Order:
Disambiguations
Iris Rooij [5]Iris van Rooij [1]
  1. Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations.Iris Rooij, Cory Wright & Todd Wareham - 2012 - Synthese 187 (2):471-487.
  2.  22
    How Intractability Spans the Cognitive and Evolutionary Levels of Explanation.Patricia Rich, Mark Blokpoel, Ronald Haan & Iris Rooij - 2020 - Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (4):1382-1402.
    This paper focuses on the cognitive/computational and evolutionary levels. It describes three proposals to make cognition computationally tractable, namely: Resource Rationality, the Adaptive Toolbox and Massive Modularity. While each of these proposals appeals to evolutionary considerations to dissolve the intractability of cognition, Rich, Blokpoel, de Haan, and van Rooij argue that, in each case, the intractability challenge is not resolved, but just relocated to the level of evolution.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  20
    Demons of Ecological Rationality.Maria Otworowska, Mark Blokpoel, Marieke Sweers, Todd Wareham & Iris Rooij - 2018 - Cognitive Science 42 (3):1057-1066.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  4.  25
    Recipient Design in Communicative Pointing.Tobias Winner, Luc Selen, Anke Murillo Oosterwijk, Lennart Verhagen, W. Pieter Medendorp, Iris Rooij & Ivan Toni - 2019 - Cognitive Science 43 (5):e12733.
    A long‐standing debate in the study of human communication centers on the degree to which communicators tune their communicative signals (e.g., speech, gestures) for specific addressees, as opposed to taking a neutral or egocentric perspective. This tuning, called recipient design, is known to occur under special conditions (e.g., when errors in communication need to be corrected), but several researchers have argued that it is not an intrinsic feature of human communication, because that would be computationally too demanding. In this study, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  48
    A non‐representational approach to imagined action.Iris Rooij, Raoul M. Bongers & F. G. Haselager - 2002 - Cognitive Science 26 (3):345-375.
    This study addresses the dynamical nature of a “representation‐hungry” cognitive task involving an imagined action. In our experiment, participants were handed rods that systematically increased or decreased in length on subsequent trials. Participants were asked to judge whether or not they thought they could reach for a distant object with the hand‐held rod. The results are in agreement with a dynamical model, extended from Tuller, Case, Ding, and Kelso (1994). The dynamical effects observed in this study suggest that predictive judgments (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  6.  65
    Computational complexity analysis can help, but first we need a theory.Todd Wareham, Iris van Rooij & Moritz Müller - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (4):399-400.
    Leech et al. present a connectionist algorithm as a model of (the development) of analogizing, but they do not specify the algorithm's associated computational-level theory, nor its computational complexity. We argue that doing so may be essential for connectionist cognitive models to have full explanatory power and transparency, as well as for assessing their scalability to real-world input domains.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark