1. bookVolume 5 (2014): Issue 1 (December 2014)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
23 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

The Action Execution Process Implemented in Different Cognitive Architectures: A Review

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 49 - 68
Accepted: 30 Nov 2014
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
23 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
3 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

An agent achieves its goals by interacting with its environment, cyclically choosing and executing suitable actions. An action execution process is a reasonable and critical part of an entire cognitive architecture, because the process of generating executable motor commands is not only driven by low-level environmental information, but is also initiated and affected by the agent’s high-level mental processes. This review focuses on cognitive models of action, or more specifically, of the action execution process, as implemented in a set of popular cognitive architectures. We examine the representations and procedures inside the action execution process, as well as the cooperation between action execution and other high-level cognitive modules. We finally conclude with some general observations regarding the nature of action execution.

Keywords

ACT-R 6.0 Tutorial. 2012. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/themes/ACT-R/actr6/actr6.zip Search in Google Scholar

Albus, J. S., and Barbera, A. J. 2005. RCS: A cognitive architecture for intelligent multi-agent systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 29(1):87-99.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, J. 2007. How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? : Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., and Qin, Y. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4):1036-1060.Search in Google Scholar

Arrabales, R., Ledezma, A., and Sanchis, A. 2009. CERA-CRANIUM: A test bed for machine consciousness research. International Workshop on Machine Consciousness.Search in Google Scholar

Baars, B. J. 1988. A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baars, B. J. 2002. The conscious access hypothesis: origins and recent evidence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(1):47-52.Search in Google Scholar

Bothell, D. n.d. ACT-R 6.0 Reference Manual (Working Draft). Retrieved from http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/themes/ACT-R/actr6/reference-manual.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, R. A. 1991. How to build complete creatures rather than isolated cognitive simulators.Architectures for Intelligence: The Twenty-second Carnegie Mellon Symposium on Cognition:225-239.Search in Google Scholar

Budiu, R. 2013. ACT-R Website. from http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/ Search in Google Scholar

Byrne, M. D., and Anderson, J. R. 2001. Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108(4):847-869.Search in Google Scholar

Castiello, U. 2005. The neuroscience of grasping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(9):726-736.Search in Google Scholar

Dickmanns, E. D. 1992. A general dynamic vision architecture for UGV and UAV. Applied Intelligence, 2(3):251-270.Search in Google Scholar

Dickmanns, E. D. 2000. An expectation-based, multi-focal, saccadic (EMS) vision system for vehicle guidance. Paper presented at the International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR’99), 421-430, Snowbird Utah, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Dong, D., and Franklin, S. 2014. Sensory Motor System: Modeling the process of action execution. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2145-2150, Austin TX, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Duch, W., Oentaryo, R. J., and Pasquier, M. 2008. Cognitive Architectures: Where do we go from here? Paper presented at the AGI, 122-136, Memphis TN, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Franklin, S., and Graesser, A. 1997. Is it an Agent, or just a Program?: A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents Intelligent agents III agent theories, architectures, and languages, 21-35.London, UK: Springer-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Franklin, S., Madl, T., D’Mello, S., and Snaider, J. 2014. LIDA: A Systems-level Architecture for Cognition, Emotion, and Learning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(1):19-41. doi: 10.1109/TAMD.2013.2277589Search in Google Scholar

Goertzel, B., Lian, R., Arel, I., De Garis, H., and Chen, S. 2010. A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures. Neurocomputing, 74(1):30-49.Search in Google Scholar

Goodale, M. A., and Milner, A. D. 1992. Separate visual pathways for perception and action.Trends in neurosciences, 15(1):20-25.Search in Google Scholar

Grafton, S. T. 2010. The cognitive neuroscience of prehension: recent developments. Experimental brain research, 204(4):475-491. Jeannerod, M. 2006. Motor cognition: What actions tell the self. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. 1996. The EPIC architecture: Principles of operation. Unpublished manuscript from ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras/EPICarch.ps.Search in Google Scholar

Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. 1997. An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-computer interaction, 12(4):391-438.Search in Google Scholar

Laird, J. 2012. The Soar cognitive architecture: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Laird, J. E. 2008. Extending the Soar cognitive architecture. Paper presented at the Artificial General Intelligence 2008, 224-235, Memphis TN, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Laird, J. E., Congdon, C. B., Coulter, K. J., Derbinsky, N., and Xu, J. 2012. The Soar User’s Manual Version 9.3.2. Computer Science and Engineering Department. University of Michigan. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Langley, P., and Choi, D. 2006. A unified cognitive architecture for physical agents. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1469-1474, Boston MA, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Langley, P., Laird, J. E., and Rogers, S. 2009. Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10(2):141-160.Search in Google Scholar

Milner, D., and Goodale, M. A. 2008. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3):774-785.Search in Google Scholar

Rohrer, B. 2012. BECCA: Reintegrating AI for natural world interaction. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Designing Intelligent Robots: Reintegrating AI, Stanford California, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, S. J., and Norvig, P. 2009. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach (Third ed.): Prentice hall.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. C., and Bona, J. P. 2010. The GLAIR cognitive architecture. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 2(2):307-332.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, R. 2003. A tutorial on CLARION 5.0. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, R. 2006. The CLARION cognitive architecture: Extending cognitive modeling to social simulation. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cognition and multi-agent interaction, 79-99. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo