Controversy remains as to the scope of advanced planning in language production. Smith and Wheeldon (1999) found significantly longer onset latencies when subjects described moving picture displays by producing sentences beginning with a complex noun phrase than for matched sentences beginning with a simple noun phrase. While these findings are consistent with a phrasal scope of planning, they might also be explained on the basis of: 1) greater retrieval fluency for the second content word in the simple initial noun phrase sentences and 2) visual grouping factors. In Experiments 1 and 2, retrieval fluency for the second content word was equated for the complex and simple initial noun phrase conditions. Experiments 3 and 4 addressed the visual grouping hypothesis by using stationary displays and by comparing onset latencies for the same display for sentence and list productions. Longer onset latencies for the sentences beginning with a complex noun phrase were obtained in all experiments, supporting the phrasal scope of planning hypothesis. The results indicate that in speech, as in other motor production domains, planning occurs beyond the minimal production unit. Evidence for a Phrasal Scope of Planning in Speech ProductionIn cognitive tasks involving motor output, be it language production, problem solving, or skilled motor performance (such as playing a musical instrument), people must execute a sequence of actions toward some goal. Crucial issues in all these cognitive domains concern the levels of representation at which advance planning takes place and the extent or scope of such planning (e.g., Catrambone, 1998;Rosenbaum, 2010;Smith & Wheeldon, 1999). There are major benefits to planning ahead -such as avoiding mistakes. One can insure that in problem solving, for instance, one will not end up in a game position from which there is no legal move without backtracking. In piano playing one can avoid choosing fingering for the first notes of a run that would impede rapid execution of the entire arpeggio. In language production, one can avoid becoming tongue-tied because of the difficulty in finding an appropriate word or phrase to complete a thought given what has already been produced. Advance planning has its downsides as well. Advance planning at multiple levels is

We present ACT-R/E (Adaptive Character of Thought-Rational / Embodied), a cognitive architecture for human-robot interaction. Our reason for using ACT-R/E is two-fold. First, ACT-R/E enables researchers to build good embodied models of people to understand how and why people think the way they do. Then, we leverage that knowledge of people by using it to predict what a person will do in different situations; e.g., that a person may forget something and may need to be reminded or that a person cannot see everything the robot sees. We also discuss methods of how to evaluate a cognitive architecture and show numerous, empirically validated examples of ACT-R/E models.

No abstract

Establishing and updating spatial relationships between objects in the environment is vital to maintaining situation awareness and supporting many socio-spatial tasks. In a complex environment, people often need to utilize multiple reference systems that are intrinsic to different objects (intrinsic frame of reference, IFOR), but these IFORs may conflict with each other in one or more ways. Current spatial cognition theories do not adequately address how people handle multi-IFOR reasoning problems. Two experiments manipulated relative orientations of two task-relevant objects with intrinsic axes of orientation as well as their relative task salience. Response times (RTs) decreased with increasing salience of the targeted IFOR. In addition, RTs increased as a consequence of intrinsic orientation conflict, but not by amount of orientation difference. The results suggest that people encounter difficulties when they have to process two conflicting IFOR representations, and that they seem to prioritize processing of each IFOR by salience.

Previous research (Lane, Napier, Peres, & Sándor, in press) has shown that despite the fact that it typically takes half as much time to issue a command to a computer application using that command's keyboard shortcut, most people issue a particular command by clicking an icon on a toolbar or by selecting the command from a pull-down menu. This study examined reasons why that might be the case with a web survey that focused on demographic characteristics of people who do and do not use keyboard shortcuts, as well as social factors of computer use that might influence use of keyboard shortcuts. Participants' shortcut usage was influenced by social factors, such as working in an environment with other shortcut users and experiential factors, primarily the hours spent using a computer per week.