Below are several papers describing the application of Parallel Distributed Processing models to various aspects of human cognition. The readings are intended to give you some background for the final class project, whatever your interest. For those uncertain what project to pursue, they may spur some particular interest.

Cognitive control

Botvinick et al. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.

Cohen, Dunbar and McClelland (1992). On the control of automatic processes: A Parallel Distributed Processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review,97(3), 332-361.

Cohen, Aston-Jones and Gilzenrat (2004). A systems-level perspective on attention and cognitive control. In MI Posner (Ed.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention. New York: Guilford Press.

Montague, Hyman and Cohen (2004). Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural controlNature 431, 760-767.

Critique: Kanne et al. (1998). Explorations of Cohen, Dunbar and McClelland’s (1990) connectionist model of Stroop performance. Psychological Review, 105(1), 174-187.

Disordered cognitive control in schizophrenia

Cohen and Servan-Schreiber (1992). Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychological Review, 99(1), 45-77.

Barch, Carter and Cohen (2004). Factors influencing Stroop performance in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 18(3), 477-484.

Language: Comprehension and semantics

McClelland, St. John and Taraban (1989) Sentence comprehension: A Parallel Distributed Processing approachLanguage and Cognitive Processes, 4 (3/4), 287-335.

Farah and McClelland (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificityJournal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Rogers et al. (2004). The structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigationPsychological Review, 111(1), 205-235.

Language: Reading

I assume people know the basics: Seidenberg and McClelland, Plaut et al. 1996, and the Harm and Seidenberg papers. Let me know if you don’t already have these and would like to see them. The papers below describe extending the ideas in these foundational papers to sequential domains.

Plaut, McClelland and Seidenberg (1995). Reading exception words and pseudowords: Are two routes really necessary? Proceedings of the Second neural Computation and Psychology Workshop.

Plaut (1998). A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: Extension to sequential processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 534-568.

Language: Verb-inflection.

Again I assume that if you are interested in this stuff and in this department you know the basic papers (ie. Joanisse and Seidenberg; McClelland and Rumelhart). There was a nice summary of the state of the art in this work published in the form of a debate in TiCS between connectionists and symbolists:

The Past-Tense Debate (articles and replies by Ullman and Pinker on the “Rules” side and McClelland and Patterson on the “Connectionist” side.)

Goal representation and sequential action

Botvinick and Plaut (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action.Psychological Review, 111(2) , 395-429.

Miller and Cohen (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.

Contrasting views: Cooper and Shallice (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activitiesCognitive Neuropsychology. 17(4), 297-338.

Working memory

O’Reilly, Braver and Cohen (1999). A biologically-based model of working memory. Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds) Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Botvinick and Plaut (2006). Short-term memory for serial order: A recurrent neural network modelPsychological Review.

Braver TS & Cohen JD (2000). On the control of control: The role of dopamine in regulating prefrontal function and working memory. In Monsell S & Driver J (Eds.),Attention and Performance XVIII; Control of cognitive processes, pp.713-737

Attention and perception

Behrmann, Zemel and Mozer (1998). Object-based attention and occlusion: Evidence from normal participants and a computational model. JEP: HPP, 24(4), 1011-1036.

Mozer and Behrmann (1990). On the interaction of selective attention and lexical knowledge: A connectionist account of neglect dyslexiaJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(2), 96-123.

Mozer and Sitton (1998) Computational modelling of spatial attention. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 341-393). London: UCL Press.