This article explicates the interaction between implicit and explicit processes in skill learning, in contrast to the tendency of researchers to study each type in isolation. It highlights various effects of the interaction on learning (including synergy effects). The authors argue for an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit processes. Moreover, they argue for a bottom-up approach (first learning implicit knowledge and then explicit knowledge) in the integrated model. A variety of qualitative data can be accounted for by the approach. A computational model, CLARION, is then used to simulate a range of quantitative data. The results demonstrate the plausibility of the model, which provides a new perspective on skill learning. The role of implicit learning in skill acquisition and the distinction between implicit and explicit learning have been widely recognized in recent years (see, e.g., Cleeremans, Destrebecqz, &

ABSTRACT This article addresses issues in developing cognitive architectures—generic computational models of cognition. Cognitive architectures are believed to be essential in advancing understanding of the mind, and therefore, developing cognitive architectures is an extremely important enterprise in cognitive science. The article proposes a set of essential desiderata for developing cognitive architectures. It then moves on to discuss in detail some of these desiderata and their associated concepts and ideas relevant to developing better cognitive architectures. It argues for the importance of taking into full consideration these desiderata in developing future architectures that are more cognitively and ecologically realistic. A brief and preliminary evaluation of existing cognitive architectures is attempted on the basis of these ideas. 1.

This paper explores the interaction between implicit and explicit processes during skill learning, in terms of top-down learning (that is, learning that goes from explicit to implicit knowledge) versus bottom-up learning (that is, learning that goes from implicit to explicit knowledge). Instead of studying each type of knowledge (implicit or explicit) in isolation, we stress the interaction between the two types, especially in terms of one type giving rise to the other, and its e#ects on learning. The work presents an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit processes and both top-down and bottom-up learning. We examine and simulate human data in the Tower of Hanoi task. The paper shows how the quantitative data in this task may be captured using either top-down or bottom-up approaches, although top-down learning is a more apt explanation of the human data currently available. These results illustrate the two different directions of learning (top-down versus bottom-up), and thereby provide a new perspective on skill learning.

The article first addresses the importance of cognitive modeling, in terms of its value to cognitive science (as well as other social and behavioral sciences). In particular, it emphasizes the use of cognitive architectures in this undertaking. Based on this approach, the article addresses, in detail, the idea of a multi-level approach that ranges from social to neural levels. In physical sciences, a rigorous set of theories is a hierarchy of descriptions/explanations, in which causal relationships among entities at a high level can be reduced to causal relationships among simpler entities at a more detailed level. We argue that a similar hierarchy makes possible an equally productive approach toward cognitive modeling. The levels of models that we conceive in relation to cognition include, at the highest level, sociological/anthropological models of collective human behavior, behavioral models of individual performance, cognitive models involving detailed mechanisms, representations, and processes, as well as biological/physiological models of neural circuits, brain regions, and other detailed biological processes.

To further explore the interaction between the implicit and explicit learning processes in skill acquisition (which have been tackled before, e.g., in Sun et al 2001, 2005), this paper explores details of the interaction of different learning modes: implicit learning, explicit hypothesis testing learning, and implicit-to-explicit knowledge extraction. Contrary to the common tendency in the literature to study each type of learning in isolation, this paper highlights the interaction among them and various effects of the interaction on learning, including the synergy effect. This work advocates an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit learning processes; moreover, it also uniquely embodies a bottom-up (implicit-to-explicit) learning approach in addition to other types of learning. The paper shows that this model accounts for various effects in the human behavioral data from the psychological experiments with the process control task, in addition to accounting for other data in other psychological experiments (which has been reported elsewhere). The paper shows that to account for these effects, implicit learning, bottom-up implicit-to-explicit extraction, and explicit hypothesis testing learning are all needed.

This paper aims to explore mechanistic and teleological explanations of consciousness. In terms of mechanistic explanations, it critiques various existing views, especially those embodied by existing computational cognitive models. In this regard, the paper argues in favor of the explanation based on the distinction between localist (symbolic) representation and distributed representation (as formulated in the connectionist literature), which reduces the phenomenological dierence to a mechanistic dierence. Furthermore, to establish a teleological explanation of consciousness, the paper discusses the issue of the functional role of consciousness on the basis of the afore-mentioned mechanistic explanation. A proposal based on synergistic interaction between the conscious and the unconscious is advanced that encompasses various existing views concerning the functional roles of consciousness. This two-step deepening explanation has some empirical support, in the form of a cognitive model...

Abstract not found

> How do we characterize the process and the dynamics of co-learning, conceptually, mathematically, or computationally? How do social structures and relations interact with co-learning of multiple agents? 1 And so on. A key question, however, is as follows, which deserves some discussion here. Adam Smith (1976) put it this way: He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it..... He intends only his own gain, and he is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. This paradox have been troubling sociologists and economists for many decades, and now computer scientists and psychologists as well. The issue may be formulated as the apparent gap between the individual intention in deciding his/her own action and the (possibly largely unintended) social function of his/her action. For example, how may self-interested action benet social welfare? Or,

In the physical sciences a rigorous theory is a hierarchy of descriptions in which causal relationships between many general types of entity at a phenomenological level can be derived from causal relationships between smaller numbers of simpler entities at more detailed levels. The hierarchy of descriptions resembles the modular hierarchy created in electronic systems in order to be able to modify a complex functionality without excessive side effects. Such a hierarchy would make it possible to establish a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness. The causal relationships implicit in definitions of access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness are made explicit, and the corresponding causal relationships at the more detailed levels of perception, memory, and skill learning described. Extension of these causal relationships to physiological and neural levels is discussed. The general capability of a range of current consciousness models to support a modular hierarchy which could generate these causal relationships is reviewed, and the specific capabilities of two models with good general capabilities are compared in some detail.

This article explores the view that computational models of cognition may constitute valid theories of cognition, often in the full sense of the term ‘‘theory”. In this discussion, this article examines various (existent or possible) positions on this issue and argues in favor of the view above. It also connects this issue with a number of other relevant issues, such as the general relationship between theory and data, the validation of models, and the practical benefits of computational modeling. All the discussions point to the position that computational cognitive models can be true theories of cognition.