A Biologically Based Computational Model of Working Memory

1999 ◽  
pp. 375-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall C. O'Reilly ◽  
Todd S. Braver ◽  
Jonathan D. Cohen
2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall C. O'Reilly ◽  
Michael J. Frank

The prefrontal cortex has long been thought to subserve both working memory (the holding of information online for processing) and executive functions (deciding how to manipulate working memory and perform processing). Although many computational models of working memory have been developed, the mechanistic basis of executive function remains elusive, often amounting to a homunculus. This article presents an attempt to deconstruct this homunculus through powerful learning mechanisms that allow a computational model of the prefrontal cortex to control both itself and other brain areas in a strategic, task-appropriate manner. These learning mechanisms are based on subcortical structures in the midbrain, basal ganglia, and amygdala, which together form an actor-critic architecture. The critic system learns which prefrontal representations are task relevant and trains the actor, which in turn provides a dynamic gating mechanism for controlling working memory updating. Computationally, the learning mechanism is designed to simultaneously solve the temporal and structural credit assignment problems. The model's performance compares favorably with standard backpropagation-based temporal learning mechanisms on the challenging 1-2-AX working memory task and other benchmark working memory tasks.


1992 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 468-473
Author(s):  
Alan H. Schoenfeld

Ohlsson. Ernst, and Rees (this issue) have produced a wonderfully lucid description of their paradigmatic approach to issues of cognition and instruction. They illustrate their approach by presenting the details of a well worked out computational model. Then, on the basis of simulation runs on the model, they derive some implications for prac tice. The authors have also laid down some rather stringent constraints for commentary. Do not critique our paradigms, they say, unless you can offer a replacement that does better. Do not critique the choice of knowledge representation (production systems) or modeling assumptions (e.g., limitations on working memory) unless you have compelling data to offer in service of your argument and in contradiction of our assumptions. Argument about details is useful, they say, but that won't change the conclusions we draw. So what's a reviewer to do?


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 176-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakub Szymanik ◽  
Marcin Zajenkowski

This paper presents experimental evidence on the differences in a sentence–picture verification task under additional memory load between parity and proportional quantifiers. We asked subjects to memorize strings of four or six digits, then to decide whether a quantified sentence was true for a given picture, and finally to recall the initially given string of numbers. The results show that: (a) proportional quantifiers are more difficult than parity quantifiers with respect to reaction time and accuracy; (b) maintaining either four or six elements in working memory has the same effect on the processing of parity quantifiers; (c) however, in the case of proportional quantifiers subjects perform better in the verification tasks under the six-digit load condition, and (d) even though the strings of four numbers were better recalled by subjects after judging parity there is no difference between quantifiers in the case of the six-element condition. We briefly outline two alternative explanations for the observed phenomena rooted in the computational model of quantifier verification and the different theories of working memory.


NeuroImage ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. S15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd S. Braver ◽  
Jonathan D. Cohen ◽  
Deanna M. Barcht ◽  
Douglas C. Noll

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document