Cognitive science

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of

the mind and its processes with input from linguistics,
psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, computer
science/artificial intelligence, and anthropology.[2] It examines
the nature, the tasks, and the functions of cognition (in a broad
sense). Cognitive scientists study intelligence and behavior,
with a focus on how nervous systems represent, process, and
transform information. Mental faculties of concern to cognitive
scientists include language, perception, memory, attention,
reasoning, and emotion; to understand these faculties, cognitive
scientists borrow from fields such as linguistics, psychology,
artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, and
anthropology.[3] The typical analysis of cognitive science
spans many levels of organization, from learning and decision
Figure illustrating the fields that
to logic and planning; from neural circuitry to modular brain
contributed to the birth of cognitive
organization. One of the fundamental concepts of cognitive
science, including linguistics,
science is that "thinking can best be understood in terms of
neuroscience, artificial intelligence,
representational structures in the mind and computational
anthropology, and psychology[1]
procedures that operate on those structures."[3]

The goal of cognitive science is to understand and formulate

the principles of intelligence with the hope that this will lead to a better comprehension of the mind and of
learning. The cognitive sciences began as an intellectual movement in the 1950s often referred to as the
cognitive revolution.[4]

History
The cognitive sciences began as an intellectual movement in the 1950s, called the cognitive revolution.
Cognitive science has a prehistory traceable back to ancient Greek philosophical texts (see Plato's Meno
and Aristotle's De Anima); Modern philosophers such as Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant,
Benedict de Spinoza, Nicolas Malebranche, Pierre Cabanis, Leibniz and John Locke, rejected scholasticism
while mostly having never read Aristotle, and they were working with an entirely different set of tools and
core concepts than those of the cognitive scientist.

The modern culture of cognitive science can be traced back to the early cyberneticists in the 1930s and
1940s, such as Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, who sought to understand the organizing principles of
the mind. McCulloch and Pitts developed the first variants of what are now known as artificial neural
networks, models of computation inspired by the structure of biological neural networks.

Another precursor was the early development of the theory of computation and the digital computer in the
1940s and 1950s. Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, Alan Turing, and John von Neumann were instrumental in
these developments. The modern computer, or Von Neumann machine, would play a central role in
cognitive science, both as a metaphor for the mind, and as a tool for investigation.
The first instance of cognitive science experiments being done at an academic institution took place at MIT
Sloan School of Management, established by J.C.R. Licklider working within the psychology department
and conducting experiments using computer memory as models for human cognition.[5]

In 1959, Noam Chomsky published a scathing review of B. F. Skinner's book Verbal Behavior.[6] At the
time, Skinner's behaviorist paradigm dominated the field of psychology within the United States. Most
psychologists focused on functional relations between stimulus and response, without positing internal
representations. Chomsky argued that in order to explain language, we needed a theory like generative
grammar, which not only attributed internal representations but characterized their underlying order.

The term cognitive science was coined by Christopher Longuet-Higgins in his 1973 commentary on the
Lighthill report, which concerned the then-current state of artificial intelligence research.[7] In the same
decade, the journal Cognitive Science and the Cognitive Science Society were founded.[8] The founding
meeting of the Cognitive Science Society was held at the University of California, San Diego in 1979,
which resulted in cognitive science becoming an internationally visible enterprise.[9] In 1972, Hampshire
College started the first undergraduate education program in Cognitive Science, led by Neil Stillings. In
1982, with assistance from Professor Stillings, Vassar College became the first institution in the world to
grant an undergraduate degree in Cognitive Science.[10] In 1986, the first Cognitive Science Department in
the world was founded at the University of California, San Diego.[9]

In the 1970s and early 1980s, as access to computers increased, artificial intelligence research expanded.
Researchers such as Marvin Minsky would write computer programs in languages such as LISP to attempt
to formally characterize the steps that human beings went through, for instance, in making decisions and
solving problems, in the hope of better understanding human thought, and also in the hope of creating
artificial minds. This approach is known as "symbolic AI".

Eventually the limits of the symbolic AI research program became apparent. For instance, it seemed to be
unrealistic to comprehensively list human knowledge in a form usable by a symbolic computer program.
The late 80s and 90s saw the rise of neural networks and connectionism as a research paradigm. Under this
point of view, often attributed to James McClelland and David Rumelhart, the mind could be characterized
as a set of complex associations, represented as a layered network. Critics argue that there are some
phenomena which are better captured by symbolic models, and that connectionist models are often so
complex as to have little explanatory power. Recently symbolic and connectionist models have been
combined, making it possible to take advantage of both forms of explanation.[11][12] While both
connectionism and symbolic approaches have proven useful for testing various hypotheses and exploring
approaches to understanding aspects of cognition and lower level brain functions, neither are biologically
realistic and therefore, both suffer from a lack of neuroscientific plausibility.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
Connectionism has proven useful for exploring computationally how cognition emerges in development
and occurs in the human brain, and has provided alternatives to strictly domain-specific / domain general
approaches. For example, scientists such as Jeff Elman, Liz Bates, and Annette Karmiloff-Smith have
posited that networks in the brain emerge from the dynamic interaction between them and environmental
input.[20]

Principles

Levels of analysis

A central tenet of cognitive science is that a complete understanding of the mind/brain cannot be attained by
studying only a single level. An example would be the problem of remembering a phone number and
recalling it later. One approach to understanding this process would be to study behavior through direct
observation, or naturalistic observation. A person could be presented with a phone number and be asked to
recall it after some delay of time; then the accuracy of the response could be measured. Another approach to
measure cognitive ability would be to study the firings of individual neurons while a person is trying to
remember the phone number. Neither of these experiments on its own would fully explain how the process
of remembering a phone number works. Even if the technology to map out every neuron in the brain in
real-time were available and it were known when each neuron fired it would still be impossible to know
how a particular firing of neurons translates into the observed behavior. Thus an understanding of how
these two levels relate to each other is imperative. Francisco Varela, in The Embodied Mind: Cognitive
Science and Human Experience, argues that "the new sciences of the mind need to enlarge their horizon to
encompass both lived human experience and the possibilities for transformation inherent in human
experience".[21] On the classic cognitivist view, this can be provided by a functional level account of the
process. Studying a particular phenomenon from multiple levels creates a better understanding of the
processes that occur in the brain to give rise to a particular behavior. Marr[22] gave a famous description of
three levels of analysis:

1. The computational theory, specifying the goals of the computation;

2. Representation and algorithms, giving a representation of the inputs and outputs and the
algorithms which transform one into the other; and
3. The hardware implementation, or how algorithm and representation may be physically
realized.

Interdisciplinary nature

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field with contributors from various fields, including psychology,
neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy of mind, computer science, anthropology and biology. Cognitive
scientists work collectively in hope of understanding the mind and its interactions with the surrounding
world much like other sciences do. The field regards itself as compatible with the physical sciences and
uses the scientific method as well as simulation or modeling, often comparing the output of models with
aspects of human cognition. Similarly to the field of psychology, there is some doubt whether there is a
unified cognitive science, which have led some researchers to prefer 'cognitive sciences' in plural.[23][24]

Many, but not all, who consider themselves cognitive scientists hold a functionalist view of the mind—the
view that mental states and processes should be explained by their function – what they do. According to
the multiple realizability account of functionalism, even non-human systems such as robots and computers
can be ascribed as having cognition.

Cognitive science: the term

The term "cognitive" in "cognitive science" is used for "any kind of mental operation or structure that can
be studied in precise terms" (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). This conceptualization is very broad, and should
not be confused with how "cognitive" is used in some traditions of analytic philosophy, where "cognitive"
has to do only with formal rules and truth-conditional semantics.
The earliest entries for the word "cognitive" in the OED take it to mean roughly "pertaining to the action or
process of knowing". The first entry, from 1586, shows the word was at one time used in the context of
discussions of Platonic theories of knowledge. Most in cognitive science, however, presumably do not
believe their field is the study of anything as certain as the knowledge sought by Plato. [25]

Scope
Cognitive science is a large field, and covers a wide array of topics on cognition. However, it should be
recognized that cognitive science has not always been equally concerned with every topic that might bear
relevance to the nature and operation of minds. Classical cognitivists have largely de-emphasized or
avoided social and cultural factors, embodiment, emotion, consciousness, animal cognition, and
comparative and evolutionary psychologies. However, with the decline of behaviorism, internal states such
as affects and emotions, as well as awareness and covert attention became approachable again. For
example, situated and embodied cognition theories take into account the current state of the environment as
well as the role of the body in cognition. With the newfound emphasis on information processing,
observable behavior was no longer the hallmark of psychological theory, but the modeling or recording of
mental states.

Below are some of the main topics that cognitive science is concerned with. This is not an exhaustive list.
See List of cognitive science topics for a list of various aspects of the field.

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) involves the study of cognitive phenomena in machines. One of the practical
goals of AI is to implement aspects of human intelligence in computers. Computers are also widely used as
a tool with which to study cognitive phenomena. Computational modeling uses simulations to study how
human intelligence may be structured.[26] (See § Computational modeling.)

There is some debate in the field as to whether the mind is best viewed as a huge array of small but
individually feeble elements (i.e. neurons), or as a collection of higher-level structures such as symbols,
schemes, plans, and rules. The former view uses connectionism to study the mind, whereas the latter
emphasizes symbolic artificial intelligence. One way to view the issue is whether it is possible to accurately
simulate a human brain on a computer without accurately simulating the neurons that make up the human
brain.

Attention

Attention is the selection of important information. The human mind is bombarded with millions of stimuli
and it must have a way of deciding which of this information to process. Attention is sometimes seen as a
spotlight, meaning one can only shine the light on a particular set of information. Experiments that support
this metaphor include the dichotic listening task (Cherry, 1957) and studies of inattentional blindness (Mack
and Rock, 1998). In the dichotic listening task, subjects are bombarded with two different messages, one in
each ear, and told to focus on only one of the messages. At the end of the experiment, when asked about
the content of the unattended message, subjects cannot report it.

Bodily processes related to cognition

Embodied cognition approaches to cognitive science emphasize the role of body and environment in
cognition. This includes both neural and extra-neural bodily processes, and factors that range from affective
and emotional processes,[27] to posture, motor control, proprioception, and kinaesthesis,[28] to autonomic
processes that involve heartbeat[29] and respiration,[30] to the role of the enteric gut microbiome.[31] It also
includes accounts of how the body engages with or is coupled to social and physical environments. 4E
(embodied, embedded, extended and enactive) cognition[32][33] includes a broad range of views about
brain-body-environment interaction, from causal embeddedness to stronger claims about how the mind
extends to include tools and instruments, as well as the role of social interactions, action-oriented processes,
and affordances. 4E theories range from those closer to classic cognitivism (so-called "weak" embodied
cognition[34]) to stronger extended[35] and enactive versions that are sometimes referred to as radical
embodied cognitive science.[36][37]

Knowledge and processing of language

The ability to learn and understand language is an extremely

complex process. Language is acquired within the first few years
of life, and all humans under normal circumstances are able to
acquire language proficiently. A major driving force in the
theoretical linguistic field is discovering the nature that language
must have in the abstract in order to be learned in such a fashion.
Some of the driving research questions in studying how the brain
A well known example of a phrase
itself processes language include: (1) To what extent is linguistic structure tree. This is one way of
knowledge innate or learned?, (2) Why is it more difficult for representing human language that
adults to acquire a second-language than it is for infants to acquire shows how different components are
their first-language?, and (3) How are humans able to understand organized hierarchically.
novel sentences?

The study of language processing ranges from the investigation of the sound patterns of speech to the
meaning of words and whole sentences. Linguistics often divides language processing into orthography,
phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Many aspects of language can be
studied from each of these components and from their interaction.[38]

The study of language processing in cognitive science is closely tied to the field of linguistics. Linguistics
was traditionally studied as a part of the humanities, including studies of history, art and literature. In the last
fifty years or so, more and more researchers have studied knowledge and use of language as a cognitive
phenomenon, the main problems being how knowledge of language can be acquired and used, and what
precisely it consists of.[39] Linguists have found that, while humans form sentences in ways apparently
governed by very complex systems, they are remarkably unaware of the rules that govern their own speech.
Thus linguists must resort to indirect methods to determine what those rules might be, if indeed rules as
such exist. In any event, if speech is indeed governed by rules, they appear to be opaque to any conscious
consideration.

