Cognitive Science General Exam
Reading List
Fall 2015
Attached is a copy of the reading list for the Applied Cognitive Science General Exam. This exam will
take place on two successive days late in the fall semester. The date of the exam will be negotiated with the
students who take the exam that semester. In each session, you will be asked to answer two questions for a total
of 4 questions. Passing the exam requires you to achieve a passing grade on each question. If one or more
answers are not acceptable to the program faculty, you will have to retake part or all of the exam the following
semester. During the test, you will have access to a computer to type your exam responses and a copy of this
reading list, but you will not have access to the internet or other sources of information that could be used to
help you. Thus, you should come prepared.
The questions on the exam will be general and synthetic in nature. Students might expect a question
asking them to compare two theories, to explain how a theory might account for an empirical observation, or to
predict the outcome of an experiment from one or more theoretical perspectives. These are just examples of the
kinds of questions you might expect. You should not anticipate a question that asks about a specific detail from
a particular study. (e.g., “Identify the number of participants per condition in experiment 3 from paper XXX.”).
Your answers will be required to incorporate multiple elements including some or all of the following
(depending on the question): representations, processes, models, and application/implications of the results.
Be sure to answer ALL parts of each of the questions!
Critical Information:
It is your responsibility to assess your level of understanding of the readings through discussion with
program faculty. With a reading list this broad and covering diverse areas, you may find that you need
additional background to understand the material. The cognitive science faculty are available to provide
additional background readings to help you to achieve the level of understanding necessary to pass the general
exam. You should take advantage of the expertise available to you through meetings with the faculty. Taking
the exam without any discussion with the faculty about the papers in their respective areas is likely a mistake.
We have broken down the reading list into Foundational and Core readings. The first set of readings
provides a foundation upon which the Core readings build. You will be tested on the entire reading list, so be
sure to read and comprehend all of the materials on this list.
Foundational Readings:
1. Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling.
Cognitive Science, 26, 85-112.
2. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated
theory of the mind. Psychological Review 111, 1036-1060.
3. Anderson, J. R., John, B. E., Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1995).
Production system models of complex cognition. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference
of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 9-12). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bjork, R. A. (1992). Interference and memory. In L. R. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of learning and
memory (pp. 283–288). New York: Macmillan.
5. Collins, A.M. & Quillian, M.R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.
6. Hinton, G.E., McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D.E.
Rumelhart & J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the
Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (pp. 77-109).
7. Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley & S.
Lewandowsky (Eds), Relating theory and data: Essays in honor of Bennet B. Murdock. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
8. Lovett, M. C. (2002). Problem solving. In H. Pashler & D. Medin (Eds.), Steven's handbook of
experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 2: Memory and cognitive processes. (pp. 317-362).
9. McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E., & Hinton, G.E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing.
In Rumelhart, McClelland, and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing:
Volume I. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10. Memory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, SU2004.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/memory/
11. Roediger, H.L., & Guynn, M.J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E.L. Bjork & R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Human
memory (pp. 197-236). San Diego: Academic Press.
12. Tulving E. 2007. Coding and representation: Searching for a home in the brain. In (Eds. Roediger HL
I.I.I., Dudai Y. & Fitzpatrick S.M.), Science of Memory: Concepts (pp. 65-68). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
13. McClelland, J. L. (2009). The Place of Modeling in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science,
1(1), 11–38. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01003.x
Core Readings:
1. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive
abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288-318.
2. Aizawa, K. (1994). “Representations without Rules, Connectionism and the Syntactic Argument,”
Synthese, 101: 465–492.
3. Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching.
Psychological Review, 115, 602-639.
4. Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369- 406.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295.
6. Budiu, R., & Anderson, J.R. (2004). Interpretation-based processing: a unified theory of semantic
sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 1-44.
7. Chase, W., & Simon, H. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
8. Elman, J. L. (1991). “Distributed Representations, Simple Recurrent Networks, and Grammatical
Structure,” in Touretzky (1991), 91–122.
9. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102,
211-245.
10. Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. (Chapters 13).
11. Fleishman, E. A. (1972). On the relation between abilities, learning, and human performance.
American Psychologist, 27, 1017-1032.
12. Fodor, J., and Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). “Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: a Critical
Analysis,” Cognition, 28: 3–71.
13. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. Bm. (1984). A retrieval model of both recognition and recall.
Psychological Reviews, 91, 1-67.
14. Gobet, F. (1998). Expert memory: A comparison of four theories. Cognition , 66, 115-152.
15. Goldstone, R.L. (1998). Perceptual Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 585-612.
16. Hintzman, D. L. (1984). MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research
Methods, 16, 96-101.
17. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace
memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
18. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of
analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104 (3), 427–466.
19. Jeffries, R., Polson, P. G., Razran, L., & Atwood, M. E. (1977). A process model for missionariescannibals and other river-crossing problems. Cognitive Psychology, 9(4), 412–440.
20. Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-419.
21. Klahr, D. (1985). Solving problems with ambiguous subgoal ordering: Preschoolers’ performance.
Child Development, 56, 940–952.
22. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science,
12, 1-55.
23. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from
Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294.
24. Logan, G. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376400.
25. MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: A
process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 176–201.
26. Metcalfe, J. (1990). Composite holographic associative recall model (CHARM) and blended
memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 145-160.
27. Metcalfe, J. (1991). Recognition failure and the composite memory trace in CHARM. Psychological
Review, 98, 529-553.
28. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and
multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3-65.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.3
29. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and
multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena.
Psychological Review, 104(4), 749-791. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.749
30. Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play twenty questions with nature and win. Visual information
processing, 283–308.
31. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the power law of
practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1-55). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). The theory of human problem solving. In AM Collins & EE
Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective for psychology and artificial intelligence.
San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.
33. Pinker, S., and Prince, A. (1988). “On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel
Distributed Processing Model of Language Acquisition,” Cognition, 23: 73–193.
34. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological
Review, 88, 93-134.
35. Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing.
Psychological Review, 107, 358-367.
36. Roediger, H. L. (1974). Inhibiting effects of recall. Memory and Cognition, 2, 261-196.
37. Rogers, T.T., & McClelland, J.L. (2008). Précis of Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed
Processing Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 681-749.
38. Rumelhart, D.E., & Norman, D. A. (1985). Representation of knowledge. In A.M. Aitkenhead &
J.M. Slack (Eds.), Issues in cognitive modeling. London:Erlbaum.
39. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent
multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130.
40. Schank, R. C. (1995). The Structure of Episodes in Memory. In George F. Luger (Ed.) Computation
and Intelligence: Collected Readings. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press (pp. 236-259).
41. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 2.
Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190
42. Simon, H. A. (1968). On judging the plausibility of theories. In B. van Roostelaar & J. F. Staal
(Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of sciences III (Vol. 3, pp. 439-459). Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
43. Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an 'explanation' of behavior? Psychological Science, 3, 150-161.
44. Simon, H.A., Langley, P.W., & Bradshaw, G.L. (1981). Scientific discovery as problem solving.
Synthese, 47, 1-27.
45. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Press. (Chapters 1-2)
46. Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3),
439–471.
47. Taatgen, N. A., Huss, D., Dickison, D., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). The acquisition of robust and
flexible cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(3), 548–565.
48. Thagard, P (1988). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435-502.
49. Thagard, P., & Litt, A. (2008). Models of scientific explanation. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of computational psychology (pp 549-564). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1-25.
Approved: 5/8/2015