Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Cooper, Richard P.; Ruh, N.; Mareschal, Denis (2014)
Publisher: Wiley Blackwell
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: psyc
Human control of action in routine situations involves a flexible interplay between (a) task dependent serial ordering constraints, (b) top-down, or intentional, control processes and (c) bottom-up, or environmentally-triggered, affordances. Additionally, the interaction between these influences is modulated by learning mechanisms that, over time, appear to reduce the need for top-down control processes while still allowing those processes to intervene at any point if necessary or if desired. We present a model of the acquisition and control of goal-directed action that goes beyond existing models by operationalizing an interface between two putative systems – a routine and a non-routine system – thereby demonstrating how explicitly represented goals can interact with the emergent task representations that develop through learning in the routine system. The gradual emergence of task representations offers an explanation for the transfer of control with experience from the non-routine goal-based system to the routine system. At the same time it allows action selection to be sensitive both to environmental triggers and to biasing from multiple levels within the goal system.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, G. J. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cognition, 26, 39-83.
    • Beldarrain, M. G., Grafman, J., Pascual-Leone, A., & Garcia-Monco, J. C. (1999). Procedural learning is impaired in patients with prefrontal lesions. Neurology, 52(9), 1853-1868.
    • Botvinick, M. M., & Bylsma, L. M. (2005). Distraction and action slips in an everyday task: Evidence for a dynamic representation of task context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1011-1017.
    • Botvinick, M. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychological Review, 111(2), 395-429.
    • Botvinick, M. M. & Plaut, D. C. (2006). Such stuff as habits are made on: A reply to Cooper and Shallice (2006). Psychological Review, 113(4), 917-927.
    • Botvinick, M. M., Niv, Y., & Barto, A. C. (2009). Hierarchically organized behavior and its neural foundations: A reinforcement learning perspective. Cognition, 113, 262-280.
    • Braver, T. S. & Cohen, J. D. (2000). On the control of control: the role of dopamine in regulating prefrontal function and working memory. In S. Monsell and J. S. Driver (eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 713-737). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Brooks, R. A. (1991). How to build complete creatures rather than isolated cognitive simulators. In K. VanLehn (Ed.), Architectures for Intelligence (pp. 225-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Cassimatis, N. L., Bello, P., & Langley, P. (2008). Ability, breadth, and parsimony in computational models of higher-order cognition. Cognitive Science, 32, 1304-1322.
    • Cooper, R. P., Fox, J., Farringdon, J., & Shallice, T. (1996). A systematic methodology for cognitive modelling. Artificial Intelligence, 85, 3-44.
    • Cooper, R. P., & Glasspool, D. W. (2001). Learning action affordances and action schemas. In R.M French and J. Sougné (eds.) Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution (pp. 133-142). Springer-Verlag, London, UK.
    • Cooper, R. P., & Shallice, T. (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(4), 297-338.
    • Cooper, R. P., Schwartz, M.F., Shallice, T. & Yule, P. (2005). The simulation of action disorganisation in complex activities of daily living. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 959-1004.
    • Cooper, R. P., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 887-916.
    • Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1704- 1711.
    • Della Sala, S., Marchetti, C., & Spinnler, H. (1991). Right-sided anarchic (alien) hand: A longitudinal study. Neuropsychologia, 29, 1113-1127.
    • Dennett, D. C. (1998). Reflections on language and mind. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes (pp. 284-295). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
    • Dickinson, A. (1985). Actions and habits: The development of behavioral autonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 38, 168-172.
    • Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. (2002). The role of learning in the operation of motivational systems. In Paschler, H. & Gallistel, R., (Eds.) Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Third Edition, Vol.3: Learning, Motivation, and Emotion (pp. 497-534). John Wiley & Sons: New York.
    • Duncan, J. (1986). Disorganisation of behavior after frontal lobe damage. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 271-290.
    • Fu, W.-T., & Anderson, J. R. (2006). From recurrent choice to skill learning: A reinforcement-learning model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 184- 206.
    • Gibson, J.J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Giovannetti, T., Schwartz, M.F. & Buxbaum, L.J. (2007). The coffee challenge: A new method for the study of everyday action errors. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(7), 690-705.
    • Glasspool, D. W. (2005). The integration and control of behavior: Insights from neuroscience and AI. In D. N. Davis (Ed.), Visions of mind: Architectures for Cognition and Affect (pp. 208-234). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
    • Goldberg, G., Mayer, N. H., & Toglia, J. U. (1981). Medial frontal cortex infarction and the alien hand sign. Archives of Neurology, 38, 683-686.
    • Heckhausen, H., & Beckmann, J. (1990). Intentional Action and Action Slips. Psychological Review, 97(1), 36-48.
    • Hommel, B. (2003). Planning and representing intentional action. The Scientific World, 3, 593-608.
    • Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E. (1998). Disordered action schematas and action disorder syndrome. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 771-811.
    • Humphreys, G. W., Forde, E. M. E., & Francis, D. (2000). The organization of sequential action. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes, Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 427-442). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Humphreys, G. & Riddoch, M. J. (2005). (Eds.). Attention in Action. Psychology Press.
    • James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt.
    • Jenkins, I. H., Brooks, D. J., Nixon, P. D., Frackowiak, R. S., & Passingham, R. E. (1994). Motor sequence learning: A study with positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 3775-3790.
    • Jueptner, M., Stephan, K. M., Frith, C. D., Brooks, D. J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Passingham, R. E. (1997). Anatomy of motor learning. 1. Frontal cortex and attention to action. Journal of Neurophysiology, 77, 1313-1324.
    • Koechlin, E., Ody, C. & Kouneiher, F. (2003). The architecture of cognitive control in the human prefrontal cortex. Science, 301, 1181-1185.
    • Land, M., Mennie, N. & Rusted, J. (1999). The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception, 28, 1311-1328.
    • Lhermitte, F. (1983). Utilisation behavior and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. Brain, 106, 237-255.
    • Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books.
    • MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organisation of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
    • Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
    • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
    • Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorisation of action slips. Psychological Review, 88(1), 1-15.
    • Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwarz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self Regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Plenum.
    • Passingham R. E., Rowe, J.B. & Sakai, K. (2005): Prefrontal cortex and attention to action. In G. Humphreys & M. J. Riddoch (Eds.), Attention in Action (pp. 263-286): Psychology Press.
    • Plaut, D. C., & McClelland, J. L. (1993). Generalization with componential attractors: Word and nonword reading in an attractor network. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 824-829). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Reason, J. (1979). Actions not as planned: the price of automatization. In G. Underwood & R. Stevens (Eds.), Aspects of Consciousness (pp. 67-89). London, UK: Academic Press.
    • Reason, J. (1984). Lapses of Attention in Everyday Live. In K. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 515-549). Academic Press.
    • Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    • Richer, F., Chouinard, M.-J., & Rouleau, I. (1999). Frontal lesions impair the attentional control of movements during motor learning. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1427-1435.
    • Riddoch, J. M., Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., West, R., & Heafield, T. (1998). Visual affordances direct action: Neuropsychological evidence from manual interference. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 645-683.
    • Ruh, N. (2007). Acquisition and control of sequential routine activities: Modelling and empirical studies. PhD Thesis. Birkbeck, University of London, UK.
    • Ruh, N., Cooper, R. P., and Mareschal, D. (2005). A reinforcement model of sequential routine action. In Honkela, T., Köhönen, V., Pöllä, M., and Simula, O. (Eds.), Proceedings of International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Adaptive Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 65-70). Espoo, Finland.
    • Ruh, N., Cooper, R. P., & Mareschal, D. (2010). Action selection in complex routinized behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 955-975.
    • Schwartz, M. F., Montgomery, M., Buxbaum, L. J., Lee, S. S., Carew, T. G., Coslett, B. H., et al. (1998). Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychology, 12, 13-28.
    • Schwartz, M. F., Reed, E. F., Montgomery, M., Palmer, C., & Mayer, N. H. (1991). The quantitative description of action disorganisation after brain damage: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 381-414.
    • Shallice, T. (1988). From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure. Cambridge University Press.
    • Shallice, T. (2002). Fractionation of the supervisory system. In Stuss, D.T. & Knight, R.T. (eds.) Principles of Frontal Lobe Function (pp. 261-277). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
    • Shallice, T. (2006). Contrasting domains in the control of action: The routine and the nonroutine. In Y. Munakata & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development. Attention and Performance XXI (pp. 3-29). Oxford: University Press.
    • Shallice, T., Burgess, N., Schon, F., & Baxter, D. M. (1989). The origins of utilization behavior. Brain, 112, 1587-1598.
    • Shallice, T., & Burgess, P.W. (1996). The domain of supervisory processes and temporal organisation of behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B351, 1405-1412.
    • Shallice, T. & Cooper, R. P. (2011). The Organisation of Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
    • Shallice, T., Stuss, D. T., Picton, T. W., Alexander, M. P., & Gillingham, S. (2008). Mapping task switching in frontal cortex through neuropsychological group studies. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2, 79-85.
    • Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Taatgen, N. A., Huss, D., Dickison, D. & Anderson, J. R. (2008). The acquisition of robust and flexible cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 548-565.
    • Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., & Ratwani, R. J. (2011). A memory for goals model of sequence errors. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(2), 134-143.
    • Williams, R. J., & Zipser, D. (1995). Gradient-based learning algorithms for recurrent networks and their computational complexity. In Y. Chauvin & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Backpropagation: Theory, Architectures and Applications (pp. 433-486). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    • Wolpert, D. M. & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1212-1217.
    • Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843-863.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • EC | ACT

Cite this article