Hubbry Logo
Computational cognitionComputational cognitionMain
Open search
Computational cognition
Community hub
Computational cognition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Computational cognition
Computational cognition
Computational cognition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Computational cognition (sometimes referred to as computational cognitive science or computational psychology or cognitive simulation) is the study of the computational basis of learning and inference by mathematical modeling, computer simulation, and behavioral experiments. In psychology, it is an approach which develops computational models based on experimental results. It seeks to understand the basis behind the human method of processing of information. Early on computational cognitive scientists sought to bring back and create a scientific form of Brentano's psychology.[1]

Artificial intelligence

[edit]
Main article: Artificial intelligence

There are two main purposes for the productions of artificial intelligence: to produce intelligent behaviors regardless of the quality of the results, and to model after intelligent behaviors found in nature.[2][3] In the beginning of its existence, there was no need for artificial intelligence to emulate the same behavior as human cognition. Until 1960s, economist Herbert Simon and Allen Newell attempted to formalize human problem-solving skills by using the results of psychological studies to develop programs that implement the same problem-solving techniques as people would. Their works laid the foundation for symbolic AI and computational cognition, and even some advancements for cognitive science and cognitive psychology.[4]

The field of symbolic AI is based on the physical symbol systems hypothesis by Simon and Newell, which states that expressing aspects of cognitive intelligence can be achieved through the manipulation of symbols.[5] However, John McCarthy focused more on the initial purpose of artificial intelligence, which is to break down the essence of logical and abstract reasoning regardless of whether or not human employs the same mechanism.[3]

Over the next decades, the progress made in artificial intelligence started to be focused more on developing logic-based and knowledge-based programs, veering away from the original purpose of symbolic AI. Researchers started to believe that symbolic artificial intelligence might never be able to imitate some intricate processes of human cognition like perception or learning. The then perceived impossibility (since refuted [6]) of implementing emotion in AI, was seen to be a stumbling block on the path to achieving human-like cognition with computers.[7] Researchers began to take a “sub-symbolic” approach to create intelligence without specifically representing that knowledge. This movement led to the emerging discipline of computational modeling, connectionism, and computational intelligence.[5]

Computational modeling

[edit]
Main article: Computational model

As it contributes more to the understanding of human cognition than artificial intelligence, computational cognitive modeling emerged from the need to define various cognition functionalities (like motivation, emotion, or perception) by representing them in computational models of mechanisms and processes.[8] Computational models study complex systems through the use of algorithms of many variables and extensive computational resources to produce computer simulation.[9] Simulation is achieved by adjusting the variables, changing one alone or even combining them together, to observe the effect on the outcomes. The results help experimenters make predictions about what would happen in the real system if those similar changes were to occur.[10]

When computational models attempt to mimic human cognitive functioning, all the details of the function must be known for them to transfer and display properly through the models, allowing researchers to thoroughly understand and test an existing theory because no variables are vague and all variables are modifiable. Consider a model of memory built by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, it showed how rehearsal leads to long-term memory, where the information being rehearsed would be stored. Despite the advancement it made in revealing the function of memory, this model fails to provide answers to crucial questions like: how much information can be rehearsed at a time? How long does it take for information to transfer from rehearsal to long-term memory? Similarly, other computational models raise more questions about cognition than they answer, making their contributions much less significant for the understanding of human cognition than other cognitive approaches.[11] An additional shortcoming of computational modeling is its reported lack of objectivity.[12]

John Anderson in his Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) model uses the functions of computational models and the findings of cognitive science. The ACT-R model is based on the theory that the brain consists of several modules which perform specialized functions separate of each other.[11] The ACT-R model is classified as a symbolic approach to cognitive science.[13]

Connectionist networks

[edit]
Main article: Connectionism

Another approach which deals more with the semantic content of cognitive science is connectionism or neural network modeling. Connectionism relies on the idea that the brain consists of simple units or nodes and the behavioral response comes primarily from the layers of connections between the nodes and not from the environmental stimulus itself.[11]

Connectionist network differs from computational modeling specifically because of two functions: neural back-propagation and parallel-processing. Neural back-propagation is a method utilized by connectionist networks to show evidence of learning. After a connectionist network produces a response, the simulated results are compared to real-life situational results. The feedback provided by the backward propagation of errors would be used to improve accuracy for the network's subsequent responses.[14] The second function, parallel-processing, stemmed from the belief that knowledge and perception are not limited to specific modules but rather are distributed throughout the cognitive networks. The present of parallel distributed processing has been shown in psychological demonstrations like the Stroop effect, where the brain seems to be analyzing the perception of color and meaning of language at the same time.[15] However, this theoretical approach has been continually disproved because the two cognitive functions for color-perception and word-forming are operating separately and simultaneously, not parallel of each other.[16]

The field of cognition may have benefitted from the use of connectionist networks, but setting up the neural network models can be quite a tedious task and the results may be less interpretable than the system they are trying to model. Therefore, the results may be used as evidence for a broad theory of cognition without explaining the particular process happening within the cognitive function. Other disadvantages of connectionism lie in the research methods it employs or hypothesis it tests as they have been proven inaccurate or ineffective often, taking connectionist models away from an accurate representation of how the brain functions. These issues cause neural network models to be ineffective on studying higher forms of information-processing, and hinder connectionism from advancing the general understanding of human cognition.[17]

References

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Computational cognition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Computational cognition is an interdisciplinary field that investigates the mechanisms underlying thought and by developing computational models—algorithmic simulations that replicate cognitive processes such as , learning, , , and reasoning. These models integrate principles from , , , and to provide mechanistic explanations of how the mind processes information, often tested against behavioral and neural data. By creating runnable programs that embody theories of , the field bridges abstract psychological concepts with concrete, quantifiable simulations, enabling predictions and insights beyond traditional observational methods. The origins of computational cognition trace back to mid-20th-century developments in logic, , and early , with foundational work by on computable functions in 1936 laying the groundwork for viewing mental processes as rule-based operations. In the 1940s, Warren McCulloch and proposed models that demonstrated how simple neuron-like units could perform logical computations, influencing both and early AI. The field gained momentum during the of the 1950s and 1960s, driven by pioneers like Herbert Simon and Allen Newell, who developed symbolic architectures such as the General Problem Solver to model human problem-solving. A period of resurgence occurred in the 1980s with the parallel rise of connectionist approaches, including in , which shifted focus toward biologically inspired, distributed representations of knowledge. Key methods in computational cognition include symbolic modeling, which represents knowledge through explicit rules and structures (e.g., production systems like for simulating human cognition in tasks like memory retrieval); connectionist or models, which mimic brain-like parallel processing to learn patterns from data (e.g., architectures for visual recognition); and probabilistic approaches, such as , which account for uncertainty in decision-making and learning under noisy conditions. models further extend these by simulating how agents optimize behavior through trial-and-error interactions with environments, paralleling reward-based human learning. These techniques are validated through computer simulations, behavioral experiments, and , allowing researchers to isolate mechanisms, quantify their contributions, and predict outcomes in complex cognitive scenarios. Contemporary computational cognition emphasizes neurobiologically plausible models that integrate brain data, fostering advances in areas like , where deep neural networks elucidate in the . As of 2025, this includes foundation models like , which predict and simulate in diverse experiments using descriptions. Applications span systems that emulate human-like reasoning, clinical tools for modeling disorders such as autism or Alzheimer's, and educational technologies that adapt to individual . By prioritizing empirical rigor and interdisciplinary collaboration, the field continues to refine our understanding of as an information-processing system, with ongoing debates centering on the boundaries between digital, analog, and neural forms of .

Overview

Definition and Scope

Computational cognition refers to the interdisciplinary field that employs computational models to simulate, explain, and predict human cognitive processes, including , , reasoning, and . These models represent mental activities as algorithmic procedures operating on internal representations, drawing from the broader , which posits the mind as a system performing computations akin to a . The scope of computational cognition encompasses the development of formal models that abstractly capture mental representations and processes, aiming to mimic aspects of human-like without focusing on biological substrates or practical engineering implementations. It distinguishes itself from , which emphasizes neural mechanisms and physiological details, by prioritizing abstract, medium-independent computations that can be multiply realized in various systems, such as biological brains or digital hardware. Unlike , which often prioritizes building functional systems, computational cognition focuses on theoretical explanations grounded in empirical cognitive data. Core principles of the field include the of models through computer simulations that generate observable predictions comparable to , the of hypotheses via empirical validation, and the integration of experimental data from and related disciplines to refine algorithmic representations. These principles ensure that models serve as mechanistic explanations of , emphasizing precision and replicability over mere descriptive accounts. Illustrative examples within this scope include finite state machines, which model basic decision tasks by representing cognitive states as discrete nodes connected by transition rules based on inputs, thereby simulating simple sequential behaviors like in . Connectionist models, such as artificial neural networks, represent one paradigm for capturing distributed representations in cognition. Emerging from the of the 1950s, computational cognition continues to evolve as a foundational approach in .

Interdisciplinary Foundations

Computational cognition has roots in the of the mid-1950s and emerged as a distinct subfield of in the 1970s and 1980s, drawing on the interdisciplinary momentum of the era to integrate computational methods with the study of mental processes. This development was influenced by foundational efforts in , such as the establishment of the Journal of Mathematical Psychology in 1964, which formalized mathematical modeling in and paved the way for the for Mathematical Psychology's formal incorporation in 1977. As a distinct area, computational cognition focuses on using algorithms and simulations to model cognitive phenomena, building directly on the 's emphasis on internal mental representations and processes. The discipline rests on contributions from several key fields. supplies behavioral data and experimental paradigms that identify cognitive tasks and performance metrics, providing empirical constraints for model validation. contributes algorithms, data structures, and implementation techniques essential for simulating cognitive functions on digital systems. , particularly in and , addresses foundational questions about , , and the nature of in cognition. offers models of language structure and acquisition, informing how computational systems process syntax, semantics, and . provides insights into biological substrates, imposing constraints on computational models through observations of neural activity and brain organization. These fields intersect to form a cohesive framework for computational cognition. Cognitive science as a whole offers empirical grounding through interdisciplinary experiments that test hypotheses across human and machine performance, ensuring models align with observable behaviors. , a branch of , supplies practical tools like search algorithms and techniques that enable the realization of cognitive models in software. Philosophy debates representationalism—the idea that mental states are symbolically encoded, much like programs—providing a theoretical pillar that underpins the , which posits as akin to . These intersections motivate applications in , such as simulating under uncertainty to predict human errors. A unifying concept across these disciplines is David Marr's three levels of analysis, which provide a structured approach to understanding cognitive systems without presupposing specific implementations. The computational level specifies the problem's nature and goals: what is the input-output mapping, and why is this performed in the context of the system's function? It focuses on the abstract task, independent of how it is achieved. The algorithmic level describes the representation and procedures: how is the organized as a sequence of steps, including the choice of data structures and algorithms that transform inputs to outputs? This level bridges theory and practice by outlining feasible methods. The implementational level examines the physical realization: how are the algorithms embodied in hardware or , considering the physical constraints and of the substrate, such as neural circuits or silicon processors? Marr's framework ensures that analyses at each level inform the others, promoting rigorous, hierarchical explanations of that integrate insights from all contributing disciplines.

Historical Development

Early Origins

The foundations of computational cognition trace back to early 20th-century developments in logic, , and philosophy that began to conceptualize mental processes as mechanistic and computable. Alan Turing's seminal 1936 paper, "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the ," introduced the concept of a universal computing machine capable of simulating any algorithmic process, providing a theoretical basis for understanding as a form of by demonstrating the limits of what can be mechanically calculated. This work shifted perspectives from purely philosophical inquiries about the mind toward formal models of information processing, influencing later ideas in cognitive modeling. In 1950, Turing extended these ideas in "," proposing —later known as the —as a criterion for machine intelligence, framing intelligent behavior as indistinguishable from human responses through computational means. A pivotal biological abstraction emerged in 1943 with Warren McCulloch and ' model of the , which represented neural activity as a logical using threshold logic gates to simulate binary in networks, laying the groundwork for computational simulations of brain-like processing. This model demonstrated that complex logical functions could be realized through interconnected simple units, inspiring early connectionist approaches to cognition without relying on empirical neural data. Concurrently, mid-1940s advancements in provided further precursors: Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine formalized feedback loops as universal principles governing both mechanical and biological systems, enabling the modeling of adaptive cognitive behaviors like learning through circular causation. Complementing this, Claude Shannon's 1948 paper "" quantified information as in bits, offering a metric for cognitive processes involving uncertainty and transmission, which later underpinned probabilistic models of and . Philosophical currents also contributed to the mechanistic framing of the mind. , emerging from the in the 1920s and 1930s, emphasized verifiable propositions and empirical analysis, promoting a view of mental states as reducible to , logical structures that aligned with emerging computational paradigms. , dominant in from the 1910s through and , rejected introspective mentalism in favor of stimulus-response mechanisms, portraying as predictable chains of actions amenable to mathematical modeling. Meanwhile, , pioneered by , , and in the 1910s–1930s, highlighted holistic pattern perception over atomistic elements, influencing early computational efforts in by stressing emergent structures in sensory data. These intellectual strands collectively primed the field by reconceptualizing the mind as an information-processing system rather than an inscrutable entity.

Key Milestones and Figures

The 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on marked the formal inception of AI as a distinct field, where researchers including John McCarthy, , , and proposed studying intelligence as the computational simulation of human cognitive processes, emphasizing problem-solving through search algorithms. This conference laid the groundwork for computational cognition by framing mental activities as programmable operations on digital computers. Pioneering figures Herbert Simon and Allen Newell advanced this vision in 1956 with the Logic Theorist program, the first AI software designed to mimic human reasoning by automatically proving theorems from Principia Mathematica using heuristic search methods. Their work demonstrated that complex cognitive tasks, such as theorem proving, could be decomposed into searchable problem spaces, influencing early symbolic approaches to cognition. Building on this, Newell, Simon, and J.C. Shaw introduced the General Problem Solver (GPS) in 1959, a intended to handle diverse tasks via means-ends analysis, further solidifying the idea of general-purpose computational models for human problem-solving. The 1970s saw the expansion of cognitive architectures and expert systems, which applied rule-based reasoning to domain-specific problems, but enthusiasm waned amid the first "AI winter" from 1974 to 1980, triggered by funding cuts following overoptimistic projections and critiques like the 1973 in the UK, which highlighted limitations in achieving general intelligence. In parallel, John Anderson initiated the ACT cognitive architecture in 1976, rooted in associative memory models, which evolved to simulate human learning and performance through production rules and . The 1980s brought revival through connectionist paradigms, exemplified by the 1986 publication of Parallel Distributed Processing by David Rumelhart, James McClelland, and the PDP Research Group, which promoted models as alternatives to symbolic systems for capturing emergent cognitive behaviors. A key contribution was Rumelhart, , and Ronald Williams' 1986 introduction of , an efficient for training multilayer s by propagating errors backward, enabling practical learning in connectionist models.

Theoretical Foundations

Computational Theory of Mind

The (CTM) posits that mental states and processes are fundamentally computational, involving the manipulation of symbolic representations according to formal rules, much like a digital computer processes . This core thesis was first articulated by in his 1967 paper "Psychological Predicates," where he argued that psychological states, such as beliefs or desires, can be understood as functional states defined by their causal roles rather than specific physical realizations, and that these states are realized through computational procedures on internal representations. further developed this idea in his 1975 book The Language of Thought, proposing that the mind operates via a "language of thought" (Mentalese), where cognitive processes consist of syntactic operations on mental symbols that encode semantic content, analogous to computations in a . Central to CTM are several key arguments supporting its framework. Functionalism maintains that the mind is akin to software, independent of its hardware substrate, allowing the same cognitive functions to be implemented across diverse physical systems as long as they perform the requisite computations. This leads to multiple realizability, the notion that cognitive states can be realized in non-biological substrates like silicon-based computers or even alien biology, underscoring that cognition is substrate-neutral and computable in principle. Additionally, the theory assumes the Turing completeness of the brain, implying that neural processes are sufficiently powerful to simulate any Turing machine, thereby encompassing all effectively computable functions relevant to cognition. A prominent criticism of CTM is John Searle's Chinese Room argument, introduced in his 1980 paper "Minds, Brains, and Programs," which challenges the sufficiency of syntactic computation for genuine understanding. In the , a person who understands no Chinese manipulates symbols according to a rulebook to produce coherent Chinese responses, yet lacks comprehension of the meaning; Searle contends this illustrates how computational systems, operating solely on formal , fail to achieve semantic understanding or , thus undermining strong claims of CTM about replicating minds. CTM also extends the Church-Turing thesis to cognition, asserting that every effective cognitive procedure—any systematic mental operation that can be described algorithmically—is computable by a , thereby delimiting the scope of what counts as a viable model of the mind to digital computation. This extension reinforces the theory's claim that all aspects of intelligent behavior, from reasoning to , can be captured by algorithmic processes, provided they adhere to the limits of computability.