Learning and development

Learning and development are the processes by which we acquire knowledge and information over time.
Infants are born with little or no knowledge (depending on how knowledge is defined), yet they rapidly
acquire the ability to use language, walk, and recognize people and objects. Research in learning and
development aims to explain the mechanisms by which these processes might take place.
A major question in the study of cognitive development is the extent to which certain abilities are innate or
learned. This is often framed in terms of the nature and nurture debate. The nativist view emphasizes that
certain features are innate to an organism and are determined by its genetic endowment. The empiricist
view, on the other hand, emphasizes that certain abilities are learned from the environment. Although
clearly both genetic and environmental input is needed for a child to develop normally, considerable debate
remains about how genetic information might guide cognitive development. In the area of language
acquisition, for example, some (such as Steven Pinker)[40] have argued that specific information containing
universal grammatical rules must be contained in the genes, whereas others (such as Jeffrey Elman and
colleagues in Rethinking Innateness) have argued that Pinker's claims are biologically unrealistic. They
argue that genes determine the architecture of a learning system, but that specific "facts" about how
grammar works can only be learned as a result of experience.

Memory

Memory allows us to store information for later retrieval. Memory is often thought of as consisting of both a
long-term and short-term store. Long-term memory allows us to store information over prolonged periods
(days, weeks, years). We do not yet know the practical limit of long-term memory capacity. Short-term
memory allows us to store information over short time scales (seconds or minutes).

Memory is also often grouped into declarative and procedural forms. Declarative memory—grouped into
subsets of semantic and episodic forms of memory—refers to our memory for facts and specific knowledge,
specific meanings, and specific experiences (e.g. "Are apples food?", or "What did I eat for breakfast four
days ago?"). Procedural memory allows us to remember actions and motor sequences (e.g. how to ride a
bicycle) and is often dubbed implicit knowledge or memory .

Cognitive scientists study memory just as psychologists do, but tend to focus more on how memory bears
on cognitive processes, and the interrelationship between cognition and memory. One example of this could
be, what mental processes does a person go through to retrieve a long-lost memory? Or, what differentiates
between the cognitive process of recognition (seeing hints of something before remembering it, or memory
in context) and recall (retrieving a memory, as in "fill-in-the-blank")?

Perception and action

Perception is the ability to take in information via the senses, and process it in
some way. Vision and hearing are two dominant senses that allow us to
perceive the environment. Some questions in the study of visual perception, for
example, include: (1) How are we able to recognize objects?, (2) Why do we
perceive a continuous visual environment, even though we only see small bits
of it at any one time? One tool for studying visual perception is by looking at
how people process optical illusions. The image on the right of a Necker cube
is an example of a bistable percept, that is, the cube can be interpreted as being The Necker cube, an
oriented in two different directions. example of an optical
illusion
The study of haptic (tactile), olfactory, and gustatory stimuli also fall into the
domain of perception.
Action is taken to refer to the output of a system. In humans, this is
accomplished through motor responses. Spatial planning and
movement, speech production, and complex motor movements are
all aspects of action.

Consciousness

Consciousness is the awareness of experiences within oneself. This

helps the mind with having the ability to experience or feel a sense
An optical illusion. The square A is
of self.
exactly the same shade of gray as
square B. See checker shadow
Research methods illusion.

Many different methodologies are used to study cognitive science.

As the field is highly interdisciplinary, research often cuts across multiple areas of study, drawing on
research methods from psychology, neuroscience, computer science and systems theory.

Behavioral experiments

In order to have a description of what constitutes intelligent behavior, one must study behavior itself. This
type of research is closely tied to that in cognitive psychology and psychophysics. By measuring behavioral
responses to different stimuli, one can understand something about how those stimuli are processed.
Lewandowski & Strohmetz (2009) reviewed a collection of innovative uses of behavioral measurement in
psychology including behavioral traces, behavioral observations, and behavioral choice.[41] Behavioral
traces are pieces of evidence that indicate behavior occurred, but the actor is not present (e.g., litter in a
parking lot or readings on an electric meter). Behavioral observations involve the direct witnessing of the
actor engaging in the behavior (e.g., watching how close a person sits next to another person). Behavioral
choices are when a person selects between two or more options (e.g., voting behavior, choice of a
punishment for another participant).

Reaction time. The time between the presentation of a stimulus and an appropriate
response can indicate differences between two cognitive processes, and can indicate some
things about their nature. For example, if in a search task the reaction times vary
proportionally with the number of elements, then it is evident that this cognitive process of
searching involves serial instead of parallel processing.
Psychophysical responses. Psychophysical experiments are an old psychological
technique, which has been adopted by cognitive psychology. They typically involve making
judgments of some physical property, e.g. the loudness of a sound. Correlation of subjective
scales between individuals can show cognitive or sensory biases as compared to actual
physical measurements. Some examples include:
sameness judgments for colors, tones, textures, etc.
threshold differences for colors, tones, textures, etc.
Eye tracking. This methodology is used to study a variety of cognitive processes, most
notably visual perception and language processing. The fixation point of the eyes is linked
to an individual's focus of attention. Thus, by monitoring eye movements, we can study what
information is being processed at a given time. Eye tracking allows us to study cognitive
processes on extremely short time scales. Eye movements reflect online decision making
 during a task, and they provide us with some insight into the ways in which those decisions
may be processed.[42]

Brain imaging

Brain imaging involves analyzing activity within the brain while performing
various tasks. This allows us to link behavior and brain function to help
understand how information is processed. Different types of imaging
techniques vary in their temporal (time-based) and spatial (location-based)
resolution. Brain imaging is often used in cognitive neuroscience.

