H. Wilson, Julie McCredden, Glenda Andrews, Damian Birney, Rosemary Baker & Bain & D. John (2007). Relational Processing is Fundamental to the Central Executive and It is Limited to Four Variables. In Naoyuki Osaka, Robert H. Logie & Mark D'Esposito (eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Graeme Sydney Halford, Steven Phillips, William H. Wilson, Julie McCredden, Glenda Andrews, Damian Birney, Rosemary Baker & John Duncan Bain (2007). Relational Processing is Fundamental to the Central Executive and It is Limited to Four Variables. In Naoyuki Osaka, Robert H. Logie & Mark D'Esposito (eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Graeme S. Halford & Glenda Andrews (2004). The Development of Deductive Reasoning: How Important is Complexity? Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):123 – 145.
    Current conceptions of the nature of human reasoning make it no longer tenable to assess children's inference by reference to the norms of logical inference. Alternatively, the complexity of the mental models employed in children's inferences can be analysed. This approach is applied to transitive inference, class inclusion, categorical induction, theory of mind, oddity, categorical syllogisms, analogy, and reasoning deficits. It is argued that a coherent account of children's reasoning emerges in that there is correspondence between tasks at the same (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Damian P. Birney & Graeme S. Halford (2002). Cognitive Complexity of Suppositional Reasoning: An Application of the Relational Complexity Metric to the Knight-Knave Task. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):109 – 134.
    An application of the Method of Analysis of Relational Complexity (MARC) to suppositional reasoning in the knight-knave task is outlined. The task requires testing suppositions derived from statements made by individuals who either always tell the truth or always lie. Relational complexity (RC) is defined as the number of unique entities that need to be processed in parallel to arrive at a solution. A selection of five ternary and five quaternary items were presented to 53 psychology students using a pencil (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips & William H. Wilson (2001). Processing Capacity Limits Are Not Explained by Storage Limits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):123-124.
    Cowan's review shows that a short-term memory limit of four items is consistent with a wide range of phenomena in the field. However, he does not explain that limit, whereas an existing theory does offer an explanation for capacity limitations. Furthermore, processing capacity limits cannot be reduced to storage limits as Cowan claims.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Glenda Andrews & Graeme S. Halford (1999). Complexity Effects Are Found in All Relative-Clause Sentence Forms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):95-95.
    We argue that if a different definition of sentence complexity is adopted and processing capacity is assessed in a way that is consistent with that definition, then the Caplan & Waters distinction between interpretive versus postinterpretive processing is unnecessary insofar that it applies to the thematic role assignment in relative-clause sentences.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Processing Capacity Defined by Relational Complexity: Implications for Comparative, Developmental, and Cognitive Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):803-831.
    Working memory limits are best defined in terms of the complexity of the relations that can be processed in parallel. Complexity is defined as the number of related dimensions or sources of variation. A unary relation has one argument and one source of variation; its argument can be instantiated in only one way at a time. A binary relation has two arguments, two sources of variation, and two instantiations, and so on. Dimensionality is related to the number of chunks, because (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Relational Complexity Metric is Effective When Assessments Are Based on Actual Cognitive Processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):848-860.
    The core issue of our target article concerns how relational complexity should be assessed. We propose that assessments must be based on actual cognitive processes used in performing each step of a task. Complexity comparisons are important for the orderly interpretation of research findings. The links between relational complexity theory and several other formulations, as well as its implications for neural functioning, connectionist models, the roles of knowledge, and individual and developmental differences, are considered.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Graeme S. Halford (1997). Recoding Can Lead to Inaccessible Structures, but Avoids Capacity Limitations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):75-75.
    The distinction between uninformed learning (type-1) and learning based on recoding using prior information (type-2) helps to clarify some long-standing psychological problems, including misunderstanding of mathematics by children, the need for active construction of concepts in cognitive development, and the difficulty of configural learning tasks. However, an alternative to recoding some type-2 tasks is to represent the input as separate dimensions, which are processed jointly. This preserves the original structure, but is subject to processing capacity limitations.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Graeme S. Halford (1993). Competing, or Perhaps Complementary, Approaches to the Dynamic-Binding Problem, with Similar Capacity Limitations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (3):461.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation