Accardi, L., Khrennikov, A. Y., & Ohya, M. (2009). Quantum Markov model for data from Shafir–Tversky experiments in cognitive psychology. Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 16(4), 371–385.Google Scholar

Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 314–348.Google Scholar

Aerts, D. & Aerts, S. (1994). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science, 1, 85–97.Google Scholar

Aerts, D. & Czachor, M. (2004). Quantum aspects of semantic analysis and symbolic artificial intelligence. Journal of Physics A–Mathematical and General, 37, L123–L132 (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309022).Google Scholar

Aerts, D. & Gabora, L. (2005). A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes, 34, 192–221.Google Scholar

Aerts, D. & Sozzo, S. (2011). Quantum structure in cognition: why and how concepts are entangled (arXiv:1104.1322v1).

Aerts, D., Aerts, S., Broeckaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2000). The violation of Bell inequalities in the macroworld. Foundations of Physics, 30, 1378–1414.Google Scholar

Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2005). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. In Mind in Interaction, ed. M., Bickhard & R., Campbell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2011). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 136–146.Google Scholar

Aharonov, Y., Davidovich, L., & Zagury, N. (1993). Quantum random walks. Physical ReviewA, 48, 1687–1690.Google Scholar

Ahn, W. Y., Krawitz, A., Kim, W., Busemeyer, J. R., & Brown, J. W. (2011). A model-based FMRI analysis with hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 4(2), 95–110.Google Scholar

Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Erlbaum.

Anscombe, F. J. & Aumann, R. J. (1963). A definition of subjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 199–205.Google Scholar

Ashby, F. G. & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154–179.Google Scholar

Aspect, A. (1999). Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever. Nature, 398, 189–190.

Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. K. W., Spence & J. T., Spense. New York: Academic Press, pp. 89–195.

Atmanspacher, H. (2011). Quantum approaches to consciousness. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N., Zalta.

Atmanspacher, H. & Filk, T. (2010). A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 314–321.Google Scholar

Atmanspacher, H., & Romer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32, 379–406.Google Scholar

Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Romer, H. (2004). Quantum zero features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics, 90, 33–40.Google Scholar

Baaquie, B. E. (2004). Quantum Finance: Path Integrals and Hamiltonians for Options and Interest Rates. Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.Google Scholar

Barkan, R. & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999). Changing plans: dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 10, 353–359.Google Scholar

Barkan, R. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2003). Modeling dynamic inconsistency with a changing reference point. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 235–255.Google Scholar

Batchelder, W. H. & Reiffer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 57–86.Google Scholar

Beck, F. & Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum apsects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89, 11357–11361.Google Scholar

Behera, L., Kar, I., & Elitzur, A. C. (2005). Recurrent quantum neural network model to describe eye tracking of moving target. Foundations of Physics Letters, 18(4), 357–370.Google Scholar

Bell, J. (1987). Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality. In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

Beltrametti, E. G. & Cassinelli, G. (1981). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, volume 15. Addison-Wesley.

Bhattacharya, R. N. & Waymire, E. C. (1990). Stochastic Processes with Applications. Wiley.

Birnbaum, M. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115, 463–501.Google Scholar

Blasone, M., Jizba, P., & Vitiello, G. (2011). Quantum Field Theory and its Macroscopic Manifestations. London: Imperial College Press.

Blutner, R. (2009). Concepts and bounded rationality: an application of Niestegge's approach to conditional quantum probabilities. In Foundations of Probability and Physics No. 5 – AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1101, ed. L., Acardi, A. Y., Khrennikov, C. A., Fuchs, G., Jaeger, J.-A., Larsson, & S., Stenholm. American Institute of Physics, pp. 302–310.

Blutner, R. & Hochnadel, E. (2010). Two cubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(3), 243–259.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley.

Bordley, R. F. (1998). Quantum mechanical and human violations of compound probability principles: toward a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Operations Research, 46, 923–926.Google Scholar

Bordley, R. & Kadane, J. B. (1999). Experiment-dependent priors in psychology. Theory and Decision, 47(3), 213–227.Google Scholar

Brainerd, C. J. & Reyna, V. F. (2008). Episodic over-distribution: a signature effect of familiarity without recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 765–786.Google Scholar

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Mojardin, A. H. (1999). Conjoint recognition. Psychological Review, 106(1), 160–179.Google Scholar

Bruza, P. & Cole, R. J. (2005). Quantum logic of semantic space: an exploratory investigation of context effects in practical reasoning. In We Will Show Them: Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, ed. S., Artemov, H., Barringer, A. S., d'Avila, L. C., Lamb, & J., Woods, College Publications, pp. 339–361.

