Simplifying the interaction between cognitive models and task environments with the JSON Network Interface
- 354 Downloads
Process models of cognition, written in architectures such as ACT-R and EPIC, should be able to interact with the same software with which human subjects interact. By eliminating the need to simulate the experiment, this approach would simplify the modeler’s effort, while ensuring that all steps required of the human are also required by the model. In practice, the difficulties of allowing one software system to interact with another present a significant barrier to any modeler who is not also skilled at this type of programming. The barrier increases if the programming language used by the modeling software differs from that used by the experimental software. The JSON Network Interface simplifies this problem for ACT-R modelers, and potentially, modelers using other systems.
KeywordsCognitive architecture ACT-R EPIC IPC TCP JSON Common Lisp Python
The work was supported by Grant No. N000141310252 to W.D.G. from the Office of Naval Research, Ray Perez, Project Officer.
- Büttner, P. (2010). “Hello Java!” Linking ACT-R 6 with a Java simulation. In D. D. Salvucci & G. Gunzelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 289–290). Philadelphia: Drexel University.Google Scholar
- Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Perception and action. In J. R. Anderson & C. Lebiére (Eds.), The atomic components of thought (pp. 167–200). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Destefano, M. (2010). The mechanics of multitasking: The choreography of perception, action, and cognition over 7.05 orders of magnitude. Troy: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
- Gray, W. D. (1995). VCR-as-paradigm: A study and taxonomy of errors in an interactive task. In K. Nordby, P. Helmersen, D. J. Gilmore, & S. A. Arnesen (Eds.), Human–computer interaction: Interact ’95 (pp. 265–270). New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- Gray, W. D., Kirschenbaum, S. S., & Ehret, B. D. (1997). The précis of Project Nemo, phase 1: Subgoaling and subschemas for submariners. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 283–288). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Ong, R., & Ritter, F. E. (1995). Mechanisms for routinely tying cognitive models to interactive simulations. Osaka: Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (HCI International ’95).Google Scholar
- Schoelles, M. J., & Gray, W. D. (2011). Cognitive modeling as a tool for improving runway safety. Dayton: Paper presented at the 16th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (ISAP).Google Scholar
- Schoelles, M. J., & Gray, W. D. (2012). Simpilot: An exploration of modeling a highly interactive task with delayed feedback in a multitasking environment. Berlin: Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling.Google Scholar