Higher-level Cognition

W 11-12:40, Muen E317

Matt Jones
Muenzinger D260C
Office hours: T mornings, W afternoons, some F afternoons. Just let me know if you want to meet.

Class format

We will spend the bulk of each class discussing the article(s) assigned for that meeting. One student will be responsible for guiding the discussion. We will go through each article to make sure everyone understands the motivations, methods, and conclusions. However, the goal is for everyone to come to class as prepared as possible so that discussion can focus on critical analysis (and hopefully debate) of the core ideas, implications, validity, etc. of the research. During the final 5-10 minutes of each meeting, I will give a preview of the next readings.


Group discussion. The most important contribution each person can make is to our discussions of the readings. A seminar course in which everyone actively participates can be the most productive and educational forum in grad school (often for the instructor as well). Bringing together the various backgrounds and training of everyone in the room generally leads to a much richer perspective than would otherwise be possible. There is a lot of individual variability in tendency to speak up in this type of environment, but it is critical to an academic career to be comfortable doing so. You cannot succeed in this field without a willingness (and desire) to share your ideas in the face of criticism, and this is the best context to practice. It is also important that you speak up if there's anything in the readings that you don't understand, and I will trust everyone to do so. If you're someone who has no qualms about dominating a debate, this is also a good place to practice restraint and listening.

Written reactions. Each person should write a brief written reaction to the readings to be discussed each week. Reactions should be uploaded by 7pm Tuesday night to the appropriate week's folder here. Please write your reaction before reading anyone else's.

The reactions serve two purposes: as a nominal motivation to ensure everyone reads and carefully thinks about the articles, and as catalysts for the group discussion. Reactions should not be summaries. A few sentences at the beginning to summarize each article are generally useful, both for me to make sure everyone recognizes the critical points and for you to check your own understanding, but the primary content should be your own ideas in response to what you read. These ideas can be anything from connections to other research (from this class or elsewhere); to possible extensions, improvements, or follow-up work; to criticisms of the authors' logic or methods (provided they relate to the global point of the paper).

Leading discussion. Each student will sign up to lead the discussion for one meeting. The discussion leader will write a detailed (1-2 page) outline of each article, which will structure the discussion and which will also serve as a resource for the final exam. You can meet with me to go over the paper in advance if it will help. Ideally, the discussions will go beyond simple review of the readings, and it will be everyone's responsibility to contribute interesting ideas and reactions, but the discussion leader will be in charge of making sure that everyone understands the argument of each paper and that the critical points are covered. You do not have to write a reaction for the days you lead discussion.

Final exam. A take-home essay exam will be distributed by Saturday 12/12 and will be due by email by the end of Saturday 12/19 (defined however you prefer). The exam is to be completed individually, with no communication between class members. This exam will count toward fulfillment of the Preliminary Exam requirements for students in the Cognitive Psychology PhD program. In addition, each student will submit (email to me) two possible exam questions. The best questions will encourage integration across topics. The major incentive to write good questions is that your own question (or some variant thereof) might appear on the final exam. The questions will be due by the end of Wednesday 12/9.

Blood glucose. You should probably eat lunch during class. I will.


     Group discussion30%
Written reactions15%
Leading discussion   15%
Final exam40%


9/2: Perspectives (Hilary)

Newell, A. (1973). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win. In W.C. Chase (Ed.) Visual Information Processing (pp. 283-308). New York: Academic Press.

Hofstadter, D. (1985). Waking up from the Boolean dream, or, Subcognition as computation. In D. Hofstadter (Ed.), Metamagical Themas (Ch. 26). New York: Bantam.

9/9: Computational Architectures (Max)

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.

9/16: Neural Architectures (Harry)

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

9/23: Symbols (Lauren)

Clark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 370-374.

DeLoache, J. S., (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 66-70.

9/30: Reinforcement Learning (Sam)

Sutton, R., & Barto, A. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Chapter 1. MIT Press.

Daw, N.D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1704-1711.

10/7: Deduction (Lux)

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109-135.

10/14: Rational Analysis (Matt)

Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In Ron Sun (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational cognitive modeling. Cambridge University Press.

10/21: Heuristics (Hee-Jung)

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.

Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107-143.

10/28: Dual Systems (Joe)

Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.

11/4: Conceptual Knowledge (Shannon)

Murphy, G. I. and Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.

11/11: Analogy (Matt)

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.

Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.

11/18: Problem Solving (Jesse)

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.

Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.

12/2: Embodiment (Barbara)

Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

12/9: Cultural Differences (Matt)

Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.

University Policies (standard on all course syllabi)

CU Policy for Students with Disabilities

If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit to me a letter from Disability Services in a timely manner so that your needs be addressed. Disability Services determines accommodations based on documented disabilities. Contact: 303-492-8671, Willard 322, and www.Colorado.EDU/disabilityservices

CU Sexual Harrassment Policy

The University of Colorado at Boulder policy on Discrimination and Harassment, the University of Colorado policy on Sexual Harassment and the University of Colorado policy on Amorous Relationships apply to all students, staff and faculty. Any student, staff or faculty member who believes (s)he has been the subject of discrimination or harassment based upon race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status should contact the Office of Discrimination and Harassment (ODH) at 303-492-2127 or the Office of Judicial Affairs at 303-492-5550. Information about the ODH, the above referenced policies and the campus resources available to assist individuals regarding discrimination or harassment can be obtained at

CU Religious Observance Policy

Campus policy regarding religious observances requires that faculty make every effort to deal reasonably and fairly with all students who, because of religious obligations, have conflicts with scheduled exams, assignments or required attendance. Please notify the instructor of anticipated conflicts as early in the semester as possible so that there is adequate time to make necessary arrangements. See full details at

CU Classroom Behavior Policy

Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning environment. Those who fail to adhere to such behavioral standards may be subject to discipline. Professional courtesy and sensitivity are especially important with respect to individuals and topics dealing with differences of race, culture, religion, politics, sexual orientation, gender, gender variance, and nationalities. Class rosters are provided to the instructor with the student's legal name. I will gladly honor your request to address you by an alternate name or gender pronoun. Please advise me of this preference early in the semester so that I may make appropriate changes to my records. See policies at

CU Honor Code

All students of the University of Colorado at Boulder are responsible for knowing and adhering to the academic integrity policy of this institution. Violations of this policy may include: cheating, plagiarism, aid of academic dishonesty, fabrication, lying, bribery, and threatening behavior. All incidents of academic misconduct shall be reported to the Honor Code Council (honor@colorado.edu; 303-725-2273). Students who are found to be in violation of the academic integrity policy will be subject to both academic sanctions from the faculty member and non-academic sanctions (including but not limited to university probation, suspension, or expulsion). Other information on the Honor Code can be found at