Bruza, P. & De Vine, L. (2010). Semantic oscillations: encoding context and structure in complex valued holographic vectors. In Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes (QI 2010), ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, C., von Rijsbergen, D., Sofge, & D., Widdows. AAAI Press.

Bruza, P., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, C. J., & Sofge, D. (2007). Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Quantum Interaction. AAAI Press.

Bruza, P., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, C. J., & Sofge, D. (2008). Quantum Interaction: Proceedings of the Second Quantum Interaction Symposium. London: College Publications.

Bruza, J. R., Busemeyer, P., & Gabora, L. (2009a). Introduction to the special issue on quantum cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 303–305.Google Scholar

Bruza, P., Sofge, D., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, C. J., & Klusch, M. (2009b). Proceedings of the Third Quantum Interaction Symposium. Springer.

Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2009c). Is there something quantum-like in the human mental lexicon?Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 362–377.Google Scholar

Bruza, P. D., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2009d). Extracting spooky-activation-at-a-distance from considerations of entanglement. In Proceedings of the Third Quantum Interaction Symposium, vol. 5494. Springer, pp. 71–83.

Bruza, P., Iqbal, A., & Kitto, K. (2010). The role of non-factorizability in determining “pseudo-classical” non-separability. In Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes (QI 2010), ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, C., van Rijsbergen, D., Sofge, & D., Widdows. AAAI Press.

Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Ramm, B., & Sitbon, L. (2012). The non-compositionality of concept combinations. Cognitive Science, Under review.

Bullinaria, J. A. & Levy, J. P. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: a computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526.Google Scholar

Burgess, C., Livesay, K., & Lund, K. (1998). Explorations in context space: words, sentences, discourse. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 211–257.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. R. & Diederich, A. (2009). Cognitive Modeling. Sage.

Busemeyer, J. & Townsend, J. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. & Wang, Z. (2010). Quantum probability applied to the social and behavioral sciences. In Proceedings of the First Interdisciplinary Chess Interactions Conference, ed. C., Rangacharyulu & E., HavenWorld Scientific Publishing Company, pp. 115–125.

Busemeyer, J. R., Weg, E., Barkan, R., Li, X., & Ma, Z. (2000). Dynamic and consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 530–545.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006a). Quantum dynamics of human decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220–241.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. R., Matthews, M., & Wang, Z. (2006b). A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society and the 5th International Conference of Cognitive Science, ed. R., Sun & N., Myake. Erlbaum, pp. 131–135.

Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2009). Comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 423–433.Google Scholar

Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193–218.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F. & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.Google Scholar

Carlson, B. W. & Yates, J. F. (1989). Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 368–379.Google Scholar

Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A., & Schak, R. (2002). Quantum probabilties as Bayesian probabilities. Physical ReviewA, 65(2), 1–6.Google Scholar

Cereceda, J. (2000). Quantum mechanical probabilities and general probabilistic constraints for Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments. Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(5), 427–442.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press.

Cheon, T. & Takahashi, T. (2010). Interference and inequality in quantum decision theory. Physics LettersA, 375, 100–104.

Clauser, J. & Horne, M. (1974). Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Physical ReviewD, 10(2), 526–535.Google Scholar

Coecke, B., Sadrzadeh, M., & Clark, S. (2010). Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Linguistic Analysis, 36(1–4), 345–384.Google Scholar

Collins, A. & Loftus, E. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.Google Scholar

Conte, E. (1983). Exploration of biological function by quantum mechanics. In Proceedings 10th International Congress on Cybernetics. Namur-Belgique, pp. 16–23.

Conte, E., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Vitiello, F., Lopane, M., & Khrennikov, A. (2007). Some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics. Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, 31, 1076–1088.Google Scholar

Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L., & Zbilut, J. P. (2009). Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 16, 1–17.Google Scholar

Costello, F. & Keane, M. (2000). Effcient creativity: constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 299–349.Google Scholar

Croson, R. (1999). The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(2), 118–133.Google Scholar

Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: an experimental invesigation. Economic Journal, 108, 1362–1380.Google Scholar

DeBarros, J. A. & Suppes, P. (2009). Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 306–313.Google Scholar

DeGroot, M. H. (2004). Optimal Statistical Decisons. Wiley–IEEE.

