1. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20081 Cognitive Modeling of Knowledge-Guided Information Acquisition in Games Reijer Grimbergen Department of Informatics Yamagata University, Japan

2. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20082 Outline Where do we want to go? A cognitive model for perception in games A reproduction experiment in shogi Experimental results Conclusions and future work

3. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20083 Where do we want to go? Using Marvin Minsky’s Society of Mind theory for game playing What are the primitive agents? Input agents: perception of board and pieces Output agents: playing moves First step Studying perception to understand input agents

4. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20084 A cognitive model for perception in games The three-stage memory model (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968) Sensory memory Information from the outside world Short-term memory Selective attention Output Long-term memory Encoding Retrieval Environment

5. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20085 A cognitive model for perception in games Perception guided by knowledge

6. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20086 A cognitive model for perception in games Feedback from long-term memory Sensory memory Information from the outside world Short-term memory Selective attention Output Long-term memory Encoding Retrieval Environment Perception of board and pieces Minsky’s primitive agents (input/output)

7. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20087 Perception in games Acquiring the necessary knowledge about a board position to make a decision about the next move Perception is strongly related to chunks Stronger players have bigger chunks of game knowledge, so are better at information extraction Chunks = agencies? Reproduction experiment to understand the fundamental agents dealing with perception

8. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20088 Hypotheses about perception Hypothesis 1: It is easier to perceive one’s own pieces than the pieces of the opponent

9. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 20089 Hypotheses about perception Hypothesis 2: It is easier to perceive pieces that are promoted than pieces that are not promoted

10. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200810 Hypotheses about perception Hypothesis 3: Pieces closer to oneself are easier to perceive than pieces further away

11. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200811 Hypotheses about perception Hypothesis 4: Bigger pieces are easier to perceive than smaller pieces

12. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200812 Reproduction experiment

13. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200813 Reproduction experiment 10 positions Generated randomly 5 positions with pieces in hand 11 subjects All in their early twenties 9 subjects were absolute beginners 2 subjects had played in elementary school

14. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200814 Experimental results Reproduction time

15. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200815 Experimental results Correctness

16. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200816 Experimental results Hypothesis 1: It is easier to perceive one’s own pieces than the pieces of the opponent Hypothesis not valid!

17. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200817 Experimental results Hypothesis 2: It is easier to perceive pieces that are promoted than pieces that are not promoted Hypothesis probably invalid!

18. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200818 Experimental results Hypothesis 3: Pieces closer to oneself are easier to perceive than pieces further away Hypothesis not valid!

19. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200819 Experimental results Hypothesis 4: Bigger pieces are easier to perceive than smaller pieces Hypothesis not valid!

20. 2008/09/30Computers and Games 200820 Conclusions and future work Conclusions Perceptual clues in board and pieces do not guide the knowledge stored in memory Perceptual clues only trigger this knowledge Agents and agencies should be built around primitive concepts like board, piece and king Future work Build it! Further reproduction experiments with players of different playing strength