Single-photon emission computed tomography and positron

emission tomography. SPECT and PET use radioactive isotopes,
which are injected into the subject's bloodstream and taken up by Image of the human
the brain. By observing which areas of the brain take up the head with the brain. The
radioactive isotope, we can see which areas of the brain are more arrow indicates the
active than other areas. PET has similar spatial resolution to fMRI, position of the
but it has extremely poor temporal resolution.
hypothalamus.
Electroencephalography. EEG measures the electrical fields
generated by large populations of neurons in the cortex by placing
a series of electrodes on the scalp of the subject. This technique has an extremely high
temporal resolution, but a relatively poor spatial resolution.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging. fMRI measures the relative amount of oxygenated
blood flowing to different parts of the brain. More oxygenated blood in a particular region is
assumed to correlate with an increase in neural activity in that part of the brain. This allows
us to localize particular functions within different brain regions. fMRI has moderate spatial
and temporal resolution.
Optical imaging. This technique uses infrared transmitters and receivers to measure the
amount of light reflectance by blood near different areas of the brain. Since oxygenated and
deoxygenated blood reflects light by different amounts, we can study which areas are more
active (i.e., those that have more oxygenated blood). Optical imaging has moderate temporal
resolution, but poor spatial resolution. It also has the advantage that it is extremely safe and
can be used to study infants' brains.
Magnetoencephalography. MEG measures magnetic fields resulting from cortical activity. It
is similar to EEG, except that it has improved spatial resolution since the magnetic fields it
measures are not as blurred or attenuated by the scalp, meninges and so forth as the
electrical activity measured in EEG is. MEG uses SQUID sensors to detect tiny magnetic
fields.

Computational modeling

Computational models require a mathematically and logically formal

representation of a problem. Computer models are used in the
simulation and experimental verification of different specific and
general properties of intelligence. Computational modeling can help us
understand the functional organization of a particular cognitive
phenomenon. Approaches to cognitive modeling can be categorized as:
(1) symbolic, on abstract mental functions of an intelligent mind by An artificial neural network with
means of symbols; (2) subsymbolic, on the neural and associative two layers
properties of the human brain; and (3) across the symbolic–
subsymbolic border, including hybrid.
 Symbolic modeling evolved from the computer science paradigms using the technologies of
knowledge-based systems, as well as a philosophical perspective (e.g. "Good Old-
Fashioned Artificial Intelligence" (GOFAI)). They were developed by the first cognitive
researchers and later used in information engineering for expert systems. Since the early
1990s it was generalized in systemics for the investigation of functional human-like
intelligence models, such as personoids, and, in parallel, developed as the SOAR
environment. Recently, especially in the context of cognitive decision-making, symbolic
cognitive modeling has been extended to the socio-cognitive approach, including social and
organizational cognition, interrelated with a sub-symbolic non-conscious layer.
Subsymbolic modeling includes connectionist/neural network models. Connectionism relies
on the idea that the mind/brain is composed of simple nodes and its problem-solving
capacity derives from the connections between them. Neural nets are textbook
implementations of this approach. Some critics of this approach feel that while these models
approach biological reality as a representation of how the system works, these models lack
explanatory powers because, even in systems endowed with simple connection rules, the
emerging high complexity makes them less interpretable at the connection-level than they
apparently are at the macroscopic level.
Other approaches gaining in popularity include (1) dynamical systems theory, (2) mapping
symbolic models onto connectionist models (Neural-symbolic integration or hybrid intelligent
systems), and (3) and Bayesian models, which are often drawn from machine learning.

All the above approaches tend either to be generalized to the form of integrated computational models of a
synthetic/abstract intelligence (i.e. cognitive architecture) in order to be applied to the explanation and
improvement of individual and social/organizational decision-making and reasoning[43][44] or to focus on
single simulative programs (or microtheories/"middle-range" theories) modelling specific cognitive faculties
(e.g. vision, language, categorization etc.).

Neurobiological methods

Research methods borrowed directly from neuroscience and neuropsychology can also help us to
understand aspects of intelligence. These methods allow us to understand how intelligent behavior is
implemented in a physical system.

Single-unit recording
Direct brain stimulation
Animal models
Postmortem studies

Key findings
Cognitive science has given rise to models of human cognitive bias and risk perception, and has been
influential in the development of behavioral finance, part of economics. It has also given rise to a new
theory of the philosophy of mathematics (related to denotational mathematics), and many theories of
artificial intelligence, persuasion and coercion. It has made its presence known in the philosophy of
language and epistemology as well as constituting a substantial wing of modern linguistics. Fields of
cognitive science have been influential in understanding the brain's particular functional systems (and
functional deficits) ranging from speech production to auditory processing and visual perception. It has
made progress in understanding how damage to particular areas of the brain affect cognition, and it has
helped to uncover the root causes and results of specific dysfunction, such as dyslexia, anopia, and
hemispatial neglect.

Notable researchers
Year of Year of
Name Contribution(s)
birth contribution

David Chalmers 1966[45] 1995[46] Dualism, hard problem of consciousness

Offered a computational systems perspective (Multiple drafts

Daniel Dennett 1942[47] 1987
model)

John Searle 1932[48] 1980 Chinese room

Douglas
Hofstadter
1945 1979[49] Gödel, Escher, Bach[50]

Jerry Fodor 1935[51] 1968, 1975 Functionalism

Alan Baddeley 1934[52] 1974 Baddeley's model of working memory

Wrote computer programs in languages such as LISP to

1970s, early
Marvin Minsky 1927[53] 1980s
attempt to formally characterize the steps that human beings
go through, such as making decisions and solving problems

Christopher
Longuet-Higgins 1923[54] 1973 Coined the term cognitive science

Published a review of B.F. Skinner's book Verbal Behavior

Noam Chomsky 1928[55] 1959 which began cognitivism against then-dominant
behaviorism[6]
Wrote about the capacities of human thinking through mental
George Miller 1920 1956
representations

Co-created Logic Theory Machine and General Problem

Herbert Simon 1916 1956 Solver with Allen Newell, EPAM (Elementary Perceiver and
Memorizer) theory, organizational decision-making
Coined the term artificial intelligence and organized the
John McCarthy 1927 1955 famous Dartmouth conference in Summer 1956, which
started AI as a field

McCulloch and
1930s–1940s Developed early artificial neural networks
Pitts

J. C. R. Licklider 1915[56] Established MIT Sloan School of Management

Wide-ranging contributions to understanding the cognition of

Lila R. Gleitman 1929 1970s-2010s language acquisition, including syntactic bootstrapping
theory[57]

Eleanor Rosch 1938 1976 Development of the Prototype Theory of categorisation[58]

Philip N. Johnson-
Laird
1936 1980 Introduced the idea of mental models in cognitive science[59]

Development of the Structure-mapping Theory of analogical

Dedre Gentner 1944 1983
reasoning[60]

Development of the field of Cognitive architecture in

Allen Newell 1927 1990
cognitive modelling and artificial intelligence[61]
 Annette Karmiloff- Integrating neuroscience and computational modelling into
1938 1992
Smith theories of cognitive development[62]

David Marr Proponent of the Three-Level Hypothesis of levels of

1945 1990
(neuroscientist) analysis of computational systems[63]
Creator of the conceptual space framework used in cognitive
Peter Gärdenfors 1949 2000
modelling and artificial intelligence.