Dickson, W. (1998). Quantum Chance and Non-Locality. Cambridge University Press.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1958). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press.

Dong, D., Chen, C., Li, H., & Tarn, T. J. (2008). Quantum reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, B: Cybernetics, 38(5), 1207–1220.Google Scholar

Dong, D., Chen, C., Chu, J., & Tarn, T. J. (2010). Robust quantum-inspired reinforcement learning for robot navigation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 17(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Dougherty, M. R. P., Gettys, C. F., & Odgen, E. E. (1999). Minverva-dm: a memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review, 106(1), 180–209.Google Scholar

Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: how conscious and how abstract?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 541–555.Google Scholar

Eisert, M., Wilkens, J., & Lewenstein, M. (1999). Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 83, 3077–3080.Google Scholar

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.Google Scholar

Engesser, K., Gabbay, D. M., & Lehmann, D. (2009). Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures. Elsevier.

Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328–339.Google Scholar

Feldman, J. M. & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435.Google Scholar

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Feynman, R. P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21, 467–488.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1965). Lectures on Physics: Quantum Mechanics, volume III. Addison-Wesley.

Fine, A. (1982a). Hidden variables, joint probability and the Bell inequalities. Physics Review Letters, 48(5), 291–295.Google Scholar

Fine, A. (1982b). Joint distributions, quantum correlations and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(7), 1306–1310.Google Scholar

Fisk, J. E. (2002). Judgments under uncertainty: representativeness or potential surprise?British Journal of Psychology, 93, 431–449.Google Scholar

Fodor, G. (1994). Concepts: a potboiler. Cognition, 50, 95–113.Google Scholar

Franco, R. (2009a). The conjunctive fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 415–422.Google Scholar

Franco, R. (2009b). Quantum amplitude amplification algorithm: an explanation of availability bias. In Quantum Interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5494, ed. P., Bruza, D., Sofge, W., Lawless, K., van Rijsbergen, & M., Klusch. Springer, pp. 84–96.

Freeman, W. J. (1979). Nonlinear dynamics of paleocortex manifested in the olfactory EEG. Biological Cybernetics, 35, 21–37.Google Scholar

Freeman, W. J. & Vitiello, G. (2006). Nonlinear brain dynamics as macroscopic manifestation of underlying many-body dynamics. Physics of Life Reviews, 3, 93–118.Google Scholar

Fries, P. (2009). Neural gamma-band synchronization as a fundamental process in cortical computation. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 32, 209–224.Google Scholar

Fries, P., Nikoli, D., & Singer, W. (2007). The gamma cycle. Trends in Neuroscience, 50(7), 309–316.Google Scholar

Fuss, I. G. & Navarro, D. J. (2008). Partially coherent quantum models for human two-choice decisions. In Proceedings of the Second Quantum Interaction Symposium, ed. P. D., Bruza, W., Lawless, K., van Rijsbergen, D. A., Sofge, B., Coecke, & S., Clark. College Publications, pp. 75–82.

Gabbay, D. & Woods, J. (2005). The Reach of Abduction: Insight and Trial, vol. 2. Elsevier.

Gabora, L. & Aerts, D. (2002). Contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism. Journal of Experimental Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 327–358.Google Scholar

Gabora, L., Rosch, E., & Aerts, D. (2008). Toward an ecological theory of concepts. Ecological Psychology, 20, 84–116.Google Scholar

Galea, D., Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2011). Modelling the activation of words in human memory: the spreading activation, spooky-activation-at-a-distance and the entanglement models compared. In Proceedings of the Fifth Quantum Interaction Symposium (QI-2011). Springer.

Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press.

Gardiner, C. W. (1991). Quantum Noise. Springer.

Gavanski, I. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1991). Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 181–194.Google Scholar

Gee, N., Nelson, D., & Krawczyk, D. (1999). Is the connectedness effect a result of underlying network interconnectivity?Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 479–497.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. Oxford University Press.

Gilboa, I. (2009). Theory of Decision under Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.

Gleason, A. M. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematical Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar

Goschke, T. & Koppelberg, D. (1991). The concept of representation and the representation of concepts in connectionist models. In Philosophy and Connectionist Theory, ed. W., Ramsey, S., Stich, & D., Rumelhart. Laurence Erlbaum, pp. 129–161.

Graben, P. B. & Atmanspacher, H. (2006). Complementarity in classical dynamical systems. Foundations of Physics, 36, 291–306.Google Scholar

Graben, P. B. & Atmanspacher, H. (2008). Extending the philosophical significance of the idea of complementarity. In Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli's Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science, ed. H., Atmanspacher & H., Primas. Berlin: Springer, pp. 99–113.

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., Sirevaag, E. J., Erickson, C. J., & Donchin, E. (1988). Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 331–344.Google Scholar

Griffiths, R. (2002). Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Griffiths, R. B. (2003). Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Topics in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211–244.Google Scholar

Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. Cambridge Handbook of Computational Cognitive Modeling, In ed. R., Sun. Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–100.

Grossberg, S. (1982). Studies of Mind and Brain: Neural Principles of Learning, Perception, Development, Cognition, and Motor Control. Reidel.

Grossberg, S. (2000). The complementary brain: unifying brain dynamics and modularity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 233–246.Google Scholar

Grover, L. K. (1997). Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical Review Letters, 79(2), 325–327.Google Scholar

Gudder, S. P. (1979). Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics. Dover.

Gudder, S. P. (1988). Quantum Probability. Academic Press.

Gupta, S. & Zia, R. K. P. (2001). Quantum neural networks. Journal of Computer and System Science, 63(3), 355–383.Google Scholar

Hagan, S., Hameroff, S., & Tuszynksi, J. (2002). Quantum computation in brain microtubles? Decoherence and biological feasibility. Physical ReviewsE, 65, 061901.Google Scholar

Halmos, P. R. (1993). Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces. Springer.

Halpern, J. Y. & Fagin, R. (1992). Two views of belief: belief as generalized probability and belief as evidence. Artificial Intelligence, 54, 275–317.Google Scholar

Hameroff, S. R. (1998). Quantum computation in brain microtubles? The Penrose–Hameroff “Orch Or” model of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London (A), 356, 1869–1896.

Hameroff, S. R. (2007). The brain is both a neurocomputer and quantum computer. Cognitive Science, 31, 1035–1045.Google Scholar

Hammond, K. R. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytic cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-17(5), 753–770.Google Scholar

Hampton, J. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: evidence for a unitary model for concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 12–32.Google Scholar

Hampton, J. (1997). Conceptual combination. In Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories, ed. K., Lamberts & D., Shank. MIT Press, pp. 133–160.

Hastie, R. & Park, B. (1988). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268.Google Scholar

Haven, E. (2002). A discussion on embedding the Black–Scholes option pricing model in a quantum physics setting. PhysicaA, 304, 507–524.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy. Harper and Row.

Hey, J. D. & Knoll, J. A. (2007). How far ahead do people plan?Economic Letters, 96, 8–13.Google Scholar

Histrova, E. & Grinberg, M. (2008). Disjunction effect in prisoner's dilemma: evidences from an eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. B., Love, K., McCrae, & V. M., Sloutsky. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Hogarth, R. & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: the belief adjustment modeling. Cognitive Pschology, 24, 1–55.Google Scholar

Howard, R. A. (1971). Dynamic Probabilistic Systems: Volume I Markov models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hoyer, P. (2000). Arbitrary phases in quantum amplitude amplification. Physical ReviewA, 62, 052304-1–052304-5.Google Scholar

Hughes, R. I. G. (1989). The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Harvard University Press.

Humphreys, M., Bain, J., & Pike, R. (1989a). Different ways to cue a coherent memory system: a theory for episodic, semantic and procedural tasks. Psychological Review, 96, 208–233.Google Scholar

Humphreys, M., Pike, R., Bain, J., & Tehan, G. (1989b). Global matching: a comparison of the Siam, Minerva II, matrix and Todam models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 36–67.Google Scholar

Iqbal, A. & Abbot, D. (2009). Non-factorizable joint probabilities and evolutionarily stable strategies in the quantum prisoner's dilemma game. Physics LettersA, 373, 2537–2541.

Isham, C. (1995). Lectures on Quantum Theory. Imperial College Press.

Isham, C. (2004). Lectures on Quantum Theory. Imperial College Press.

