Emmanuel M. Pothos

The Addiction-Stroop Test: Theoretical Considerations and Procedural Recommendations

Decisions about using addictive substances are influenced by distractions by addiction-related stimuli, of which the user might be unaware. The addiction-Stroop task is a paradigm used to assess this distraction. The empirical evidence for the addiction-Stroop effect is critically reviewed, and meta-analyses of alcohol-related and smoking-related studies are presented. Studies finding the strongest effects were those in which participants had strong current concerns about an addictive substance or such concerns were highlighted through experimental manipulations, especially those depriving participants of the substance. Theories to account for addiction-related attentional bias are discussed, of which the motivational theory of current concerns appears to provide the most complete account of the phenomenon. Recommendations are made for maximizing the precision of the addiction-Stroop test in future research.

A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory

Two experimental tasks in psychology, the two-stage gambling game and the Prisoners Dilemma game, show that people violate the sure thing principle of decision theory. These paradoxical findings have resisted explanation by classical decision theory for over a decade. A quantum probability model, based on a Hilbert space representation and Schrödingers equation, provides a simple and elegant explanation for this behaviour. The quantum model is compared with an equivalent Markov model and it is shown that the latter is unable to account for violations of the sure thing principle. Accordingly, it is argued that quantum probability provides a better framework for modelling human decision-making.

A Quantum Theoretical Explanation for Probability Judgment Errors.

A quantum probability model is introduced and used to explain human probability judgment errors including the conjunction and disjunction fallacies, averaging effects, unpacking effects, and order effects on inference. On the one hand, quantum theory is similar to other categorization and memory models of cognition in that it relies on vector spaces defined by features and similarities between vectors to determine probability judgments. On the other hand, quantum probability theory is a generalization of Bayesian probability theory because it is based on a set of (von Neumann) axioms that relax some of the classic (Kolmogorov) axioms. The quantum model is compared and contrasted with other competing explanations for these judgment errors, including the anchoring and adjustment model for probability judgments. In the quantum model, a new fundamental concept in cognition is advanced--the compatibility versus incompatibility of questions and the effect this can have on the sequential order of judgments. We conclude that quantum information-processing principles provide a viable and promising new way to understand human judgment and reasoning.

Theories of Artificial Grammar Learning.

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) is one of the most commonly used paradigms for the study of implicit learning and the contrast between rules, similarity, and associative learning. Despite five decades of extensive research, however, a satisfactory theoretical consensus has not been forthcoming. Theoretical accounts of AGL are reviewed, together with relevant human experimental and neuroscience data. The author concludes that satisfactory understanding of AGL requires (a) an understanding of implicit knowledge as knowledge that is not consciously activated at the time of a cognitive operation; this could be because the corresponding representations are impoverished or they cannot be concurrently supported in working memory with other representations or operations, and (b) adopting a frequency-independent view of rule knowledge and contrasting rule knowledge with specific similarity and associative learning (co-occurrence) knowledge.

Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling

Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.

A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization

We address the problem of predicting how people will spontaneously divide into groups a set of novel items. This is a process akin to perceptual organization. We therefore employ the simplicity principle from perceptual organization to propose a simplicity model of unconstrained spontaneous grouping. The simplicity model predicts that people would prefer the categories for a set of novel items that provide the simplest encoding of these items. Classification predictions are derived from the model without information either about the number of categories sought or information about the distributional properties of the objects to be classified. These features of the simplicity model distinguish it from other models in unsupervised categorization (where, for example, the number of categories sought is determined via a free parameter), and we discuss how these computational differences are related to differences in modeling objectives. The predictions of the simplicity model are validated in four experiments. We also discuss the significance of simplicity in cognitive modeling more generally.

The rules versus similarity distinction

The distinction between rules and similarity is central to our understanding of much of cognitive psychology. Two aspects of existing research have motivated the present work. First, in different cognitive psychology areas we typically see different conceptions of rules and similarity; for example, rules in language appear to be of a different kind compared to rules in categorization. Second, rules processes are typically modeled as separate from similarity ones; for example, in a learning experiment, rules and similarity influences would be described on the basis of separate models. In the present article, I assume that the rules versus similarity distinction can be understood in the same way in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and that a unified model for rules and similarity is appropriate. A rules process is considered to be a similarity one where only a single or a small subset of an objects properties are involved. Hence, rules and overall similarity operations are extremes in a single continuum of similarity operations. It is argued that this viewpoint allows adequate coverage of theory and empirical findings in learning, reasoning, categorization, and language, and also a reassessment of the objectives in research on rules versus similarity.

Formal approaches in categorization

1. Introduction Emmanuel M. Pothos and Andy J. Wills 2. The generalized context model: an exemplar model of classification Robert M. Nosofsky 3. Prototype models of categorization: basic formulation, predictions, and limitations John Paul Minda and J. David Smith 4. COVIS F. Gregory Ashby, Erick J. Paul and W. Todd Maddox 5. Semantics without categorization Timothy T. Rogers and James L. McClelland 6. Models of attentional learning John K. Kruschke 7. An elemental model of associative learning and memory Evan Livesey and Ian McLaren 8. Nonparametric Bayesian models of categorization Thomas L. Griffiths, Adam N. Sanborn, Kevin R. Canini, Daniel J. Navarro and Joshua B. Tenenbaum 9. The simplicity model of unsupervised categorization Emmanuel M. Pothos, Nick Chater and Peter Hines 10. Adaptive clustering models of categorization John V. McDonnell and Todd M. Gureckis 11. COBWEB models of categorization and probabilistic concept formation Wayne Iba and Pat Langley 12. The knowledge and resonance (KRES) model of category learning Harlan D. Harris and Bob Rehder 13. The contribution (and drawbacks) of models to the study of concepts Gregory L. Murphy 14. Formal models of categorization: insights from cognitive neuroscience Lukas Strnad, Stefano Anzellotti and Alfonso Caramazza 15. Comments on models and categorization theories: the razors edge Douglas Medin.

The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition

Quantum cognition research applies abstract, mathematical principles of quantum theory to inquiries in cognitive science. It differs fundamentally from alternative speculations about quantum brain processes. This topic presents new developments within this research program. In the introduction to this topic, we try to answer three questions: Why apply quantum concepts to human cognition? How is quantum cognitive modeling different from traditional cognitive modeling? What cognitive processes have been modeled using a quantum account? In addition, a brief introduction to quantum probability theory and a concrete example is provided to illustrate how a quantum cognitive model can be developed to explain paradoxical empirical findings in psychological literature.

The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning.

The authors examine the role of similarity in artificial grammar learning (AGL; A. S. Reber, 1989). A standard finite-state language was used to create stimuli that were arrangements of embedded geometric shapes (Experiment 1), connected lines (Experiment 2), and sequences of shapes (Experiment 3). Main effects for well-known predictors from the literature (grammaticality, associative global and anchor chunk strength, novel global and anchor chunk strength, length of items, and edit distance) were observed, thus replicating previous work. However, the authors extend previous research by using a widely known similarity-based exemplar model of categorization (the generalized context model; R. M. Nosofsky, 1989) to fit grammaticality judgments, by nested regression analyses. The results suggest that any explanation of AGL that is based on the existing theories is incomplete without a similarity process as well. Also, the results provide a foundation for further interpreting AGL in the wider context of categorization research.