Levels of Analysis in Cognition

The levels of analysis framework, proposed by David Marr in his seminal work on vision, provides a hierarchical structure for dissecting cognitive processes into distinct but interdependent layers of description. This approach posits that understanding any cognitive requires examining it at three mutually supportive levels: the computational level, which specifies the abstract task or problem being solved; the algorithmic level, which details the representations and procedures used to perform the computation; and the implementational level, which concerns the physical mechanisms realizing the algorithm. Marr emphasized that these levels allow researchers to analyze information-processing systems without conflating the "what" of a task with the "how" of its execution or realization, thereby facilitating rigorous theorizing in . At the computational level, the focus is on defining the goal of the computation and the logical constraints governing it, independent of specific implementations—for instance, in visual recognition, this involves specifying the problem of recovering three-dimensional structure from two-dimensional retinal images under varying lighting conditions. The algorithmic level then addresses how the computation is achieved, including the choice of data structures and step-by-step procedures, such as algorithms for using gradient operators to identify boundaries in an image. Finally, the implementational level examines how these algorithms are embodied in hardware, accounting for physical constraints like neural circuitry efficiency, though without delving into low-level biology unless directly relevant. This tripartite division ensures that analyses remain modular, allowing progress at one level to inform but not dictate the others. In , Marr's levels serve as a bridge between abstract theoretical models and biological substrates, enabling researchers to test hypotheses about mental functions against empirical data from and . For example, has been applied at the computational level to model , where the is viewed as performing optimal by combining sensory evidence with prior knowledge to estimate scene properties, such as depth or object identity, under uncertainty. This approach highlights how high-level goals, like minimizing perceptual error, can guide the development of corresponding algorithms without presupposing neural details. Zenon Pylyshyn extended and critiqued Marr's framework in his analysis of cognitive processes, arguing that it insufficiently accounts for real-time constraints in embedded systems, where must operate continuously in dynamic environments rather than in isolated, offline computations. Pylyshyn refined the levels by emphasizing the need to incorporate temporal and attentional factors at the algorithmic stage, particularly through concepts like immediate perceptual indexing that provide direct, non-symbolic access to the world, challenging full algorithmic capture of certain cognitive aspects. The framework has been particularly influential in vision science, where it dissects complex tasks like into these levels without relying on biological specifics. At the computational level, is framed as assigning labels to image regions based on shape and context invariants; algorithmically, this involves hierarchical feature extraction, such as from primitive edges to volumetric descriptions in Marr's 2.5D sketch; and implementationally, it considers efficiency in parallel processing, though the focus remains on functional adequacy rather than neural wiring. This dissection has shaped decades of by providing a structured for evaluating computational models of visual .

Computational Approaches

Symbolic Methods

Symbolic methods in computational cognition represent knowledge through discrete, explicit symbols—such as propositions in formal logic—and manipulate these symbols using algorithmic rules to simulate cognitive processes like reasoning and problem-solving. This approach posits that cognition can be modeled as the transformation of symbolic structures, enabling systematic inference and decision-making without reliance on statistical patterns. Central to this paradigm is the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis, proposed by Allen Newell and in 1976, which asserts that intelligence arises from the manipulation of symbols in a physical system, providing both necessary and sufficient conditions for general intelligent action. Knowledge in symbolic systems is typically encoded as structured representations, including logical expressions (e.g., predicates like "Parent(John, Mary)") or factual assertions, which are then processed via mechanisms. Manipulation occurs through algorithms such as production rules—conditional statements of the form "if condition then action"—that fire based on matching patterns in , or theorem provers that derive new facts from axioms using deduction rules like . These methods emphasize transparency and verifiability, as each step in the is traceable to explicit rules, contrasting with approaches that use distributed, sub-symbolic representations. A prominent example of symbolic methods is the , developed by Edward Shortliffe in 1976, which diagnosed bacterial infections and recommended therapies using approximately 450 if-then production rules derived from medical expertise. MYCIN's encoded domain-specific facts, such as organism characteristics and drug interactions, and applied certainty factors to handle incomplete information through rule chaining, achieving performance comparable to human experts in controlled evaluations. This system demonstrated how symbolic rule-based reasoning could operationalize specialized cognitive tasks, influencing subsequent development in fields like diagnostics. Another key example is the SOAR cognitive architecture, introduced by John , Allen Newell, and Paul Rosenbloom in 1983, which integrates symbolic processing to achieve general problem-solving across domains. SOAR represents knowledge as production rules operating on a centralized of symbolic objects and relations, employing a problem-space where goals are pursued through operators selected via means-ends analysis. A distinctive feature is chunking, a learning mechanism that compiles sequences of rule firings into new production rules, enabling SOAR to generalize solutions from experience and reduce redundant computation in future tasks, as seen in its application to and game-playing scenarios. Symbolic methods often rely on search algorithms to navigate large spaces of possible symbol configurations, particularly in planning tasks where the goal is to find a sequence of actions leading from an initial state to a desired outcome. The A* algorithm, developed by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael in 1968, exemplifies this by combining uniform-cost search with guidance to efficiently compute optimal paths in graph-based problem spaces. A* maintains an open list of nodes to expand, prioritized by an f(n)=g(n)+h(n)f(n) = g(n) + h(n), where g(n)g(n) is the exact cost from the start to node nn, and h(n)h(n) is an estimate of the cost from nn to the goal (ensuring h(n)≤h(n) \leq true cost to guarantee optimality). The process unfolds as follows: Initialize the open list with the start node and a as empty; while the open list is not empty, select the node nn with the lowest f(n)f(n); if nn is the goal, reconstruct the path backward via parent pointers; otherwise, add nn to the and generate successors, updating each successor mm with g(m)=g(n)+[cost](/page/Cost)(n,m)g(m) = g(n) + \text{[cost](/page/Cost)}(n, m) and f(m)=g(m)+h(m)f(m) = g(m) + h(m), inserting mm into the open list if it improves prior estimates (using a for efficiency). For , this might model a state space where nodes represent positions and edges denote moves, with h(n)h(n) as to the goal. Pseudocode for A* in a planning context:

function A*(start, goal): open_list = priority_queue() // Prioritized by f(n) open_list.insert(start, g=0, f=h(start)) closed_list = [empty set](/page/Empty_set) parent = [dictionary](/page/Dictionary)() while open_list not empty: n = open_list.extract_min() // Lowest f(n) if n == goal: return reconstruct_path(parent, goal) closed_list.add(n) for each successor m of n: if m in closed_list: continue tentative_g = g(n) + cost(n, m) if m not in open_list or tentative_g < g(m): parent[m] = n g(m) = tentative_g f(m) = g(m) + h(m) if m not in open_list: open_list.insert(m) return failure // No path found

function A*(start, goal): open_list = priority_queue() // Prioritized by f(n) open_list.insert(start, g=0, f=h(start)) closed_list = [empty set](/page/Empty_set) parent = [dictionary](/page/Dictionary)() while open_list not empty: n = open_list.extract_min() // Lowest f(n) if n == goal: return reconstruct_path(parent, goal) closed_list.add(n) for each successor m of n: if m in closed_list: continue tentative_g = g(n) + cost(n, m) if m not in open_list or tentative_g < g(m): parent[m] = n g(m) = tentative_g f(m) = g(m) + h(m) if m not in open_list: open_list.insert(m) return failure // No path found

This formulation ensures completeness and optimality under admissible heuristics, making A* a foundational tool for symbolic planning in cognitive models.

Connectionist Models

Connectionist models, also referred to as parallel distributed processing (PDP) models, simulate cognitive processes through networks of interconnected artificial neurons that operate in a fashion. These models consist of layers of units, where each unit computes a weighted sum of from connected units and applies an to determine its output. For instance, the sigmoid , defined as σ(z)=11+e−z\sigma(z) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-z}}, introduces nonlinearity, allowing the network to approximate complex functions. Learning proceeds by minimizing an , typically the between network outputs and target values, through iterative adjustments to the connection weights that reduce this discrepancy over time. A pivotal advancement in connectionist models was the algorithm, developed by Rumelhart, Hinton, and Williams in 1986, which enabled in multilayer networks by efficiently computing gradients for weight updates. relies on the chain rule of to propagate errors from the output layer backward through the network. For a with input layer II, hidden layer HH, and output layer OO, the process begins by forward-passing inputs to compute activations: for a hidden unit hjh_j, zj=∑iwjiii+bjz_j = \sum_i w_{ji} i_i + b_j, followed by hj=σ(zj)h_j = \sigma(z_j); similarly for output units ok=σ(∑jvkjhj+ck)o_k = \sigma(\sum_j v_{kj} h_j + c_k). The total error is E=12∑k(tk−ok)2E = \frac{1}{2} \sum_k (t_k - o_k)^2, where tkt_k are . To derive weight updates, partial derivatives of EE with respect to weights are computed layer by layer. For output weights vkjv_{kj}, the delta δk=(tk−ok)σ′(zk)\delta_k = (t_k - o_k) \sigma'(z_k), and update Δvkj=ηδkhj\Delta v_{kj} = \eta \delta_k h_j, where η\eta is the and σ′(z)=σ(z)(1−σ(z))\sigma'(z) = \sigma(z)(1 - \sigma(z)) for the sigmoid. These deltas are then backpropagated to the hidden layer: δj=σ′(zj)∑kδkvkj\delta_j = \sigma'(z_j) \sum_k \delta_k v_{kj}, yielding Δwji=ηδjii\Delta w_{ji} = \eta \delta_j i_i. This stepwise propagation allows error minimization via , Δw=−η∂E∂w\Delta w = -\eta \frac{\partial E}{\partial w}, scaling to deeper architectures. One influential example of a connectionist model is the , introduced by Hopfield in as a recurrent architecture for . In this model, a fully connected network of NN binary stores patterns by setting symmetric weights wij=wjiw_{ij} = w_{ji} via Hebbian learning, excluding self-connections. Retrieval occurs by updating states asynchronously: si(t+1)=sign(∑j≠iwijsj(t))s_i(t+1) = \text{sign}\left( \sum_{j \neq i} w_{ij} s_j(t) \right), converging to local minima of an energy function E=−12∑i,jwijsisjE = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} w_{ij} s_i s_j. This ensures stability, enabling the network to reconstruct incomplete or noisy patterns as attractors, mimicking in the . Storage capacity is approximately 0.14N0.14N random patterns before errors rise significantly. The connectionist approach saw a significant revival in the , driven by the Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) research group, whose seminal volumes explored how such networks could model cognitive phenomena like through distributed representations. These models excelled in tasks such as classifying static visual patterns but were initially constrained to non-sequential data, lacking mechanisms for temporal dependencies at the time. As a sub-symbolic alternative to rule-based methods, connectionism emphasized emergent behavior from local interactions rather than explicit programming.

Bayesian and Probabilistic Methods

Bayesian and probabilistic methods in computational cognition employ to model uncertainty and perform in cognitive processes, positing that human cognition approximates optimal statistical reasoning under environmental constraints. At the core of these approaches is , which formalizes how beliefs are updated based on new evidence: P(H∣E)=P(E∣H)⋅P(H)P(E)P(H|E) = \frac{P(E|H) \cdot P(H)}{P(E)} Here, P(H)P(H) represents the of a HH, P(E∣H)P(E|H) is the likelihood of observing EE given HH, and P(H∣E)P(H|E) is the of HH given EE, with P(E)P(E) serving as a . In , priors encode preexisting or assumptions about the world, likelihoods evaluate how well fits hypotheses, and posteriors guide choices by integrating these to select the most probable explanation or action, thereby capturing the adaptive nature of in uncertain environments. A prominent application is rational analysis, which derives cognitive mechanisms by assuming they achieve Bayesian optimality for typical tasks. For instance, in memory retrieval, rational analysis models and as a Bayesian process where activation probabilities reflect the recency and frequency of past encounters, optimized to retrieve information most relevant to current needs. Hierarchical Bayesian models extend this framework to , positing that learners infer abstract structures over categories by combining lower-level observations with higher-level priors about category variability and relations, enabling efficient generalization from sparse data. To handle the intractability of exact in complex models, techniques like (MCMC) sampling provide approximate solutions by generating samples from the posterior distribution. MCMC operates iteratively: from a current state, it proposes a new state drawn from a transition distribution, then accepts or rejects it based on the ratio of posterior probabilities (e.g., via the Metropolis-Hastings rule, accepting with probability min⁡(1,P(new)q(old∣new)P(old)q(new∣old)\min(1, \frac{P(\text{new}) q(\text{old}|\text{new})}{P(\text{old}) q(\text{new}|\text{old})}), where qq is the proposal distribution, converging to the target posterior over time. This method has been particularly useful in modeling perceptual and decision processes where exact computation is infeasible. The prominence of Bayesian methods in computational cognition rose in the , notably through Tenenbaum's early work on intuitive physics and , which utilized probabilistic graphical models to represent dependencies among variables and hidden causes from observed effects. These models, such as Bayesian networks, encode joint distributions factorially to facilitate efficient about physical events, aligning human judgments with normative probabilistic predictions.

Applications

In Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience

In cognitive psychology, computational models such as the Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) architecture have been instrumental in simulating human reaction times and performance in complex tasks, providing testable predictions that align with empirical data. For instance, employs production rules—condition-action pairs that represent cognitive procedures—to model problem-solving, as demonstrated in simulations of the puzzle, where the architecture predicts move latencies based on goal retrieval and declarative memory activation, matching human response times observed in behavioral experiments. These models enable researchers to dissect cognitive processes into modular components, such as perceptual-motor and declarative modules, facilitating quantitative comparisons between simulated and human performance across tasks like list learning and skilled typing. In neuroscience, computational approaches bridge neural activity to observable behavior through models like the drift-diffusion model (DDM), which formalizes decision-making as a stochastic accumulation of evidence toward a decision boundary. The DDM posits that reaction time (RT) can be approximated as: RT≈av+t0+noise,\text{RT} \approx \frac{a}{v} + t_0 + \text{noise}, where aa is the decision threshold, vv is the drift rate reflecting evidence quality, t0t_0 is non-decision time, and noise arises from the diffusive process; this framework has been validated against single-neuron recordings and explains variability in choices and latencies during perceptual discriminations. Such models in computational neuroscience link spiking patterns in areas like the lateral intraparietal cortex to behavioral outcomes, allowing inferences about how neural noise and integration mechanisms underpin human decisions. Specific applications highlight the empirical validation of these models using and behavioral techniques. Bayesian models of , which treat as optimal integration of prior knowledge and sensory likelihoods, have been supported by fMRI studies showing neural responses consistent with probabilistic computations in visual , as reviewed in foundational work on cue combination and shape-from-shading tasks. Similarly, (RL) models, which update value estimates via temporal-difference learning, have been fitted to eye-tracking data in value-based choice paradigms, revealing how attentional shifts to rewarding stimuli drive exploratory gaze patterns and predict individual differences in learning rates during multi-attribute decision tasks. Clinical applications include computational models for cognitive disorders. For autism spectrum disorder (ASD), nonlinear neural circuit models connect genetic and molecular findings to behavioral symptoms, identifying quantifiable markers for . In , and proteomics-based simulations reveal early biomarkers and model disease progression, aiding and personalized interventions as of 2025. The 2010s marked a surge in cognitive computational neuroscience, an interdisciplinary field integrating techniques with brain imaging to test theories like , where the brain minimizes prediction errors across hierarchical levels to infer sensory causes. Building on this, the have introduced foundation models such as (2025), which predict and simulate in diverse experiments described in , unifying data from EEG, fMRI, and simulations to probe generative models of . This approach has advanced naturalistic paradigms, incorporating real-world stimuli to study perception and learning.