Together with Esther Thelen, created a dynamical systems

Linda B. Smith 1951 1993
approach to understanding cognitive development[64]

Some of the more recognized names in cognitive science are usually either the most controversial or the
most cited. Within philosophy, some familiar names include Daniel Dennett, who writes from a
computational systems perspective,[65] John Searle, known for his controversial Chinese room
argument,[66] and Jerry Fodor, who advocates functionalism.[67]

Others include David Chalmers, who advocates Dualism and is also known for articulating the hard
problem of consciousness, and Douglas Hofstadter, famous for writing Gödel, Escher, Bach, which
questions the nature of words and thought.

In the realm of linguistics, Noam Chomsky and George Lakoff have been influential (both have also
become notable as political commentators). In artificial intelligence, Marvin Minsky, Herbert A. Simon, and
Allen Newell are prominent.

Popular names in the discipline of psychology include George A. Miller, James McClelland, Philip
Johnson-Laird, Lawrence Barsalou, Vittorio Guidano, Howard Gardner and Steven Pinker.
Anthropologists Dan Sperber, Edwin Hutchins, Bradd Shore, James Wertsch and Scott Atran, have been
involved in collaborative projects with cognitive and social psychologists, political scientists and
evolutionary biologists in attempts to develop general theories of culture formation, religion, and political
association.

Computational theories (with models and simulations) have also been developed, by David Rumelhart,
James McClelland and Philip Johnson-Laird.

Epistemics
Epistemics is a term coined in 1969 by the University of Edinburgh with the foundation of its School of
Epistemics. Epistemics is to be distinguished from epistemology in that epistemology is the philosophical
theory of knowledge, whereas epistemics signifies the scientific study of knowledge.

Christopher Longuet-Higgins has defined it as "the construction of formal models of the processes
(perceptual, intellectual, and linguistic) by which knowledge and understanding are achieved and
communicated."[68] In his 1978 essay "Epistemics: The Regulative Theory of Cognition",[69] Alvin I.
Goldman claims to have coined the term "epistemics" to describe a reorientation of epistemology. Goldman
maintains that his epistemics is continuous with traditional epistemology and the new term is only to avoid
opposition. Epistemics, in Goldman's version, differs only slightly from traditional epistemology in its
alliance with the psychology of cognition; epistemics stresses the detailed study of mental processes and
information-processing mechanisms that lead to knowledge or beliefs.
In the mid-1980s, the School of Epistemics was renamed as The Centre for Cognitive Science (CCS). In
1998, CCS was incorporated into the University of Edinburgh's School of Informatics.[70]

Binding problem in cognitive science

One of the core aims of cognitive science is to achieve an integrated theory of cognition. This requires
integrative mechanisms explaining how the information processing that occurs simultaneously in spatially
segregated (sub-)cortical areas in the brain is coordinated and bound together to give rise to coherent
perceptual and symbolic representations. One approach is to solve this "Binding problem"[71][72][73] (that
is, the problem of dynamically representing conjunctions of informational elements, from the most basic
perceptual representations ("feature binding") to the most complex cognitive representations, like symbol
structures ("variable binding")), by means of integrative synchronization mechanisms. In other words, one
of the coordinating mechanisms appears to be the temporal (phase) synchronization of neural activity based
on dynamical self-organizing processes in neural networks, described by the Binding-by-synchrony (BBS)
Hypothesis from neurophysiology.[74][75][76][77] Connectionist cognitive neuroarchitectures have been
developed that use integrative synchronization mechanisms to solve this binding problem in perceptual
cognition and in language cognition.[78][79][80] In perceptual cognition the problem is to explain how
elementary object properties and object relations, like the object color or the object form, can be
dynamically bound together or can be integrated to a representation of this perceptual object by means of a
synchronization mechanism ("feature binding", "feature linking"). In language cognition the problem is to
explain how semantic concepts and syntactic roles can be dynamically bound together or can be integrated
to complex cognitive representations like systematic and compositional symbol structures and propositions
by means of a synchronization mechanism ("variable binding") (see also the "Symbolism vs. connectionism
debate" in connectionism).

See also
Affective science Enactivism
Cognitive anthropology Epistemology
Cognitive biology Folk psychology
Cognitive computing Heterophenomenology
Cognitive ethology Human Cognome Project
Cognitive linguistics Human–computer interaction
Cognitive neuropsychology Indiana Archives of Cognitive Science
Cognitive neuroscience Informatics (academic field)
Cognitive psychology List of cognitive scientists
Cognitive science of religion List of psychology awards
Computational neuroscience Malleable intelligence
Computational-representational Neural Darwinism
understanding of mind Noogenesis
Concept mining Personal information management (PIM)
Decision field theory Qualia
Decision theory Quantum cognition
Dynamicism Simulated consciousness
Educational neuroscience Situated cognition
Educational psychology Society of Mind theory
Embodied cognition Spatial cognition
Embodied cognitive science Speech–language pathology
 Philosophy portal

Psychology portal

Outlines

Outline of human intelligence – topic tree presenting the traits, capacities, models, and
research fields of human intelligence, and more.
Outline of thought – topic tree that identifies many types of thoughts, types of thinking,
aspects of thought, related fields, and more.

