http://psych.colorado.edu/~munakata/teaching/prosem05/
Goals: The objective of this proseminar is to introduce graduate students to fundamental issues in the study of higher level cognition. We will start with origins (evolutionary and developmental) and basic mechanisms (e.g., active maintenance, inhibition, and symbols). We will bring these perspectives to understanding a range of topics in the study of higher level cognition (e.g., intelligence, reasoning, decision-making, and morality), as investigated through a variety of methods (e.g., behavioral, neuroimaging, neurophysiological, and computational).
The course is the fifth module of the six-module proseminar sequence for beginning graduate students in cognitive psychology. It is organized around assigned readings and student presentations.
Readings: Course readings are available at the class web site; the list appears at the end of the syllabus.
Evaluation: Final grades will be based largely on a take-home essay exam, and leading and participating in class discussion:
| Final exam | 50% |
| Class participation | 15% |
| Discussion leading | 15% |
| Reading reactions | 10% |
| Discussion-leading feedback | 5% |
| Student-submitted exam questions | 5% |
Final exam: A take-home essay exam will be distributed on Tuesday 10/11 (the last class meeting). The exam will be due in my mailbox by 5:00 pm on Tuesday 10/18. Students must complete the exam individually - no communication between class members about the exam will be permitted. This exam will be counted toward fulfillment of the Preliminary Exam requirements.
Class participation: This seminar is discussion-oriented. Your preparation, participation, and cooperation as a group is essential for this format to work. You are expected to read the readings the week they are assigned and to come to class prepared to ask questions and actively participate in discussion. 50% of your participation grade will a shared grade for the group, and 50% will be individual.
To support and encourage effective discussions, in the first class we will discuss ``What makes a discussion bad (and what we can do about it).'' Throughout the term, we will evaluate the effectiveness of our discussions, and I will welcome suggestions on how to improve them to help us get the most out of them.
Discussion leading: You will be asked to lead discussion in 1-2 class sessions. Such session leading may include very brief presentation of key points from the readings, posing of questions for discussion, and moderating of discussion/debate. Discussion leaders will also be expected to prepare by reading additional relevant papers and to use knowledge gained from these papers to help the class consider the topic of the day. I have provided Optional readings on the web site as possible additional papers, but these are just suggestions - you should not feel obligated to use these or constrain yourself to them. Discussion leaders should also read students' reading reactions (see below) in preparation.
Reading reactions: For each set of readings, you will be asked to email a few sentences with your reactions. These reactions should include comments or questions that are relevant to the readings and may provide a useful direction for the class discussion. These reading reactions are designed to ensure that you are prepared for discussion, and have provided information about your perspective. Reading reactions should be emailed to the class mailing list (prosem05@grey.colorado.edu) by the night before each class (11:00 pm deadline).
Discussion-leading feedback: Students who are not leading discussion will provide feedback to discussion leaders, following the method pioneered by Lew Harvey. Within two days after each discussion, students should email me with at least 3 ``Strong Points'' and 3 ``Weak Points'' for that discussion-leading. I will compile these comments, and give them to each discussion-leader anonymously and privately. Students should strive for improvement on their second discussion-leading.
Student-submitted exam questions: Each student will submit (email to me) two possible questions for the take-home essay exam. 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 Thursday 10/6.
Grading Policy: Grades are not curved; they are based on percentages:
| 97-100 | A+ | 87-89 | B+ | 77-79 | C+ | 67-69 | D+ |
| 93-96 | A | 83-86 | B | 73-76 | C | 63-66 | D |
| 90-92 | A- | 80-82 | B- | 70-72 | C- | 60-62 | D- |
8/25/04 Origins: Evolutionary
A mind fit for mating. Chapter 4 from Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Doubleday.
8/30/05 Origins: Developmental
Scerif & Karmiloff-Smith (2005). The dawn of cognitive genetics? Crucial developmental caveats. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 126-135.
pp. 458-472 of Diamond, A. (2002). A model system for studying the role of dopamine in prefrontal cortex during early development in humans. In M. H. Johnson, Y. Munakata & R. O. Gilmore (eds.), Brain Development and Cognition (pp. 441-493). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
9/1/05 Prototype: Prefrontal cognitive review
Duncan, J. and Owen, A. M. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neurosciences, 23(10):475-483.
9/6/05 Basic Mechanisms: Active maintenance
Miller, E.K. and Cohen, J.D. (2001) An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24:167-202.
9/8/05 Basic Mechanisms: Inhibition
Anderson, M.C. (2005). The role of inhibitory control in forgetting unwanted memories: A consideration of three methods. In C. MacLeod & B. Uttl (Eds.) Dynamic Cognitive Processes. Springer-Verlag. Tokyo. pages 159-190.
Hasegawa, R.P., Peterson, B.W., and Goldberg, M.E. (2004). Prefrontal neurons coding suppression of specific saccades. Neuron, 43, 415-425.
9/13/05 Basic Mechanisms: Inhibition reconsidered
MacLeod, C. M., Dodd, M. D., Sheard, E. D., Wilson, D. E., & Bibi, U. (2003). In opposition to inhibition. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 43 (pp. 163-214). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9/15/05 Basic Mechanisms: Symbols and rules
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S. and Vishton, P. M (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants, Science, 283, 77-80.
Rougier, N.P., Noelle, D., Braver, T.S., Cohen, J.D. & O'Reilly, R.C. (2005). Prefrontal Cortex and the Flexibility of Cognitive Control: Rules Without Symbols. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 7338-7343.
9/20/05 Task-switching
Monsell, S. (2003) Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance Preparation in Task Switching. What Work Is Being Done? Psychological Science, 15: 616-622.
9/22/05 Intelligence
Gray, JR, Chabris, CF, & Braver, TS (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 316-322.
Conway, ARA, Kane, MJ, & Engle, RW (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547-552
9/27/05 Planning/Problem-solving
J. M. Fincham, C. S. Carter, V. van Veen, V. A. Stenger, and J. R. Anderson (2002). Neural mechanisms of planning: A computational analysis using event-related fMRI. PNAS, 99(5): 3346 - 3351.
Unterrainer, J.M., Rahm, B., Kaller, C.P., Ruff, C.C., Spreer, J., Krause, B.J., Schwarzwald, R., Hautzel, H., & Halsband, U. (2004). When planning fails: Individual differences and error-related brain activity in problem solving. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 1390-1397.
9/29/05 Reasoning
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2001). The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 349-357.
Rips, LJ (2001). Two kinds of reasoning. Psychological Science, 12, 129-134.
10/4/05 Decision-making
McCoy, A.N. and Platt, M. L. (2005). Expectations and outcomes: decision-making in the primate brain. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 191, 201-211.
Maia, T. V. and McClelland, J. L. (2004). A re-examination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants know in the Iowa gambling task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 16075-16080.
10/6/05 Morality
Greene, J.D., Nystrom, L.E., Engell, A.D., Darley, J.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389-400.
Casebeer, WD (2003). Moral Cognition and its Neural Constituents. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol. 4, No. 10, 840-846.
10/11/05 TBD