It's all about one thing: creative problem-solving to get the story out.
-- Robert Greenberg, R/GA, 2006
No description available... Please help other visitors by providing one!
Example publications from this periodical
The following articles are from "Psychological Review":
Jastrow, Joseph (0000): A sorting apparatus for the study of reaction-times. In Psychological Review, 5 (3) pp. 279-285.
Meyer, David E., Smith, J. E. Keith and Wright, Charles E. (1982): Models for the Speed and Accuracy of Aimed Movements. In Psychological Review, 89 (5) pp. 449-482.
Pirolli, Peter and Card, Stuart K. (1999): Information foraging. In Psychological Review, 106 (4) pp. 643-675.
Russell, James A. (2003): Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion. In Psychological Review, 110 (1) p. 145–172.
At the heart of emotion, mood, and any other emotionally charged event are states experienced as simply
feeling good or bad, energized or enervated. These states— called core affect—influence reflexes,
perception, cognition, and behavior and are influenced by many causes internal and external, but people
have no direct access to these causal connections. Core affect can therefore be experienced as free-
floating (mood) or can be attributed to some cause (and thereby begin an emotional episode). These basic
processes spawn a broad framework that includes perception of the core-affect-altering properties of
stimuli, motives, empathy, emotional meta-experience, and affect versus emotion regulation; it accounts
for prototypical emotional episodes, such as fear and anger, as core affect attributed to something plus
various nonemotional processes.
© All rights reserved Russell and/or his/her publisher
Gray, Wayne D., Sims, Chris R., Fu, Wai-Tat and Schoelles, Michael J. (2006): The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. In Psychological Review, 113 (3) pp. 461-482.
Soft constraints hypothesis (SCH) is a rational analysis approach that holds that the mixture of perceptual-motor and cognitive resources allocated for interactive behavior is adjusted based on temporal cost-benefit tradeoffs. Alternative approaches maintain that cognitive resources are in some sense protected or conserved in that greater amounts of perceptual-motor effort will be expended to conserve lesser amounts of cognitive effort. One alternative, the minimum memory hypothesis (MMH), holds that people favor strategies that minimize the use of memory. SCH is compared with MMH across 3 experiments and with predictions of an Ideal Performer Model that uses ACT-R's memory system in a reinforcement learning approach that maximizes expected utility by minimizing time. Model and data support the SCH view of resource allocation; at the under 1000-millisecond level of analysis, mixtures of cognitive and perceptual-motor resources are adjusted based on their cost-benefit tradeoffs for interactive behavior.
© All rights reserved Gray et al. and/or their publisher
Altmann, Erik M. and Gray, Wayne D. (2008): An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. In Psychological Review, 115 (3) pp. 602-639.
A model of cognitive control in task switching is developed in which controlled performance depends on the system maintaining access to a code in episodic memory representing the most-recently cued task. The main constraint on performance is proactive interference from old codes, which limits this access. Other memory processes are organized to overcome this interference, reproducing a wide range of behavioral phenomena as they operate. This cognitive-control model (CCM) accounts for switch cost and other well-known task-switching phenomena, and for effects like within-run slowing and error increase on which other theories are silent. CCM generalizes across multiple task-switching procedures, suggesting that episodic task codes play an important role in keeping the cognitive system focused under a variety of performance constraints.
© All rights reserved Altmann and Gray and/or their publisher
Sims, Chris R. and Gray, Wayne D. (2013): Melioration as rational choice: Sequential decision making in uncertain environments. In Psychological Review, 120 (1) pp. 139-154. Available online
Meliorationâ€”defined as choosing a lesser, local gain over a greater longer term gainâ€”is a behavioral tendency that people and pigeons share. As such, the empirical occurrence of meliorating behavior has frequently been interpreted as evidence that the mechanisms of human choice violate the norms of economic rationality. In some environments, the relationship between actions and outcomes is known. In this case, the rationality of choice behavior can be evaluated in terms of how successfully it maximizes utility given knowledge of the environmental contingencies. In most complex environments, however, the relationship between actions and future outcomes is uncertain and must be learned from experience. When the difficulty of this learning challenge is taken into account, it is not evident that melioration represents suboptimal choice behavior. In the present article, we examine human performance in a sequential decision-making experiment that is known to induce meliorating behavior. In keeping with previous results using this paradigm, we find that the majority of participants in the experiment fail to adopt the optimal decision strategy and instead demonstrate a significant bias toward melioration. To explore the origins of this behavior, we develop a rational analysis (Anderson, 1990) of the learning problem facing individuals in uncertain decision environments. Our analysis demonstrates that an unbiased learner would adopt melioration as the optimal response strategy for maximizing long-term gain. We suggest that many documented cases of melioration can be reinterpreted not as irrational choice but rather as globally optimal choice under uncertainty.
© All rights reserved Sims and Gray and/or their publisher
Join our community and advance:
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions
that you would like other visitors to see?
Jul 30th, 2014
Changes to this page (periodical)03 Dec 2013: Added31 Aug 2013: Added
02 Jan 2012: Modified
14 Feb 2011: Added
14 Feb 2011: Added
02 Nov 2010: Modified
10 Nov 2009: Modified
14 Feb 2008: Added
12 Aug 2007: Added
08 Aug 2007: Added
28 May 2003: Added
28 May 2003: Added
Page maintainer: The Editorial TeamHow to cite/reference this page