Information Processing - Science topic

Yes

Following

What is impact of your paper getting published in Springer Lecture notes?

Two closely related areas offering research and theoretical insights here, I suggest, are those concerning the topics of self-efficacy and of cognitive mindset. Prominent among contributors to the former is Barry J. Zimmerman, and to the latter, Carol Dweck. Mindset theory differentiates learners whose behaviour is governed by a "performance" mjndset (tending towards obtaining social approval for their actions) or, contrastingly, by a "growth" mindset (motivated to seek ways of improving their current knowledge and proficiency level, perhaps beyond accepted educational principles and regardless of social responses). Self-efficacy - strength of one's conviction that one's actions will be, or eventually prove, successful - is seen by Zimmerman to be dependent upon capacity for cognitive self-regulation in learning-situations, that is, one's responsiveness to, and productive use-making of, task-relevant feedback for steering performance and learning. Both perspectives predict that the kind of feedback to which individuals respond in learning-situations - task-relevant versus social - will have a critical impact upon their readiness to participate in them.

Another insightful explanatory perspective is that of ideomotor theory, positing the necessity of being able to couple an appropriate motor-act to a conceptualized intention to achieve a certain, perceived corresponding effect in one's environment. Here, obviously, appropriate motor-acts are those of speech. Ability to participate in a discussion is dependent not merely upon comprehending the subject and immediate interpreting of the content of other participants' utterances (often ones contributed much earlier), both requiring near-instantaneous memory-retrieval, but equally upon alacrity at accessing suitable words for contributing one's own thoughts as well as at converting the accessed words into motor speech sequences. Contributing will obviously be undermined if one has difficulty imagining suitable words or generally in articulating them sequentially (e.g. as per stammerers). In addition, ideomotor theory has spawned extensive research investigating effects of individuals' focus of attention upon their motor performance and rate of improvement. Individuals who tend to focus on imagining the external goal they are intending to attain are found to perform and improve better than those who tend to focus on trying to produce an effective action for attaining it. This general finding, too, may apply as regards proficiency in articulating thoughts in demanding, formal contexts of speaking, e.g. in an academic discussion, in teaching or responding to audience questions during a lecture.

Other potent determinants of self-efficacy include the individual's general background regarding learning-contexts and the opportunities made possible thereby for furthering their proficiency as communicators. The extensive study headed by Bloom (1985) revealed that expert performers had typically received exceptional levels of parental support throughout childhood and adolescence, providing, among other factors, access to highly expert teachers in their domain, frequent experiences of performing to, and with, others, and opportunities for interacting with like peers. All such factors may be reasonably assumed to promote individual's self-efficacy as communicators of their intentions, and would have constituted for them normal phenomena in their ongoing life. By contrast, the less-privileged majority may grow up in a background of indifference towards their personal accomplishments and potential for growth, exposure to teaching-styles that foster dependency on being told what to think and do, and to ridicule from peers and teachers when they fail to deliver what is expected of them. Acquiring proficiency in articulating one's thoughts requires long-term practice and abundant opportunity for learning by trial-and-error that are often prevented in such an upbringing. Given that, readiness to contribute to a tutorial discussion may be influenced more by individuals' personality traits and personal cognitive style as determinants of self-efficacy than by anything else.

this article may provide some guidance in how authors develop theory

V. Kumar (2018) A Theory of Customer Valuation: Concepts, Metrics, Strategy, and Implementation. Journal of Marketing: January 2018, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Thank you for your advice, how about the source code of tensor train decomposition, I am wondering if you could kindly send me the source program and the

necessary information about it. Thank you very much for your kind consideration and I am looking  forward to your early reply. 

Derek, here is the key couple of paragraphs from the Biological Theory paper I mentioned.