References
1. Miller, George A (1 March 2003). "The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective" (https://w
ww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661303000299). Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 7 (3): 141–144. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F
S1364-6613%2803%2900029-9). ISSN 1364-6613 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1364-661
3). S2CID 206129621 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206129621). Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20181121185812/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364661303000299) from the original on 21 November 2018. Retrieved 5 February 2023.
2. "Ask the Cognitive Scientist" (http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2002/willin
gham.cfm). American Federation of Teachers. 8 August 2014. Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20140917085214/http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2002/willingh
am.cfm) from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 25 December 2013. "Cognitive
science is an interdisciplinary field of researchers from Linguistics, psychology,
neuroscience, philosophy, computer science, and anthropology that seek to understand the
mind."
3. Thagard, Paul, Cognitive Science (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/cognitiv
e-science/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180715135221/https://plato.stanford.ed
u/archives/fall2008/entries/cognitive-science/) 15 July 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
4. Miller, George A. (2003). "The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective". Trends in
Cognitive Sciences. 7 (3): 141–144. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 (https://doi.org/10.
1016%2FS1364-6613%2803%2900029-9). PMID 12639696 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/12639696). S2CID 206129621 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206129621).
5. Hafner, K.; Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New
York: Simon & Schuster. p. 32. ISBN 0-684-81201-0.
6. Chomsky, Noam (1959). "Review of Verbal behavior". Language. 35 (1): 26–58.
doi:10.2307/411334 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F411334). ISSN 0097-8507 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/issn/0097-8507). JSTOR 411334 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/411334).
7. Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1973). "Comments on the Lighthill Report and the Sutherland
Reply". Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium. Science Research Council. pp. 35–37.
ISBN 0-901660-18-3.
8. Cognitive Science Society (http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/about_description.html)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100717134015/http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.
org/about_description.html) 17 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine
9. "UCSD Cognitive Science - UCSD Cognitive Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/201507
09171712/http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/about-us/ucsd-cog-sci/). Archived from the original (htt
p://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/about-us/ucsd-cog-sci/) on 9 July 2015. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
10. Box 729. "About - Cognitive Science - Vassar College" (http://cogsci.vassar.edu/about/index.
html). Cogsci.vassar.edu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120917124231/http://cog
sci.vassar.edu/about/index.html) from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved
15 August 2012.
11. d'Avila Garcez, Artur S.; Lamb, Luis C.; Gabbay, Dov M. (2008). Neural-Symbolic Cognitive
Reasoning. Cognitive Technologies. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-73245-7.
12. Sun, Ron; Bookman, Larry, eds. (1994). Computational Architectures Integrating Neural and
Symbolic Processes. Needham, MA: Kluwer Academic. ISBN 0-7923-9517-4.
13. "Encephalos Journal" (http://www.encephalos.gr/48-1-01e.htm). www.encephalos.gr.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110625102426/http://www.encephalos.gr/48-1-01e.
htm) from the original on 25 June 2011. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
14. Wilson, Elizabeth A. (4 February 2016). Neural Geographies: Feminism and the
Microstructure of Cognition (https://books.google.com/books?id=s-OCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1
8). Routledge. ISBN 9781317958765. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202302051205
13/https://books.google.com/books?id=s-OCCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT18) from the original on 5
February 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
15. Di Paolo, Ezequiel A. (2003). "Organismically-inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and
teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop". In Murase, Kazuyuki; Asakura, Toshiyuki
(eds.). Dynamic Systems Approach for Embodiment and Sociality: From Ecological
Psychology to Robotics. Advanced Knowledge International. pp. 19–42.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.62.4813 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.62.48
13). ISBN 978-0-9751004-1-7. S2CID 15349751 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1
5349751).
16. Zorzi, Marco; Testolin, Alberto; Stoianov, Ivilin P. (20 August 2013). "Modeling language and
cognition with deep unsupervised learning: a tutorial overview" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC3747356). Frontiers in Psychology. 4: 515.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00515 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2013.00515). ISSN 1664-
1078 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1664-1078). PMC 3747356 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC3747356). PMID 23970869 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23970869).
17. Tieszen, Richard (15 July 2011). "Analytic and Continental Philosophy, Science, and Global
Philosophy" (https://doi.org/10.31979%2F2151-6014%282011%29.020206). Comparative
Philosophy. 2 (2). doi:10.31979/2151-6014(2011).020206 (https://doi.org/10.31979%2F2151
-6014%282011%29.020206).
18. Browne, A. (1997). Neural Network Perspectives on Cognition and Adaptive Robotics (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=uV9TZzOITMwC&pg=PA17). CRC Press. ISBN 0-7503-
0455-3. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230205120506/https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=uV9TZzOITMwC&pg=PA17) from the original on 5 February 2023. Retrieved
16 April 2018.
19. Pfeifer, R.; Schreter, Z.; Fogelman-Soulié, F.; Steels, L. (1989). Connectionism in
Perspective (https://books.google.com/books?id=7pPv0STSos8C&pg=PA63). Elsevier.
ISBN 0-444-59876-6. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230205120506/https://books.
google.com/books?id=7pPv0STSos8C&pg=PA63) from the original on 5 February 2023.
Retrieved 16 April 2018.
20. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2015). "An alternative to domain-general or domain-specific frameworks
for theorizing about human evolution and ontogenesis" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
ticles/PMC4678597). AIMS Neuroscience. 2 (2): 91–104.
doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.2.91 (https://doi.org/10.3934%2FNeuroscience.2015.2.91).
PMC 4678597 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4678597). PMID 26682283
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26682283).
21. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and
human experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
22. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and
Processing of Visual Information. W. H. Freeman.
23. Miller, G. A. (2003). "The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective". Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 7 (3): 141–144. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F
S1364-6613%2803%2900029-9). PMID 12639696 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/126396
96). S2CID 206129621 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206129621).
24. Ferrés, Joan; Masanet, Maria-Jose (2017). "Communication Efficiency in Education:
Increasing Emotions and Storytelling" (https://doi.org/10.3916%2Fc52-2017-05). Comunicar
(in Spanish). 25 (52): 51–60. doi:10.3916/c52-2017-05 (https://doi.org/10.3916%2Fc52-2017
-05). ISSN 1134-3478 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1134-3478).
25. Shields, Christopher (2020), "Aristotle's Psychology" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win
2020/entries/aristotle-psychology/), in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20221020122221/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entri
es/aristotle-psychology/) from the original on 20 October 2022, retrieved 20 October 2022
26. Sun, Ron (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
27. Colombetti, G. and, Krueger, J. (2015). "Scaffoldings of the affective mind". Philosophical
Psychology. 28 (8): 1157–1176. doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.976334 (https://doi.org/10.108
0%2F09515089.2014.976334). hdl:10871/15680 (https://hdl.handle.net/10871%2F15680).
S2CID 73617860 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:73617860).
28. Gallagher, Shaun (2005). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Garfinkel, S. N.; Barrett, A. B.; Minati, L.; Dolan, R. J.; Seth, A. K.; Critchley, H. D. (2013).
"What the heart forgets: Cardiac timing influences memory for words and is modulated by
metacognition and interoceptive sensitivity" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
4340570). Psychophysiology. 50 (6): 505–512. doi:10.1111/psyp.12039 (https://doi.org/10.1
111%2Fpsyp.12039). PMC 4340570 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC43405
70). PMID 23521494 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23521494).
30. Varga, S.; Heck, D. H. (2017). "Rhythms of the body, rhythms of the brain: respiration, neural
oscillations, and embodied cognition". Consciousness and Cognition. 56: 77–90.
doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.008 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.concog.2017.09.008).
PMID 29073509 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29073509). S2CID 8448790 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:8448790).
31. Davidson, G. L.; Cooke, A. C.; Johnson, C. N.; Quinn, J. L. (2018). "The gut microbiome as a
driver of individual variation in cognition and functional behaviour" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107574). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences. 373 (1756): 20170286. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0286 (https://doi.org/10.1
098%2Frstb.2017.0286). PMC 6107574 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC610
7574). PMID 30104431 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30104431).
32. Newen, A.; De Bruin, L.; Gallagher, S., eds. (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Menary, Richard (2010). "Special Issue on 4E Cognition". Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences. 9 (4). doi:10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs110
97-010-9187-6). S2CID 143621939 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143621939).
34. Alsmith, A. J. T.; De Vignemont, F. (2012). "Embodying the mind and representing the body".
Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 3 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s13164-012-0085-4 (https://
doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13164-012-0085-4). S2CID 5823387 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:5823387).
35. Clark, Andy (2011). "Précis of Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive
extension". Philosophical Studies. 152 (3): 413–416. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9597-x (http
s://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11098-010-9597-x). S2CID 170708745 (https://api.semanticscholar.
org/CorpusID:170708745).
36. Chemero, Anthony (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37. Hutto, Daniel D. & Erik Myin. (2012). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
38. "Linguistics: Semantics, Phonetics, Pragmatics, and Human Communication" (https://www.d
ecodedscience.org/linguistics-short-introduction-beating-heart-human-communications/428
08). Decoded Science. 16 February 2014. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201706062
11715/https://www.decodedscience.org/linguistics-short-introduction-beating-heart-human-c
ommunications/42808) from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 7 February 2018.
39. Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2013). I-language: An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive
Science, 2nd edition (https://web.archive.org/web/20110706173454/http://linguistics.concord
ia.ca/i-language/). Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0199660179. Archived from the
original (http://linguistics.concordia.ca/i-language/) on 6 July 2011. Retrieved 29 July 2008.
40. Pinker S., Bloom P. (1990). "Natural language and natural selection". Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 13 (4): 707–784. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.116.4044 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo
c/summary?doi=10.1.1.116.4044). doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061 (https://doi.org/10.101
7%2FS0140525X00081061). S2CID 6167614 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:61
67614).
41. Lewandowski, Gary; Strohmetz, David (2009). "Actions can speak as loud as words:
Measuring behavior in psychological science". Social and Personality Psychology
Compass. 3 (6): 992–1002. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00229.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%
2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00229.x).
42. König, Peter; Wilming, Niklas; Kietzmann, Tim C.; Ossandón, Jose P.; Onat, Selim; Ehinger,
Benedikt V.; Gameiro, Ricardo R.; Kaspar, Kai (1 December 2016). "Eye movements as a
window to cognitive processes" (https://doi.org/10.16910%2Fjemr.9.5.3). Journal of Eye
Movement Research. 9 (5). doi:10.16910/jemr.9.5.3 (https://doi.org/10.16910%2Fjemr.9.5.3).
43. Lieto, Antonio (2021). Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis. ISBN 9781138207929.
44. Sun, Ron (ed.), Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 2012.
45. "David Chalmers" (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmer
s/). www.informationphilosopher.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201704241001
27/http://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmers/) from the original on
24 April 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
46. "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (http://consc.net/papers/facing.html).
consc.net. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110408224800/http://consc.net/papers/fa
cing.html) from the original on 8 April 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
47. "Daniel C. Dennett | American philosopher" (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-C
-Dennett). Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2016072300035
6/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-C-Dennett) from the original on 23 July 2016.
Retrieved 3 May 2017.
48. "John Searle" (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/searle/).
www.informationphilosopher.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170424113111/h
ttp://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/searle/) from the original on 24 April
2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
49. "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24113.G_del_Escher_Bach).
Goodreads. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170522234713/http://www.goodreads.c
om/book/show/24113.G_del_Escher_Bach) from the original on 22 May 2017. Retrieved
3 May 2017.
50. Somers, James. "The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think" (https://www.theatlantic.co
m/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/). The
Atlantic. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160917232851/http://www.theatlantic.com/
magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/) from the
original on 17 September 2016. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
51. "Fodor, Jerry | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fodor/).
www.iep.utm.edu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151017085412/http://www.iep.ut
m.edu/fodor/) from the original on 17 October 2015. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
52. "Alan Baddeley in International Directory of Psychologists" (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=uJFGAQAAIAAJ&q=Alan+Baddeley+1934+leeds). 1966. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20230205120507/https://books.google.com/books?id=uJFGAQAAIAAJ&q=Alan+
Baddeley+1934+leeds) from the original on 5 February 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2022.
53. "Marvin Minsky | American scientist" (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marvin-Lee-Mins
ky). Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170328023910/http
s://www.britannica.com/biography/Marvin-Lee-Minsky) from the original on 28 March 2017.
Retrieved 27 March 2017.
54. Darwin, Chris (9 June 2004). "Christopher Longuet-Higgins" (https://www.theguardian.com/n
ews/2004/jun/10/guardianobituaries.highereducation). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0261-3077). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201612210851
48/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/jun/10/guardianobituaries.highereducation)
from the original on 21 December 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2017.
55. "Noam Chomsky" (https://chomsky.info/2001____-2/). chomsky.info. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20170425024415/https://chomsky.info/2001____-2/) from the original on 25
April 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
56. "J.C.R. Licklider | Internet Hall of Fame" (http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/jcr-licklider).
internethalloffame.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170328022239/http://internet
halloffame.org/inductees/jcr-licklider) from the original on 28 March 2017. Retrieved 24 April
2017.
57. Gleitman, Lila (January 1990). "The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings". Language
Acquisition. 1 (1): 3–55. doi:10.1207/s15327817la0101_2 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs1532
7817la0101_2). S2CID 144713838 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144713838).
58. Rosch, Eleanor; Mervis, Carolyn B; Gray, Wayne D; Johnson, David M; Boyes-Braem,
Penny (July 1976). "Basic objects in natural categories". Cognitive Psychology. 8 (3): 382–
439. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.149.3392 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.
149.3392). doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%287
6%2990013-X). S2CID 5612467 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5612467).
59. Johnsonlaird, P (March 1981). "Mental models in cognitive science". Cognitive Science. 4
(1): 71–115. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(81)80005-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0364-021
3%2881%2980005-5).
60. Gentner, Dedre (April 1983). "Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy" (http
s://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709cog0702_3). Cognitive Science. 7 (2): 155–170.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709cog0702_3).
S2CID 5371492 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5371492).
61. Newell, Allen. 1990. Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
62. Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1992). Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on
Cognitive Science. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262111690.
63. Marr, D.; Poggio, T. (1976). From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural
Circuitry. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (Report). A.I. Memo. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. hdl:1721.1/5782 (https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1%2F5782). AIM-357.
64. Smith, Linda B; Thelen, Esther (1993). A Dynamic systems approach to development:
applications. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-585-03867-4. OCLC 42854628 (https://www.worldcat.o
rg/oclc/42854628).
65. Rescorla, Michael (1 January 2017). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/computational-mind/) (Spring
2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20190318041151/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/computational-m
ind/) from the original on 18 March 2019. Retrieved 27 March 2017.
66. Hauser, Larry. "Chinese Room Argument" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/). Internet
Enclclopedia of Philosophy. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160427025158/http://w
ww.iep.utm.edu/chineser/) from the original on 27 April 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2017.
67. "Fodor, Jerry | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fodor/).
www.iep.utm.edu. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151017085412/http://www.iep.ut
m.edu/fodor/) from the original on 17 October 2015. Retrieved 27 March 2017.
68. Longuet-Higgins, Christopher (1977) [1969], "Epistemics", in A. Bullock & O. Stallybrass
(ed.), Fontana dictionary of modern thought, London, UK: Fontana, p. 209,
ISBN 9780002161497
69. Goldman, Alvin I. (1978). "Epistemics: The Regulative Theory of Cognition". The Journal of
Philosophy. 75 (10): 509–23. doi:10.2307/2025838 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2025838).
JSTOR 2025838 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2025838).
70. "The old WWW.cogsci.ed.ac.uk server" (http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/school/). Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20101019074545/http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/school/) from the
original on 19 October 2010. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
71. Hardcastle, V.G. (1998). "The binding problem". In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (eds.), A
Companion to Cognitive Science (pp. 555-565). Blackwell Publisher, Malden/MA,
Oxford/UK.
72. Hummel, J. (1999). "Binding problem". In: R.A. Wilson & F.C. Keil, The MIT Encyclopedia of
the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 85-86). Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press.
73. Malsburg, C. von der (1999). "The what and why of binding: The modeler's perspective".
Neuron. 24: 95-104.
74. Gray, C. M. & Singer, W. (1989). "Stimulus-specific neuronal oscillations in orientation
columns of cat visual cortex". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 86: 1698-1702.
75. Singer, W. (1999b). "Neuronal synchrony: A versatile code for the definition of relations".
Neuron. 24: 49-65.
76. Singer, W. & A. Lazar. (2016). "Does the cerebral cortex exploit high-dimensional, non-linear
dynamics for information processing?" Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.10: 99.
77. Singer, W. (2018). "Neuronal oscillations: unavoidable and useful?" European Journal of
Neuroscience. 48: 2389-2399.
78. Maurer, H. (2021). "Cognitive science: Integrative synchronization mechanisms in cognitive
neuroarchitectures of the modern connectionism". CRC Press, Boca Raton/FL, ISBN 978-1-
351-04352-6. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351043526 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20230205120509/https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781351043526/cogn
itive-science-harald-maurer) 5 February 2023 at the Wayback Machine
79. Maurer, H. (2016). "Integrative synchronization mechanisms in connectionist cognitive
Neuroarchitectures". Computational Cognitive Science. 2: 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40469-
016-0010-8 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230205120509/https://computationalco
gnitivescience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40469-016-0010-8) 5 February 2023 at
the Wayback Machine
80. Marcus, G.F. (2001). "The algebraic mind. Integrating connectionism and cognitive science".
Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0-262-13379-2.

External links
Media related to Cognitive science at Wikimedia Commons
Quotations related to Cognitive science at Wikiquote
Learning materials related to Cognitive science at Wikiversity
"Cognitive Science" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/) on the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Cognitive Science Society (http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org)
Cognitive Science Movie Index: A broad list of movies showcasing themes in the Cognitive
Sciences (https://www.indiana.edu/~cogfilms) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201509
04162552/https://www.indiana.edu/~cogfilms) 4 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine
List of leading thinkers in cognitive science (https://web.archive.org/web/20151105123048/h
ttp://carbon.ucdenver.edu/%7Emryder/itc/cogsci.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive_science&oldid=1164617103"