The missing neurocognitive and artificial general intelligence bases of robocup reasearch: What still needs to be done before 2050?

Contains fulltext : 73427.pdf (preprint version ) (Open Access

A Biased Review of Sociophysics

Various aspects of recent sociophysics research are shortly reviewed: Schelling model as an example for lack of interdisciplinary cooperation, opinion dynamics, combat, and citation statistics as an example for strong interdisciplinarity.Comment: 16 pages for J. Stat. Phys. including 2 figures and numerous reference

Boundary effects in a three-state modified voter model for languages

The standard three-state voter model is enlarged by including the outside pressure favouring one of the three choices and by adding some biased internal random noise. The Monte Carlo simulations are motivated by states with the population divided into three groups of various affinities to each other. We show the crucial influence of the boundaries for moderate lattice sizes like 500 x 500. By removing the fixed boundary at one side, we demonstrate that this can lead to the victory of one single choice. Noise in contrast stabilizes the choices of all three populations. In addition, we compute the persistence probability, i.e., the number of sites who have never changed their opinion during the simulation, and we consider the case of "rigid-minded" decision makers.Comment: 17 pages including numerous figure

Identifying the neural substrates of second language acquisition: What is the contribution from functional and structural MRI?

Item does not contain fulltex

Neurocognition and artificial general intelligence: The missing links of RoboCup research

Item does not contain fulltex

Cross-linguistic neuroimaging and dyslexia: A critical view

Contains fulltext : 90112.pdf ( ) (Closed access)Recent neuro cognitive theories of dyslexia presume that all dyslexics have the same type of brain abnormality irrespective of the particular writing system their language uses In this article we indicate how this presumption is inconsistent with cross linguistic investigations of reading and dyslexia There are two main issues First the information processing requirements of reading vary greatly across different orthographies Second it is known that even within a single orthography there are different subtypes of dyslexia Consequentially it cannot be the case not even within a single orthography let alone across orthographies that all dyslexics have the same type of brain abnormality Neuro cognitive theorizing about dyslexia cannot afford to ignore these issue