Includes bibliographical references. / vii, 408 leaves : ill. ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Psychology, 1972

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Queensland, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.

While there is much data in the experimental cognitive psychology literature reporting that subjects working on science-like tasks ignore findings inconsistent with their hypotheses, much cognitive science research has found that reasoners focus on unexpected findings. To study how real-world scientists deal with unexpected findings, data was collected from a prominent immunology laboratory. Four lab meetings were analyzed using a standardized coding procedure. The amount of reasoning, interactions, and new hypotheses about unexpected versus expected findings was analyzed. Presenters at the meetings reasoned more about unexpected than expected findings, and group members reasoned and interacted extensively about unexpected findings. Both presenter and group members formed more new hypotheses about unexpected than about expected findings. These results are consistent with the finding in cognitive science research that reasoners focus on unexpected data. It is proposed that several heuristics influence which unexpected findings scientists pay attention to.

This study evaluates the hypothesis that medical reasoning in real clinical situations involves multiple cognitive tasks whose complex interactions are coordinated in an opportunistic manner. A problem-solving architecture originating from research in artificial intelligence, the blackboard model, is proposed as an integrative framework for representing these characteristics of situated medical reasoning and for reconciling different theoretical perspectives about medical reasoning. A naturalistic clinical situation, involving the manipulation of the patient record by an internist while managing a case, provides the empirical data for this in depth qualitative case study. The video recording of the subject's record manipulation behavior allows the cueing of retrospective think-aloud verbalizations and the preservation of the real-time aspects of problem solving. The association of theory-driven task analysis using the blackboard model with data-driven propositional analysis confirm that medical reasoning in this situation indeed comprises a variety of cognitive tasks, which are described. Also, the opportunistic character of control knowledge and the complex interactions between control strategies and cognitive tasks are confirmed and described. The blackboard model allows the principled representation of these characteristics of situated medical reasoning, thus supporting its integrative character. However, certain aspects of the data, mostly related to the ambivalence of several concepts that are used by the subject during the course of problem-solving, are not explained in the most parsimonious manner by the blackboard model, nor by symbolic cognitive architectures in general. A connectionist alternative is proposed which seems to better account for these phenomena. Finally, a tentative neurophysiological interpretation of the blackboard framework is offered for integrating the symbolic and connectionist perspectives. This study has additional implications con

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Dept. of Psychology, 1972. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 72-78).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1956. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 198-201).

Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Illinois University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 25-28).

Bibliography: p. 242-244. / Reprinted from the Journal of general psychology, 1951, 45.