In Artificial Intelligence and Robotics

Computational cognition has significantly influenced the development of (AI) systems by providing frameworks for modeling intelligent behaviors in machines, particularly through architectures that mimic aspects of human sequence processing. In (NLP), while recurrent neural networks (RNNs), especially (LSTM) units, laid the foundation for sequence prediction by addressing the and handling long dependencies in tasks like and , transformer architectures have since dominated as of 2025. Transformers, using self-attention mechanisms, enable large language models (LLMs) to emulate cognitive language processing, demonstrating interrelated capabilities in reasoning, comprehension, and , with applications in simulating human-like text interactions. Similarly, (RL) algorithms draw from cognitive decision-making models to train agents in dynamic environments; , for instance, updates action-value functions iteratively to optimize policies, as shown in the equation: Q(s,a)=Q(s,a)+α[r+γmax⁡a′Q(s′,a′)−Q(s,a)]Q(s,a) = Q(s,a) + \alpha \left[ r + \gamma \max_{a'} Q(s',a') - Q(s,a) \right] where ss is the state, aa the action, rr the reward, α\alpha the learning rate, γ\gamma the discount factor, and s′s' the next state. This approach has been foundational for training AI agents to learn from trial and error without explicit programming. A landmark application is DeepMind's AlphaGo, which in 2016 defeated the world champion in Go by integrating deep neural networks for move evaluation with Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) for planning, achieving superhuman performance through self-play reinforcement learning. In robotics, computational cognition supports embodied systems that coordinate sensory inputs and motor outputs, often using Bayesian methods to handle uncertainty in real-world interactions. For example, the iCub humanoid robot employs active inference models, rooted in Bayesian principles, to learn sensorimotor coordination by minimizing prediction errors between expected and observed sensory data during manipulation tasks. This enables the robot to adaptively perceive its body schema and execute goal-directed actions in unstructured environments. Autonomous vehicles further exemplify these principles through partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs), which model under perceptual by maintaining belief states over configurations. POMDPs allow vehicles to make robust decisions, such as lane changes or obstacle avoidance, by probabilistically reasoning about hidden variables like pedestrian intentions. from cognitive models enhances AI scalability by adapting human-like mechanisms, where models selectively focus on relevant input features inspired by selective in , improving efficiency in vision and tasks.

Challenges and Future Directions

Current Limitations

One major limitation in computational cognition lies in scalability challenges across different paradigms. In symbolic methods, search and planning processes often encounter , where the number of possible states grows exponentially, rendering problems like NP-hard planning intractable for real-world complexity without severe approximations. For instance, early AI systems such as the General Problem Solver faced scalability issues due to this explosion in domain-specific applications. Similarly, connectionist models, particularly deep neural networks, exhibit data inefficiency, requiring millions of training examples to achieve performance levels that humans reach through few-shot learning from just a handful of instances. This disparity highlights how current models fail to replicate the sample-efficient generalization observed in human cognition. Explanatory gaps further constrain computational accounts of cognition, particularly in modeling subjective experience and contextual relevance. The computational explanatory gap refers to the difficulty in mapping high-level cognitive processes, such as reasoning, onto low-level neural or algorithmic implementations, leaving unclear how these computations give rise to —the subjective, phenomenal aspects of . Additionally, the frame problem persists as a challenge, requiring systems to delimit relevant and actions without exhaustively specifying irrelevant non-changes in dynamic environments, a feat that propositional representations struggle to achieve efficiently in open-ended cognitive scenarios. Integration across paradigms remains problematic, as hybrid models attempting to combine symbolic and connectionist approaches grapple with the , where abstract symbols lack intrinsic meaning tied to sensory experience unless explicitly anchored through non-symbolic representations. This issue, central to hybrid architectures, impedes seamless symbol manipulation without external interpretation. In the 2020s, critiques of deep learning's black-box nature have intensified, emphasizing its lack of interpretability, where opaque decision processes with billions of parameters hinder understanding of internal representations and foster distrust in cognitive modeling applications. Validation of computational models is limited by tendencies toward post-hoc fitting, where parameters are tuned to match observed data after the fact rather than predicting novel behaviors, reducing generalizability across tasks or contexts. For example, inferred parameters like learning rates in models vary significantly between similar tasks, depending on scaling assumptions and failing to capture stable cognitive traits. This issue intersects with broader replication crises in , where computational models often overfit empirical data without robust , undermining their explanatory validity. While Bayesian methods partially mitigate in such models, they do not resolve underlying efficiency constraints in scaling to complex, real-world . One prominent emerging trend in computational cognition is the development of , which integrates the pattern-recognition strengths of neural networks with the logical capabilities of symbolic systems to enhance reasoning in cognitive models. This hybrid approach addresses limitations in purely neural methods by enabling interpretable, rule-based decision-making alongside data-driven learning, particularly in tasks requiring compositional understanding. For instance, the Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner (NS-CL), introduced in 2019, combines a neural module for with a symbolic program executor to interpret scenes and answer questions from supervision, achieving state-of-the-art results on visual question answering benchmarks like CLEVR by learning discrete concepts such as shapes and colors without explicit annotations. Recent reviews highlight how such systems are advancing cognitive architectures by supporting and , with applications in and natural language understanding. Large language models (LLMs), built on transformer architectures, are increasingly viewed as simulators of human-like cognition, capturing processes such as language comprehension and inference through scalable pre-training on vast datasets. The transformer model, proposed in 2017, relies on self-attention mechanisms that dynamically weigh input elements, allowing the network to maintain context over long sequences in a manner analogous to human , where relevant information is selectively retrieved and integrated. This has enabled LLMs to model cognitive phenomena like analogy formation and theory-of-mind reasoning, though their emergent abilities raise questions about alignment with biological constraints. A related trend involves brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), exemplified by Neuralink's initiatives since 2016, which employ computational models to decode neural signals into user intentions, facilitating direct interaction between brains and machines. These systems use algorithms, such as recurrent neural networks and decoders trained on spike data, to translate activity into actions like cursor control, as demonstrated in Neuralink's first human trials where participants achieved thought-based computing with high accuracy. However, ethical considerations are paramount, including biases in AI-driven decoding models that may disproportionately affect underrepresented groups due to skewed training data, potentially exacerbating inequalities in access to cognitive enhancements. Frameworks for responsible BCI development emphasize transparency in algorithmic to mitigate risks like unintended invasions or altered agency. Looking ahead, quantum computing holds promise for tackling intractable problems in cognitive modeling, such as exhaustive searches in high-dimensional decision spaces that classical algorithms cannot efficiently solve. Quantum algorithms like Grover's search offer quadratic speedups for unstructured database queries, which could accelerate simulations of cognitive processes involving combinatorial explosion, such as planning or hypothesis generation in Bayesian inference. In parallel, variational autoencoders (VAEs) have enabled advanced generative models of cognition since the early 2020s, by learning latent representations that capture probabilistic structures underlying memory and imagination. For example, a 2024 VAE-based model simulates memory consolidation as a generative process, where an encoder compresses episodic experiences into a latent space and a decoder reconstructs them with added variability to mimic creative recall, outperforming traditional replay buffers in reinforcement learning tasks for cognitive agents. These developments suggest a trajectory toward more holistic computational theories that bridge symbolic, neural, and quantum paradigms for emulating full-spectrum human cognition.