"We do not think that anything in cognitive science shows that we can simply “read-off” hominin cognition from behaviour or from artefacts. Even if skilled behaviour is not driven by explicit representation in semantic memory, we still need a positive account of implicit representation and its interaction with explicit information (which often plays an important role in teaching and error diagnosis). One of the puzzling features of human evolution is the lack of any clear correlation between the appearance of new hominin species and marked changes in the technical, ecological, and social lives of hominins (with the possible exception of the correlation between the evolution of erectus and Acheulian technology). This lack of correlation has been much discussed with respect to our species. The supposed problem is that Anatomically Modern Humans appeared in the historical record hundreds of thousands of years before Behaviourally Modern Humans. Indeed, on a recent estimate our species has existed for about 300k years (Hublin, Ben-Ncer et al. 2017), while most discussions place the emergence of Behaviourally Modern Humans within the last 100k years (Henshilwood and Marean 2003). If this is so then for more than half of our biological existence, the technical competence, ecological role and social lives of members of our species seemed akin to their Middle Stone Age contemporaries and ancestors rather than to their conspecific descendant. From about 50 kya, after a long and patchy transition period, our forager ancestors’ social, economic, and technical lives fell into the range of variation of historically known foragers. Yet those ancient humans are of the very same species as us. So why did it take so long for the Modern Mind to join the Modern Body? This is Renfrew’s “sapient paradox”  (see e.g. Renfrew 2008) however if either  niche construction approaches or 4E views of cognition are on the right track there is no reason to expect innovations in material technology, foraging, or social life to be correlated with speciation patterns. Reasons for this include (i) the cognitive capacities of individuals do not depend solely on their individual phenotypes, let alone on their neocortex, for they depend on their access to external supports as well; and (ii) the informational resources of communities are not a simple reflection of the cognitive capacities of individuals in those communities (and it is often communities, through collective action, that leave material traces). How the community is networked, and the patterns of informational cooperation (and lack of cooperation) are equally important.

As a consequence, there is no paradox in the “sapient paradox”. This makes the methodological problems more acute for cognitive archaeology. Those who emphasise the cognitive importance of niche construction also think that cumulative cultural evolution impacts on how we think, not just what we think; the defenders of extended and distributed approaches to cognition converge on the conclusion that there can be very significant cognitive differences within species. This potential variation in human actions and hence capacities stems from multiple factors: cognitive capacities depend not just on  genetic endowment, but also on the material and social supports that scaffold their cognition. There is no reason at all to suppose that (for instance) norms of teaching and information sharing, or the availability of material supports for cognition, are roughly constant across genetically similar communities that are nonetheless widely separated in space and time. If all of that is right, we cannot, for instance, aggregate data on material culture and economic lives across Neanderthal sites to form a composite picture of “the Neanderthal Mind” (Wynn and Coolidge 2004, Wynn, Overmann et al. 2016). Even idealising away from genetic evolution in the Neanderthal lineage, there is no “the Neanderthal Mind”.  At best, there is a spectrum of variation, a space of possible Neanderthal Minds. There is a certain reluctance amongst the archaeological sympathisers of 4E cognition to embrace this consequence. Thus John Gowlett, Clive Gamble and Robin Dunbar sign up to many of its signature ideas, while wanting to hang onto the idea that relative neocortex volume constrains social complexity (indexed as maximum group size) (Gamble, Dunbar et al. 2014). The seriousness of this challenge depends on how profoundly these extra-somatic factors influence cognition, and on when those factors began both to be important in hominin evolution and vary from community to community. Great ape intelligence may be embodied, but it is presumably neither extended nor embedded."

Here is an estimate of how long it would take to read Tolstoy’s War and Peace using an information transfer rate of 0.004 bits/sec (brain-to-brain, Pais-Vieira et al. 2013) versus 80 bits/sec (a proficient reader). Translated: 1 word per 100 minutes versus 200 words per minute. Tolstoy’s War and Peace contains 587,287 words; therefore using brain-to-brain communication it would take 58,728,600 minutes or 978,810 hours or over 100 years to read the book and using eye-to-brain communication it would take 49 hours of continuous reading (Tehovnik et al. 2017).  Hence, evolution has equipped the body with sensors to transmit information at high rates.

Tehovnik et al.  (2017)  Consciousness and Information Transfer.  In Preparation.

If I understand the nature of your question, it seems possible that these automated actions are occurring essentially neurologically identically to the automated, and automatic, actions of walking.  As both involve movement and spacial adjustments maybe the brain at some point in the development of driving expertise starts treating them the same.  It would be worth a look anyway.

@Franz Plochberger. The user contributions are artifacts containing explicit knowledge produce by humans using their cognition. Machine computations are used to facilitate the distribution of tasks or for capture, sharing, etc. human response. Kindly see the attached link .

Thanks so much it's useful appreciate

Hi Rafeef ,

Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) or Career Information Processing (CIP) :  theory describes career decision-making like a recipe, which involves several components as well as a process for integrating these components to come out with an end product. Two diagrams that help to illustrate this process are the Pyramid of Information Processing and The CASVE (Communication,Analysis , Synthesis ,Valuing ,Executing) Cycle.

Regards....

Dear Wieslaw,

My opinions are:

1) Without taking into consideration the roles of ions and water, and the interactions of neurons with glial cells, extracellular matrix and blood, there is no future for NED;

2) The model of neural spikes and synaptic strengthning is not wrong, and needs not to be replaced, but extended to include the dynamics of ions and water in brain tissue;

3) Memory phenomena is well accounted by the LTP paradigm, which is part of the synaptic strengthning model. What is there to be explained is not learning and memory, since these phenomena are well explained by the current dominant paradigm. The issues to be explained are those related to basic sensations (as pain, pleasure, hunger, thrist), feelings and conscious gestalts, which are not explained by that model.

Dear Vahid, 

Our professors trained rats in a certain task, then they took the trained rats brain homogenate and injected it in other rats to see if they could transfer the learning. They could not. 

A. Questions Concerning Initial Data Research.

1. Given the initial variables tied to the hypothesis and null-hypothesis, are you considering counterfactual explanations?

2. How are you defining early warning indicators that cue an unexplained shift in dependent variable behavior? Are indicators rolled in as alternate variables (intervening, confounding, endogenous, exogenous, moderating, etc.)?

B. Consideration No. 1: Multiple Hypotheses Analysis

1. Assumptions. Measurement types vary with variable properties: measures of association and measuring patterns of relationships (direction, strength, significance, etc.) will differ based on mixing and matching different variable types (ordinal, interval, ratio?)

2. Suggestion – let the data speak for itself. Could we establish a cross-sectional analysis using a simple cross-tabulation table where counterfactual explanations or unforeseen influences are eliminated (or not!) by looking at measures of association and significance?

C. Consideration No. 2: Bayesian Analysis

1. Assumption. Bayesian analysis could address the question of what is the probability of a causal relationship given a change in conditions.

Can Bayes formula be applied as indicators suggest a behavior modification that appears to covary with a certain set of environmental influences? Could you apply this formula to something simple like MICROSOFT EXCEL and enter your observations of variables and calculate daily the probabilistic outcome to identify possible shifts in patterns?

Forumla: P(Hi|D) = P(D|Hi) x P(Hi)/P(D) where [P= “probability of”]; [| = “given”]; [/ = divided by”]

Problem-Set: measuring personality coming into a program, identifying potential personality influences with in that environment, and testing on coming out of the program.

P(Hi): possible outcome (hypothesis) – likelihood of a behavior given a certain environmental influence or set of environmental influences

P(D): probability of environmental influence(s) occurring

P(D|Hi): the probability of environmental influences occurring given that the hypothesis

P(Hi|D): calculating the posterior odds – what is the probability of behavior modification given the environmental influence.

This might also be a good read:

Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2013). Engineering psychology and human performance (Fourth edition). Boston: Pearson.

For theory about human information processing read pages 3-6.

In terms of predictive coding, perception of our environment is transformed into 'bottom-up' signals, whereas recognition is the 'top-down' signal, representing the predictions we experienced earlier and added to our model of the world to make sense of and classify the percieved data.

The predictions are associated with GABA signals and gamma waves from the PFC towards 'lower' structures. If these predictions do not match the perceived data there will be a prediction error (encoded by dopamine) sent back (upwards) to update the predictions for future retrievals.

These predictions can imply cognitive biases: If the predictions are stronger - or the errors are less strong -  one might 'experience' things, that are not part of the 'reality' as others perceive it, because the prediction 'overwrites' the perception signals.

Does that help you ?

Estimada Prof. Rodríguez Castilla

En estos últimos años estuve desarrollando un proyecto de investigación que, si bien no se refiere específicamente a doctorandos, trabajó sobre un colectivo que incluye personas con ese perfil. El proyecto, recién terminado, consiste en un estudio de usuarios de sistemas de información en el área tecnológica industrial argentina, centrado en los procesos de búsqueda de información en entornos digitales. En su desarrollo han surgido distintos aspectos de la conducta informativa del grupo; entre ellos hay varios relacionados con las competencias informacionales para el análisis crítico del planteo y desarrollo de los procesos de búsqueda, así como de la información obtenida.

Este trabajo está relacionado con mi tesis de doctorado, que en estos días ha entrado en proceso de evaluación. Por motivos reglamentarios, en estos momentos aún no puedo difundirla, pero si a usted le interesara, más adelante puedo compartir el texto.

Dear  Saleh Abdulaziz S. Al Zahrani, 

In case I understood your question correctly, these papers will shed some light on your question: 

Hi Bill! and Dan! I'll write more later but here are a couple of recent studies which use serial reproduction, Cheers, John

Carbon, C.-C. & Albrecht, S. (2012). Bartlett's schema theory: The unreplicated

"portrait d'homme" series from 1932. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,

65(11), 2258-2270.

Roediger H. L. III, Meade, M. L., Gallo, D. A., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Bartlett

revisited: Direct comparison of repeated reproduction and serial reproduction

techniques. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, DOI:

10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.004

It is great that scientists think about such a complex issue. Do you know an interesting article on the subject. Please take a look. All the best.

Dear Gokul, nice to meet you here :-). I hope the job applications and stuff went well!

The question is very general asked because you always have to consider the overall application scheme. I can tell you the following: First check the NA of the fibers, the "sending" MM fiber always has to have a lower NA than the second one to allow a nearly 100% coupling. But you wont achieve that anyway: The MM Fiber will make you some weird modes and in the SM fiber you can just couple the 00 order. The stronger all other orders are, the less you can couple, of course. Concerning "plug and play": the couplers are different - MM use widekey, SM smallkey. You might have to couple out and couple in by a lens system.

Granule is a clump of similar objects and granular computing is the process to treat all the similar entities as a single one and perform the computation over this. It proves to be effective for formal concept analysis in a few areas of machine learning and it can be very effective with large scale data processing. 

The major concern of it is formation of granules, where the similarity feature space should be chosen according to the problem.

Hi Velina!

I've just posted a reply to Vladimir Farber that, to my understanding, has basic relevance to your question.

Following from it, there's the implication that more clearly-defined representation of the individual episodes of a continuous sequence should increase a subject's ability to recall the representation of each episode in the form of a deliberately prescribed chunk (i.e. a chunk consisting of a predeternined number of episodes, and perhaps paced in time). With mental rehearsal,  the chunked low-level individual representations would entail the forming of a high-level cognitive representation that included the chunk's additional, deliberately imposed parameters, allowing automatized top-down retrieval of the entire set on demand.

Hope this is of some help - please let me know if it needs clarifying or elaborating.

Did you read the explanation in wikipedia?

I suggest to you start reading some articles:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11054920 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767738/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22069393 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11376644 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22701415 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684735 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616520

Best regards Anna

The psychological literature on deception and scams has shown that deceptive ploys eschew direct, rational argumentation and instead employ 'peripheral-route' persuasion. In turn Langenderfer & Shimp (2001), drawing on Loewenstein (1996), emphasise the role of 'visceral influences' -- greed, pity, lust, fear, anxiety -- on the effectiveness of deceptive ploys. Of course perfectly legal forms of marketing and deal-making draw from the same menu of techniques.

So yes, emotions do have a heavy bearing on how humans process information.

Langenderfer J, Shimp TA. Consumer vulnerability to scams, swindles, and fraud: A new theory of visceral influences on persuasion. Psychology and Marketing, 2001; 18:763--783.

Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on economic behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1996; 65:272--292.