Dynamic context discrimination : psychological evidence for the Sandia Cognitive Framework.

Human behavior is a function of an iterative interaction between the stimulus environment and past experience. It is not simply a matter of the current stimulus environment activating the appropriate experience or rule from memory (e.g., if it is dark and I hear a strange noise outside, then I turn on the outside lights and investigate). Rather, it is a dynamic process that takes into account not only things one would generally do in a given situation, but things that have recently become known (e.g., there have recently been coyotes seen in the area and one is known to be rabid), as well as other immediate environmental characteristics (e.g., it is snowing outside, I know my dog is outside, I know the police are already outside, etc.). All of these factors combine to inform me of the most appropriate behavior for the situation. If it were the case that humans had a rule for every possible contingency, the amount of storage that would be required to enable us to fluidly deal with most situations we encounter would rapidly become biologically untenable. We can all deal with contingencies like the one above with fairly little effort, but if it isn't based on rules, what is it based on? The assertion of the Cognitive Systems program at Sandia for the past 5 years is that at the heart of this ability to effectively navigate the world is an ability to discriminate between different contexts (i.e., Dynamic Context Discrimination, or DCD). While this assertion in and of itself might not seem earthshaking, it is compelling that this ability and its components show up in a wide variety of paradigms across different subdisciplines in psychology. We begin by outlining, at a high functional level, the basic ideas of DCD. We then provide evidence from several different literatures and paradigms that support our assertion that DCD is a core aspect of cognitive functioning. Finally, we discuss DCD and the computational model that we have developed as an instantiation of DCD in more detail. Before commencing with our overview of DCD, we should note that DCD is not necessarily a theory in the classic sense. Rather, it is a description of cognitive functioning that seeks to unify highly similar findings across a wide variety of literatures. Further, we believe that such convergence warrants a central place in efforts to computationally emulate human cognition. That is, DCD is a general principle of cognition. It is also important to note that while we are drawing parallels across many literatures, these are functional parallels and are not necessarily structural ones. That is, we are not saying that the same neural pathways are involved in these phenomena. We are only saying that the different neural pathways that are responsible for the appearance of these various phenomena follow the same functional rules - the mechanisms are the same even if the physical parts are distinct. Furthermore, DCD is not a causal mechanism - it is an emergent property of the way the brain is constructed. DCD is the result of neurophysiology (cf. John, 2002, 2003). Finally, it is important to note that we are not proposing a generic learning mechanism such that one biological algorithm can account for all situation interpretation. Rather, we are pointing out that there are strikingly similar empirical results across a wide variety of disciplines that can be understood, in part, by similar cognitive processes. It is entirely possible, even assumed in some cases (i.e., primary language acquisition) that these more generic cognitive processes are complemented and constrained by various limits which may or may not be biological in nature (cf. Bates & Elman, 1996; Elman, in press)

Ontologies as Backbone of Cognitive Systems Engineering

Cognitive systems are starting to be deployed as appliances across the technological landscape of modern societies. The increasing availability of high performance computing platforms has opened an opportunity for statistics-based cognitive systems that perform quite as humans in certain tasks that resisted the symbolic methods of classic artificial intelligence. Cognitive artefacts appear every day in the media, raising a wave of mild fear concerning artificial intelligence and its impact on society. These systems, performance notwithstanding, are quite brittle and their reduced dependability limips their potential for massive deployment in mission-critical applications -e.g. in autonomous driving or medical diagnosis. In this paper we explore the actual possibility of building cognitive systems using engineering-grade methods that can assure the satisfaction of strict requirements for their operation. The final conclusion will be that, besides the potential improvement provided by a rigorous engineering process, we are still in need of a solid theory -possibly the main outcome of cognitive science- that could sustain such endeavour. In this sense, we propose the use of formal ontologies as backbones of cognitive systems engineering processes and workflows

Self-directedness, integration and higher cognition

In this paper I discuss connections between self-directedness, integration and higher cognition. I present a model of self-directedness as a basis for approaching higher cognition from a situated cognition perspective. According to this model increases in sensorimotor complexity create pressure for integrative higher order control and learning processes for acquiring information about the context in which action occurs. This generates complex articulated abstractive information processing, which forms the major basis for higher cognition. I present evidence that indicates that the same integrative characteristics found in lower cognitive process such as motor adaptation are present in a range of higher cognitive process, including conceptual learning. This account helps explain situated cognition phenomena in humans because the integrative processes by which the brain adapts to control interaction are relatively agnostic concerning the source of the structure participating in the process. Thus, from the perspective of the motor control system using a tool is not fundamentally different to simply controlling an arm