References

  1. https://coco.psych.gatech.edu/
  2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-computational-cognitive-sciences/an-overview-of-computational-cognitive-sciences/ED2D135AA89B4F3088CA930B43153588
  3. https://com-cog-book.github.io/com-cog-book/features/intro-com-mod-cog.html
  4. https://philosophyofbrains.com/2021/03/03/the-computational-theory-of-cognition-from-turing-machines-to-neurocognitive-mechanisms.aspx
  5. https://academic.oup.com/book/32070/chapter/267884602
  6. https://mechanism.ucsd.edu/bill/teaching/w07/philpsych/bechtel.cogscihistory.pdf
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6706072/
  8. https://www.thapar.edu/upload/files/COGNITIVE_SCIENCE.pdf
  9. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09215-4
  10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12559-009-9013-z
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3006465/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/
  14. https://mathpsych.org/page/history
  15. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
  16. https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf
  17. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~epxing/Class/10715/reading/McCulloch.and.Pitts.pdf
  18. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/4581/Cybernetics-or-Control-and-Communication-in-the
  19. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163106910600045X
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02574-1
  22. https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
  23. https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1904
  24. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/rand/ipl/P-868_The_Logic_Theory_Machine_Jul56.pdf
  25. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P868.html
  26. http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/rand/ipl/P-1584_Report_On_A_General_Problem-Solving_Program_Feb59.pdf
  27. https://rodsmith.nz/wp-content/uploads/Lighthill_1973_Report.pdf
  28. http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/peoplepages/ja/ja_bio.html
  29. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4424/Parallel-Distributed-Processing-Volume
  30. https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vincentp/ift3395/lectures/backprop_old.pdf
  31. https://www.phil.uu.nl/~joel/3027/3027PutnamPsychPredicates.pdf
  32. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674510302
  33. https://philarchive.org/archive/MABTAC
  34. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Searle.pdf
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/
  36. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/3299/VisionA-Computational-Investigation-into-the-Human
  37. https://escholarship.org/content/qt4121j4q8/qt4121j4q8_noSplash_6f90ae70a5102b65c66037ac2c4149f8.pdf?t=op2kb0
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3816718/
  39. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262660587/computation-and-cognition/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25755213/
  41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_2
  42. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA224247.pdf
  43. http://iiif.library.cmu.edu/file/Newell_box00042_fld03481_doc0001/Newell_box00042_fld03481_doc0001.pdf
  44. https://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/PublishedPapers/pssh.pdf
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780444001795/computer-based-medical-consultations-mycin
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2464549/
  47. https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/83-2/Papers/042.pdf
  48. http://laird.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/331/2017/11/soar-papers.pdf
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200773342_SOAR_An_Architecture_for_General_Intelligence
  50. https://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/PublishedPapers/astar.pdf
  51. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4082128/
  52. https://stanford.edu/~jlmcc/papers/PDP/Chapter1.pdf
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/323533a0
  54. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554
  55. https://cocosci.princeton.edu/tom/papers/bayeschapter.pdf
  56. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/AndersonBBS1991.pdf
  57. https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~paritosh/papers/KIP/AndersonSchooler1991ReflectionsOfEnvironmentOnMemory.pdf
  58. https://dyurovsky.github.io/learning-humans-machines/reading/12-reading/kemp2007.pdf
  59. https://gershmanlab.com/pubs/GershmanVulTenenbaum09.pdf
  60. https://charleskemp.com/papers/TenenbaumGK06.pdf
  61. http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/526FSQUERY.pdf
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2474742/
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1510583112
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12469018/
  65. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.12567
  66. https://arxiv.org/html/2502.20349v1
  67. https://2025.ccneuro.org/
  68. https://www.bioinf.jku.at/publications/older/2604.pdf
  69. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00890-x
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11025655/
  71. https://www.cell.com/the-innovation/fulltext/S2666-6758%2824%2900017-1
  72. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00992698
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16961
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333671865_Active_inference_body_perception_and_action_for_humanoid_robots
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267040968_Probabilistic_Decision-Making_under_Uncertainty_for_Autonomous_Driving_using_Continuous_POMDPs
  76. https://digitalcommons.harrisburgu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=dandt
  77. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12584
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667305325000675
  79. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553905/full
  80. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899
  81. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00597
  82. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01799-z
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.