Ivancevic, V. & Aidman, E. (2007). Life space foam: a medium for motivational and cognitive dynamics. PhysicaA, 382, 616–630.

Ivancevic, V. G. & Ivancevic, T. T. (2010). Quantum Neural Computation. Springer.

Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.Google Scholar

James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Dover.

Jibu, M. & Yasue, K. (1995). Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jones, K. R. W. (1991). Principles of quantum inference. Annals of Physics, 207, 140–170.Google Scholar

Jones, M. & Mewhort, D. (2007). Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114(1), 1–37.Google Scholar

Jones, M., Kintsch, W., & Mewhort, D. (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 534–552.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.Google Scholar

Khrennikov, A. Y. (1999). Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive, psychological, social, and anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 29, 1065–1098.Google Scholar

Khrennikov, A. Y. (2004). Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological, Social and Anomalous Phenomena. Kluwer Academic.

Khrennikov, A. Y. (2007). Can quantum information be processed by macroscopic systems?Quantum Information Processing, 6(6), 401–429.Google Scholar

Khrennikov, A. Y. (2010). Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance. Springer.

Khrennikov, A. Y. & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure thing principle: the use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 378–388.Google Scholar

Kolmogorov, A. N. (1933/1950). Foundations of the Theory of Probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Co.

Kouda, N., Matsui, N., Nishimura, H., & Peper, F. (2005). Qubit neural network and its learning efficiency. Neural Computation and Applications, 14, 114–121.Google Scholar

Kruschke, J. K. (2010). Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS. Academic Press.

Kuhberger, A., Komunska, D., & Perner, J. (2001). The disjunction effect: does it exist for two-step gambles?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 250–264.Google Scholar

Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). Soar: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1–64.Google Scholar

Laloë, F. (2001). Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems. American Journal of Physics, 69(6), 655–701.Google Scholar

Lambdin, C. & Burdsal, C. (2007). The disjunction effect reexamined: relevant methodological issues and the fallacy of unspecified percentage comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 268–276.Google Scholar

Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). An exploration of type indeterminacy in strategic decision making. In Quantum Interaction: Proceedings of the Third Quantum Interaction Symposium, ed. P., Bruza, D. A., Sofge, W., Lawless, K., van Rijsbergen, & M., Klusch. Springer, pp. 113–128.

Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S., & Zwirn, H. (2009). Type indeterminacy: a model of the KT (Kahneman–Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 349–361.Google Scholar

Laming, D. R. (1968). Information Theory of Choice Reaction Time. Wiley.

La Mura, P. (2009). Projective expected utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 408–414.Google Scholar

La Mura, P., & Swiatczak, L. (2007). Markov entanglement networks. In Quantum Interaction, ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, K., van Rijsbergen, & D. A., Sofge. AAAI Press.

Landauer, T. & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.Google Scholar

Landauer, T., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284.Google Scholar

Large, E. W. & Jones, M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: how people track time-varying events. Psychological Review, 106, 119–159.Google Scholar

Leggett, A. J. & Garg, A. (1985). Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: is the flux there when nobody looks?Physical Review Letters, 54, 857–860.Google Scholar

Levy, J. & Bullinaria, J. (1999). Learning lexical properties from word usage patterns: which context words should be used? In Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution: Proceedings of the Sixth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, ed. R., French & J., Sounge. Springer, pp. 273–282.

Li, S. & Taplin, J. (2002). Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner's dilemma games. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 25–46.Google Scholar

Link, S. W. (1992). The Wave Theory of Difference and Similarity. Earlbaum.

Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Kroon, F. W., Weinsteing, S., & Thagard, P. (2006). Is the brain a quantum computer?Cognitive Science, 30, 593–603.Google Scholar

Littman, M. L. (2009). A tutorial on partially observable Markov decision processes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 119–125.Google Scholar

Lowe, W. (2000). What is the dimensionality of human semantic space? In Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution: Proceedings of the Sixth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, ed. R., French & J., Sounge. Springer, pp. 303–311.

Lowe, W. (2001). Towards a theory of semantic space. In J. D., Moore & K., Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 576–581.

Luce, R. D. (2000). Utility of Gains and Losses. Erlbaum.

Lund, K. & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.Google Scholar

Machina, M. (1989). Dynamic inconsistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1622–1668.Google Scholar

Manousakis, E. (2009). Quantum formalism to describe binocular rivalry (arXiv, 0709, 4516v2).

