Why does cognitive psychology consider the computer to be good analogy of the human brain?
|
My concern is with the computer as a metaphor for explaining perception and action. A representative sample of arguments for and against the paradigm are presented and evaluated. The conclusion is that the idea of computation is productive for achieving a functionalist description of how we perceive and act. This level of description can contribute to our understanding independently of description achieved at the levels of neurophysiology and phenomenology. Some of the perceived limitations in the computational method rest on the assumption that the symbolic level must be discrete and abstract. In fact, worthwhile explanations within the information processing framework utilize continuous, modality-specific processes and representations as explanatory devices. One suggestion for a movement from the discrete to the continuous mode is advised to bring computational theories in line with the psychological phenomena they describe. Various alternatives to the computational framework are considered and found to be inadequate substitutes. An example of research is used to demonstrate the value of the continuous mode and the computational level of explanation. Show
Download to read the full article text Working on a manuscript?Avoid the common mistakesAckley, D. H., Hinton, G. E., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1985) A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines.Cognitive Science,9, 147–169. Article Google Scholar Allport, A. (1984). Alternatives to the computational view of mind. The baby or the bathwater? A commentary on Kolers and Smythe.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 315–324. Article Google Scholar Bieri, P. (1985, January) What is the mind-body problem? Lecture presented at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, University of Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany. Google Scholar Blumstein, S. E., &Cooper, W. (1974) Hemispheric processing of intonation contours.Cortex,10, 146–158. PubMed Google Scholar Broadbent, D. E. (1958).Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press. Book Google Scholar Broadbent, D. E. (1971)Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar Broadbent, D. E. (1985) A question of levels: Comment on McClelland and Rumelhart.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 189–192. Article Google Scholar Carello, C., Turvey, M. T., Kugler, P. N., &Shaw, R. E. (1984). Inadequacies of the computer metaphor. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed).Handbook of cognitive neuroscience (pp 229–248) New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar Chapuis, A. E., &Droz, E. (1958)Automata Historical and technological study. Neuchatel, Switzerland Editions du Gnffo. Google Scholar Cheng, P. W. (1985) Categorization and response competition. Two nonautonomic factors.Psychological Review,92, 585–586. Article Google Scholar Cherry, E. C. (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,25, 975–979. Article Google Scholar Church, R. M. (1983) The influence of computers on psychological research A case study.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,15, 117–126. Google Scholar Churchland, P. M. (1984)Matter and consciousness A contemporary introduction to the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Cohen, M. M. (1984)Processing of visual and auditory information in speech perception Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar Cohen, M. M., &Massaro, D. W. (1976) Real-time speech synthesis.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,8, 189–196. Google Scholar Dretskf, F. I. (1981)Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Dretske, F. I.(1985)Explaining behavior (Report No 52) Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany: University of Bielefeld, Center for Interdisciplinary Research. Google Scholar Dreyfus, H. L. (1979)What computers can’t der The limits of artificial intelligence. New York: Harper Colophon. Google Scholar Dudley, H., &Tarnoczy, T. H. (1950) The speaking machine of Wolfgang von Kempelen.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,22, 151–166. Article Google Scholar Edwards, P. N. (1984)Formalized warfare Origins of cybernetic psychology. Unpublished dissertation prospectus, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar Evans, C. (1979).The micro millennium. New York: Viking. Google Scholar Feldman, J. A. (1985) Connectionist models and their applications Introduction.Cognitive Science,9, 1–2. Google Scholar Flanagan, J. L. (1972). The synthesis of speech.Scientific American,226(2), 48–58. Article Google Scholar Freides, D. (1977). Dodichotic listening procedures measure lateralization of information processing or retrieval strategy?.Perception á Psychophysics,21, 259–263. Google Scholar Centner, D., &Grudin, J. (1985) The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology A 90-year retrospective.American Psychologist,40, 181–192. Article Google Scholar Gibson, J. J. (1966)The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar Gielen, S. C., Schmidt, R. A., &van den Heuvel, P. J. M (1983). On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 161–168. Google Scholar Goguen, J. A. (1969). The logic of inexact concepts.Synthese,19, 325–373. Article Google Scholar Heuer, H. (1985). Some points of contact between models of central capacity and factor-analytic models.Acta Psychologica,60, 135–155. Article Google Scholar Hinton, G. E., &Anderson, J. A. (1981).Parallel models of associative memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Horton, K. D. (1985). The role of semantic information in reading spatially transformed text.Cognitive Psychology,17, 66–88. Article PubMed Google Scholar Hull, C. L. (1943).Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Google Scholar Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 188–196. Article PubMed Google Scholar Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar Kantowitz, B. H. (1985). Channels and stages in human information processing: A limited analysis of theory and methodology.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,29, 135–174. Article Google Scholar Kinsbourne, M. (1978).Asymmetrical function of the brain Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel format synthesizer.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,67, 971–995. Article Google Scholar Kolers, P. A., &Ostry, D. J.(1974). Time course of loss of information regarding pattern analyzing operations.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 599–612. Article Google Scholar Kolers, P. A., &Roediger, H. L., III. (1984) Procedures of mind.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 425–449. Article Google Scholar Koiers, P. A., &Smythe, W. E. (1984). Symbol manipulation: Alternatives to the computational view of mind.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior.23, 289–314. Article Google Scholar Kosslyn, S. M. (1983)Ghosts in the mind’s machine Creating and using images in the brain. New York: Norton. Google Scholar Krech, D. (1955). Discussion: Theory and reductionism.Psychological Review,62, 229–231. Article PubMed Google Scholar Kuhn, T. S. (1962).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Lesgold, A. M. (1984). Human skill in a computerized society: Complex skills and their acquisition.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,16, 79–87. Google Scholar Loftus, G. (1985). Johannes Kepler’s computer simulation of the universe Some remarks about theory in psychology.Behavior Research Methods. Instruments, & Computers,17, 149–156. Google Scholar Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar MacDonald, J., &McGurk, H. (1978) Visual influences on speech perception processes.Perception & Psychophysics,24, 253–257. Google Scholar MacKay, D. M. (1984) Mind talk and brain talk. In M. S. Gazzaniga, (Ed.),Handbook of cognitive neuroscience. (pp. 293–317) New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar Marr, D. (1982).Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (1975a)Experimental psychology and information processing. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (Ed.). (1975b). Understanding language.An information processing analysis of speech perception, reading and psycholinguistics, New York; Academic Press. Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (1984a) Building and testing models of reading processes. In P. D. Pearson (Ed),Handbook of reading research, (pp. 111–146) New York: Longman. Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (1984b). Children’s perception of visual and auditory speech.Child Development,55, 1777–1788. Article PubMed Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (1985). Attention and perception An information-integration perspective.Acta Psychologica,60, 211–243. Article PubMed Google Scholar Massaro, D. W. (in press a). Information-processing theory and strong inference: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Massaro, D. W. (in press b). Speech perception by ear and eye. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: Experimental studies in the psychology of lip reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Massaro, D. W., &Cohen, M. M. (1983). Evaluation and integration of visual and auditory information in speech perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 753–771. Article Google Scholar McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407. Article Google Scholar McCorduck, P. (1979).Machines who think. New York: Freeman. Google Scholar McGurk, H., &MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices.Nature,264, 746–748. Article PubMed Google Scholar Mehler, J., Morton, J., Jusczyk, P. W. (1984). On reducing language to biology.Cognitive Neuropsychology,1, 83–116. Article Google Scholar Mervis, C. B., &Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects.Annual Review of Psychology,32, 89–115. Article Google Scholar Miller, G. A. (1951).Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. Book Google Scholar Miller, G. A. (1953) What is information measurement?.American Psychologist,8, 3–11. Article Google Scholar Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63, 81–97. Article PubMed Google Scholar Miller, G. A. (1981).Language and speech. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals.Cognitive Psychology,14, 247–279. Article PubMed Google Scholar Minsky, M., &Papert, S. (1968)Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Navon, D. (1984). Resources-A theoretical soup stone?.Psychological Review,91, 216–234. Article Google Scholar Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Google Scholar Neumann, O. (in press). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1956). The logic theory machine.IRE Transactions on Information Theory,IT-2(3), 61–79. Article Google Scholar Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar Norman, D. A., &Bobrow, D. G.(1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes.Cognitive Psychology,7, 44–64. Article Google Scholar Oden, G. C. (1984). Dependence, independence, and emergence of word features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 394–405. Article Google Scholar Okita, T., Wijers, A. A., Mulder, G., &Mulder, L. J. M. (1985). Memory search and visual spatial attention: An event-related brain potential analysis.Acta Psychologica,60, 263–292. Article PubMed Google Scholar Owens, D. A. (1985). [Comment on P. Bieri’s (1985) lecture]. Unpublished comment Pattee, H. H. (1974). Discrete and continuous processes in computers and brains. In M. Conrad, W. Guttinger, & M. D. Cin, (Eds.),Physics and mathematics of the nervous system (pp. 128–148). New York: Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference.Science,146, 347–353. Article PubMed Google Scholar Pohl, I., &Shaw, A. (1981).The nature of computation. An introduction to computer science. Rockville, MD: Computer Science Press. Google Scholar Popper, K. (1959).The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar Pylyshyn, Z. N. (1984).Computation and cognition Towardafoundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Raab, D. H. (1962). Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times.Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences,24, 574–490. PubMed Google Scholar Raphael, B. (1976)The thinking computer: Mind inside matter. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar Rosenblatt, F. (1958). The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.Psychological Review,65, 386–407. Article PubMed Google Scholar Schweickeri, R., &Boggs, G. J. (1984). Models of central capacity and concurrency.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,28, 223–281. Article Google Scholar Searle, J. (1984).Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar Selfridge, O. G. (1959). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. InMechanization of thought processes. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Google Scholar Shannon, C. E. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication.Bell System Technical Journal,27, 379–423, 623–658. Google Scholar Simon, H. A. (1969).Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar Smith, F. (1971).Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar Toulmin, S. (1972).Human understanding: Vol. I. The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar Trask, M. (1971).The story of cybernetics. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts, Studio Vista Ltd. Google Scholar Walden, B. E., Prosek, R. A., Montgomery, A. A., Scherr, C. K., &Jones, C. J. (1977). Effects of training on the visual recognition of consonants.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,20, 130–145. Google Scholar Wickelgren, W. A., &Norman, D. A. (1966). Strength models and serial position in short-term recognition memory.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,3, 316–347. Article Google Scholar Wiener, N. (1948).Cybernetics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar Williams, J. M. (1978a). Antique mechanical computers: Part 1. Early automata.Byte, July, 48–58. Williams, J. M. (1978b). Antique mechanical Computers: Part 2 18th and 19th century mechanical marvels.Byte, August, 96&2-107. Winston, P. H. (1977).Artificial intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information & Control,8, 338–353. Article Google Scholar Zadeh, L. A. (1984). Making computers think like people.IEEE Spectrum,21, 26–32. Google Scholar Download references Author informationAuthors and Affiliations
Authors
Additional informationRay Gibbs provided productive discussions and helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. The writing of the paper and the research reported herein were supported, in part, by NINCDS Grant 20314 from the Public Health Service and Grant BNS-83-15192 from the National Science Foundation. Rights and permissionsReprints and Permissions About this articleCite this articleMassaro, D.W. The computer as a metaphor for psychological inquiry: Considerations and recommendations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 18, 73–92 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201006 Which cognitive theory uses the analogy of the mind like a computer?The “mind as computer” metaphor is presently formalized as the computational theory of mind or computationalism,1 the view “that intelligent behavior is causally explained by computations performed by the agent's cognitive system (or brain).”2 Simply stated, as applied to humans, it holds that cognition in the brain is ...
Why is the computer likened to the human brain?While conventional computers run commands sequentially, constantly moving data packets back and forth from the memory to the processor, neuromorphic computers process and store data largely at the same time, making them both faster and extremely energy efficient, just like the human brain.
How is a computer compared to human cognitive functioning?Computers are said to work much like the human brain in that both systems access and configure information in stages. First, input is received, next the input is processed, then the information is stored to memory, it is then configured, and lastly output is created.
How is the human mind like a computer psychology?The computational theory of mind, in essence, says that your brain works like a computer. That is, it takes input from the outside world, then performs algorithms to produce output in the form of mental state or action.
|
