kth.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Neurosymbolic Systems of Perception and Cognition: The Role of Attention
Cisco Syst, Emerging Technol & Incubat, San Jose, CA 95134 USA..
Cisco Syst, Emerging Technol & Incubat, San Jose, CA 95134 USA..
Reykjavik Univ, Iceland Inst Intelligent Machines, Reykjavik, Iceland.;Reykjavik Univ, Dept Comp Sci, Reykjavik, Iceland..
Temple Univ, Dept Comp & Informat Sci, Philadelphia, PA USA..
Show others and affiliations
2022 (English)In: Frontiers in Psychology, E-ISSN 1664-1078, Vol. 13, article id 806397Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A cognitive architecture aimed at cumulative learning must provide the necessary information and control structures to allow agents to learn incrementally and autonomously from their experience. This involves managing an agent's goals as well as continuously relating sensory information to these in its perception-cognition information processing stack. The more varied the environment of a learning agent is, the more general and flexible must be these mechanisms to handle a wider variety of relevant patterns, tasks, and goal structures. While many researchers agree that information at different levels of abstraction likely differs in its makeup and structure and processing mechanisms, agreement on the particulars of such differences is not generally shared in the research community. A dual processing architecture (often referred to as System-1 and System-2) has been proposed as a model of cognitive processing, and they are often considered as responsible for low- and high-level information, respectively. We posit that cognition is not binary in this way and that knowledge at any level of abstraction involves what we refer to as neurosymbolic information, meaning that data at both high and low levels must contain both symbolic and subsymbolic information. Further, we argue that the main differentiating factor between the processing of high and low levels of data abstraction can be largely attributed to the nature of the involved attention mechanisms. We describe the key arguments behind this view and review relevant evidence from the literature.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Frontiers Media SA , 2022. Vol. 13, article id 806397
Keywords [en]
artificial intelligence, cognitive architecture, levels of abstraction, neurosymbolic models, systems of thinking, thalamocortical loop
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-314244DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.806397ISI: 000806048200001PubMedID: 35668960Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85131741079OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-314244DiVA, id: diva2:1671431
Note

QC 20220617

Available from: 2022-06-17 Created: 2022-06-17 Last updated: 2023-07-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hammer, Patrick
By organisation
KTH
In the same journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf