Cited by 3,663AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acquisition of cognitive skill

Anderson, John R.·1982·Psychological Review

Abstract

A framework for skill acquisition is proposed in which there are two major stages in the development of a cognitive skill--a declarative stage in which facts about the skill domain are interpreted and a procedural stage in which the domain knowledge is embodied directly in procedures for performing the skill. This general framework has been instantiated in the ACT system in which facts are encoded in a propositional network and procedures are encoded as productions. Two types of interpretive procedures are described for converting facts in the declarative stage into behavior--general problem-solving procedures and analogy-forming procedures. Knowledge compilation is the process by which the skill transits from the declarative stage to the procedural stage. It consists of the subprocesses of composition which collapses sequences of productions into single productions and proceduralization which embeds factual knowledge into productions. Once proceduralized, further learning processes operate on the skill to make the production more selective in their range of applications. These learning processes include generalization, discrimination, and strengthening of productions. Comparisons are made to similar concepts from past learning theories. It is discussed how these learning mechanisms apply to produce the power law speed-up in processing time with practice. Much of the evidence for this theory of skill acquisition comes from work on acquisition of proof skills in geometry but other evidence is drawn from the literature on automatization, language acquisition, and category formation. (Author)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,009

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, J. R.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, John R.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1982-07
Volume
89
Issue
4
Pages
369-406
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2044754442
Cited by
3,663
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 114 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 123 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 131 · 2013: 140 · 2012: 146
FWCI
47.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
cognitive skill acquisition, procedural stages, production systems, knowledge compilation, composition, proceduralization, discrimination, power law of practice, automation, category formation, language acquisition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review