Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 357–362 | Cite as

Logic and Cognition: Special Issue of Best Papers of the ESSLLI 2012 Workshop



  1. Anderson, J. R. (1991). The place of cognitive architectures in a rational analysis. In K. Van Lehn (Ed.), Architectures for intelligence (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Douven, I., & Verbrugge, S. (2010). The Adam’s family. Cognition, 117(3), 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Isaac, A., Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2014). Logic and complexity in cognitive science, Outstanding Contributions. In A. Baltag & S. Smets (Eds.), Johan van Benthem on logical and informational dynamics, Trends in Logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Lidz, J., Pietroski, P., Halberda, J., & Hunter, T. (2011). Interface transparency and the psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics, 19(3), 227–256.Google Scholar
  5. Marr, D. (1983). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing visual information. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Mostowski, M., & Szymanik, J. (2012). Semantic bounds for everyday language. Semiotica, 188(1–4), 363–372.Google Scholar
  7. Ristad, E. S. (1993). The language complexity game. Artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Szymanik, J. (2009). Quantifiers in TIME and SPACE. Computational complexity of generalized quantifiers in natural language. PhD thesis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Szymanik, J. (2010). Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(3), 215–250.Google Scholar
  12. Szymanik, J., Meijering, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2013) Using intrinsic complexity of turn-taking games to predict participants’ reaction times. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, and I. Wachsmuth, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Cociety (pp. 1426–1432). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  13. Szymanik, J., & Verbrugge, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Logic and Cognition Workshop at ESSLLI 2012, Opole, Poland, August, 13–17 2012, vol. 883 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings., 2012.
  14. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language, and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations