1. ACT-R Φ ACT-R WITH A PHYSIOLOGICAL SUBSTRATE Christopher L. Dancy Ph.D. Candidate Applied Cognitive Science Lab The College of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University 1 ACT-R Workshop July 11, 2013 “Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity'. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown.” – Schwartz, 2008

2. Ways Physiology can Modulate Cognition and Behavior (some priming…) 2  Appetitive Motivations 1,2  Hunger, Thirst, Thermal Balance, etc.  Sleep  Stress 3  Need to void 4 1.Panksepp (2012) 2.Mogg et al. (1998) 3.Joëls and Baram (2009) 4. Tuk et al. (2011) 5.Montano et al. (2012) And these all interact! 5

3. Biology/Physiology in ACT-R 3  Ritter (2007, 2009) – Simulating the effects of stress & caffeine

4. Biology/Physiology in ACT-R 4  Ritter (2007, 2009) – Simulating the effects of stress & caffeine  Changed parameters to simulate participants in different groups (challenged, threatened, caffeine) seconds-per-syllable (SYL) base level constant (BLC) activation noise (ANS)  Parameter values were found using GA & were static across the task

5. Biology/Physiology in ACT-R 5  Gunzelmann (2009, 2012) - Simulating the effects of Fatigue/Sleep deprevation

6. Biology/Physiology in ACT-R 6  Gunzelmann (2009, 2012) - Simulating the effects of Fatigue/Sleep deprevation  Used a model of fatigue (cognitive throughput or alertness) due to sleep deprevation (CNPA)  Connected model to DM (activation) and Procedural (utility)

7. Questions from the two examples 7  How can we make cognition change physiology too (and in real-time)?  How can we combine results?  How can we generalize the results?

8. HumMod 1 8 1.Hester et al., 2011

9. Why HumMod? 9  Integrative model 1  Want to avoid “micro” computational models of physiology  Top-down organization  Provides macroscopic representation of physiology and some underlying functionality  Open-source model (XML)  Allows verification, validation, and modification (if needed)  It’s software that works(!!!) 1.Hester et al., 2011

10. About HumMod 10  Inputs (parameters)  Exogenous changes to variables e.g. Epinephrine pump, IV drip  Modify autonomic nerve activity  “Lifestyle” settings e.g. - Air supply, Exercise, Diet

11. About HumMod 11

12. ACT-R 12 1.Anderson et al., 2008 1

13. ACT-R Φ : An Extension to ACT-R 13

14. A Modification of a Subtraction Model 1,2 14 2. Dancy et al., Accepted 1.Ritter et al., 2009

15. Subtraction model results 1 (n=200) 15 1. Dancy et al., Accepted

16. 16 Subtraction model results (n = 1,582,000 OR 2 * 3955 * 200) 1. Dancy et al., Accepted

17. 17 Subtraction model results (n=200 * 3955 * 2) 1. Dancy et al., Accepted

18. 18 A Thirsty model 1. Dancy et al., 2013

19. 19 Thirsty model Results 1. Dancy et al., 2013 DecisionOsmolarity (sd)Subj. Thirst (sd) Accept experiment Not Reported8.90(1.7) Accept­ model 306.37(0.2)7.94(1.2) Reject experiment Not Reported5.60(1.6) Reject model 305.86(3.74)4.82(1.2) Both experiment 310(5.0)7.30(1.6) Both model 306.27(1.7)7.29(1.7)

20. Discussion Some things for which it could be useful 20  Perseveration & Autonomy  Do you know what Perseveration is? Do you know what Perseveration is? Do you know what Perseveration is? Do you know what Perseveration is? Do you know what Perseveration is?  Military Simulations  Energy, Fatigue, and Stress (Physical and Mental)

21. Discussion Some Possible Road Blocks 21  Visceral Sensory/Perception Conflict  E.g. Hunger and Pain  What direct connections should we make?  SPEED!!!  Ease of Use and Visualization  E.g., for 6,000+ variables

22. Conclusion A Future for ACT-R (and other architectures)? 22  This approach has several areas of improvement (see last slide) but that’s expected…  How do we use existing literature to develop these connections?  Reviews of moderators that acknowledge multiple levels (e.g., Joëls, 2009; Pankepp, 2012) are helpful.  Experiments that record (& control for) physiological data with psychological data (e.g., Wright, 2012) are helpful.

23. Acknowledgements 23  ACS Lab @ Penn State  Robert Hester  Keith Berry  Jon Morgan

24. References 24 Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., Qin, Y., & Stocco, A. (2008). A central circuit of the mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 136- 143. Dancy, C. L., & Kaulakis, R. (2013). Towards Adding Bottom-Up Homeostatic Affect to ACT-R. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling:Ottawa, Canada. Dancy, C. L., Ritter, F. E., & Berry, K. (Accepted). Using a cognitive architecture with a physiological substrate to represent effects of psychological stress on cognition. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory. Gunzelmann, G., Gluck, K. A., Richard Moore Jr, L., & Dinges, D. F. (2012). Diminished access to declarative knowledge with sleep deprivation. Cognitive Systems Research, 13(1), 1-11. Gunzelmann, G., Gross, J. B., Gluck, K. A., & Dinges, D. F. (2009). Sleep deprivation and sustained attention performance: Integrating mathematical and cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 880-910. Hester, R. L., Brown, A. J., Husband, L., Iliescu, R., Pruett, D., Summers, R., et al. (2011). HumMod: A modeling environment for the simulation of integrative human physiology. Frontiers in Physiology, 2(12). Joëls, M., & Baram, T. Z. (2009). The neuro-symphony of stress. [10.1038/nrn2632]. Nature Review in Neuroscience, 10(6), 459-466. Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Hyare, H., & Lee, S. (1998). Selective attention to food-related stimuli in hunger: Are attentional biases specific to emotional and psychopathological states, or are they also found in normal drive states? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 227-237. Montano, N., Tobaldini, E., & Porta, A. (2012). The Autonomic Nervous System Stress Challenges and Immunity in Space. In A. Chouker (Ed.), (pp. 71-86): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Panksepp, J., & Biven, L. (2012). The Archeology of Mind: Neuroevoloutionary Origins of Human Emotions. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Ritter, F. E., Kase, S. E., Klein, L. C., Bennett, J., & Schoelles, M. (2009). Fitting a model to behavior tells us what changes cognitively when under stress and with caffeine. In Proceedings of the the Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures Symposium at the AAAI Fall Symposium. Keynote presentation, 109-115:Washington, DC. Ritter, F. E., Reifers, A. L., Klein, L. C., & Schoelles, M. J. (2007). Lessons from defining theories of stress. In W. D. Gray (Ed.), Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems (pp. 254-262). New York, NY: OUP. Tuk, M. A., Trampe, D., & Warlop, L. (2011). Inhibitory Spillover. Psychological Science, 22(5), 627-633. Wright, N. D., Hodgson, K., Fleming, S. M., Symmonds, M., Guitart-Masip, M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). Human responses to unfairness with primary rewards and their biological limits. [10.1038/srep00593]. Scientific Reports, 2.