Maudlin, T. (1994). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Aristotelian Society Series, vol. 13. Blackwell.

McArthur, R. (2006). Computing with meaning by operationalising sociocognitive semantics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar

Medin, D. & Shoben, E. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 58–190.Google Scholar

Meyer, D. A. (1999). Quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 82, 1052–1055.Google Scholar

Meyer, D. & Kieres, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple task performance. Part 1. Basic processes. Psychological Review, 104, 2–65.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34, 1388–1429.Google Scholar

Miyamoto, J. M., Gonzalez, R., & Tu, S. (1995). Compositional anomalies in the semantics of evidence. In Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective, ed. J. R., Busemeyer, D. L., Medin, & R., Hastie. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–50.

Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 80–91.Google Scholar

Morier, D. M. & Borgida, E. (1984). The conjuction fallacy: a task specific phenomena?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 243–252.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529–562.Google Scholar

Narens, L. (2007). Theories of Probability: An Examination of Logical and Qualitative Foundations. World Scientific Publishing Company.

Narens, L. (2009). A foundation for support theory based on a non-Boolean event space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 399–407.Google Scholar

Nelson, D. & Goodmon, L. (2002). Experiencing a word can prime its accessibility and its associative connections to related words. Memory & Cognition, 30, 380–398.Google Scholar

Nelson, D. & McEvoy, C. (1979). Encoding context and set size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(3), 292–314.Google Scholar

Nelson, D. & McEvoy, C. (2005). Implicitly activated memories: the missing links of remembering. In Learning and Memory: Advances in Theory and Applications, ed. C., Izawa & N., Ohta. New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 177–198.

Nelson, D. & McEvoy, C. (2007). Entangled associative structures and context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Quantum Interaction, ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, C., van Rijsbergen, & D., Sofge. AAAI Press.

Nelson, D., Schreiber, T., & McEvoy, C. (1992). Processing implicit and explicit representations. Psychological Review, 99(2), 322–348.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., Janczura, G., & Xu, J. (1993a). Implicit memory and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 667–691.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., Bennett, D., Gee, N., Schreiber, T., & McKinney, V. (1993b). Implicit memory: effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19(4), 747–764.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., Bennett, D., & Leibert, T. (1997). One step is not enough: making better use of association norms to predict cued recall. Memory & Cognition, 25(6), 785–796.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., McKinney, V., Gee, N., & Janczura, G. (1998). Interpreting the influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition. Psychological Review, 105(2), 299–324.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., & Pointer, L. (2003). Spreading activation or spooky action at a distance?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(1), 42–52.Google Scholar

Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., & Schreiber, T. (2004). The University of South Florida, word association, rhyme and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 408–420.Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.

Niestegge, G. (2008). An approach to quantum mechanics via conditional probabilities. Foundations of Physics, 38, 241–256.Google Scholar

Nilsson, H. (2008). Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 471–490.Google Scholar

Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700–708.Google Scholar

Novakovich, D., Bruza, P., & Sitbon, L. (2009). Inducing shades of meaning by matrix methods: a first step towards thematic analysis of opinion. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing (Semapro'09). IEEE Press, pp. 86–91.

Nunez, P., & Srinivasan, R. (2006). Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.

Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: the probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 69–120.Google Scholar

Pashler, H. (1998). The Psychology of Attention. MIT Press.

Patel, M., Bullinaria, J., & Levy, J. (1997). Extracting semantic representations from large text corpora. In Connectionist models of Learning, Development and Evolution: Proceedings of the Fourth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, ed. R., French & J., Sounge. Springer, pp. 199–212.

Payne, J., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.Google Scholar

Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann.

Pelletier, J. (1994). The principle of semantic compositionality. Topoi, 13, 11–24.Google Scholar

Pelletier, J. (2001). Did Frege believe Frege's principle?Logic, Language and Information, 10(1), 87–114.Google Scholar

Penrose, W. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford University Press.

Percival, I. (1998). Quantum State Diffusion. Cambridge University Press.

Peres, A. (1998). Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic.

Piotrowski, E. W. & Sladkowski, J. (2002). An invitation to quantum game theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 42, 1089–1099.Google Scholar

Pitowski, I. (1989). Quantum Probability, Quantum Logic (vol. 321 Lecture Notes in Physics). Springer.

Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability model explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision making. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B., 276(1665), 2171–2178.Google Scholar

Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability explanation for violations of symmetry in similarity judgments. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.

Pribram, K. H. (1993). Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data. Erlbaum.

Primas, H. (2007). Non-Boolean descriptions for mind–matter problems. Mind & Matter, 5(1), 7–44.Google Scholar

Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.Google Scholar

Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.Google Scholar

Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42–56.Google Scholar

Reyna, V. & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 1–75.Google Scholar

Ricciardi, L. M. & Umezawa, H. (1967). Brain and physics of many bodied problems. Kybernetik, 4, 44–48.Google Scholar

Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., & Reeder, J. A. (2004). Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: a two-dimensional signal-detection model. Psychological Review, 111(3), 588–616.Google Scholar

Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. MIT Press.

Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). Of two minds: forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 17(11), 954–958.Google Scholar

Sahlgren, M. (2002). Towards a flexible model of word meaning. AAAI Spring Symposium 2002, March 25–27, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Sahlgren, M. (2006). The word-space model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Sahlgren, M., Holst, A., & Kanerva, P. (2008). Permutations as a means to encode order in word space. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Cogsci'08). Washington, DC.

Sakurai, J. J. (1994). Modern Quantum Mechanics. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley & Sons.

Schack, R., Brun, T. A., & Caves, C. M. (2001). Quantum Bayes rule. Physical ReviewA, 64, 014305-1–014305-4.Google Scholar

Schachter, S. & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379–399.Google Scholar

Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Content. New York: Academic Press.

Schütze, H. (1998). Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics, 24(1), 97–124.Google Scholar

Schwartz, J., Stapp, H., & Beauregard, M. (2005). Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietyB, 360(1458), 1309–1327.

Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25, 638–656.Google Scholar

Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press.

Shafir, E. & Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 449–474.Google Scholar

Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 210–221.Google Scholar

Shiffrin, R. M. (2010). Perspectives on modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 736–750.Google Scholar

Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing II: perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.Google Scholar

Shimony, A. (2009). Bell's theorem. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2009 edn, ed. E., Zalta. Stanford University (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/bell-theorem/).

Sides, A., Osherson, D., Bonini, N., & Viale, R. (2002). On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory and Cognition, 30, 191–198.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man. New York: Wiley.

Simpson, G. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In Handbook of Pyscholinguistics, ed. M., Gernsbacher. Academic Press, pp. 359–374.

Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231–280.Google Scholar

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

Smith, E. R. & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 23, 645–726.Google Scholar

Stapp, H. P. (2009). Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, 3rd edn. Springer.

Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. (2005). Graph theoretic analysis of semantic networks: small worlds in semantic networks. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78.Google Scholar

Stolarz-Fantino, S., Fantino, E., Zizzo, D. J., & Wen, J. (2003). The conjunction effect: new evidence for robustness. American Journal of Psychology, 116(1), 15–34.Google Scholar

Strang, G. (1980). Linear Algebra and its Applications. Academic Press.

Strotz, R. H. (1956). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180.Google Scholar

Sun, R., Merril, E., & Peterson, T. (2001). From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 203–244.Google Scholar

Suppes, P., de Barros, A., & Oas, G. (2011). Neural phase oscillator representations of behavioral stimulus response models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, under review.Google Scholar

Sutton, R. & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.

Swinney, D., Love, T., Walenski, M., & Smith, E. (2007). Conceptual combination during sentence comprehension: evidence for compositional processes. Psychological Science, 18(5), 397–400.Google Scholar

Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical ReviewE, 61(4), 4194–4206.Google Scholar

Toronto, N. & Ventura, D. (2006). Learning quantum operators from quantum state pairs. In IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, pp. 2607–2612.

Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., & Bradburn, N. (1991). Measuring happiness in surveys: a test of the subtraction hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 255–266.Google Scholar

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press.

Townsend, J. T., Silva, K. M., Spencer-Smith, J., & Wenger, M. (2000). Exploring the relations between categorization and decision making with regard to realistic face stimuli. Pragmatics and Cognition, 8, 83–105.Google Scholar

Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, G. F. (1983). Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes. Cambridge University Press.

Trueblood, J. S. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability model for order effects on inference. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1518–1552.Google Scholar

Trueblood, J. S. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2012). A quantum probability model of causal reasoning. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, in press.

Tucci, R. R. (1995). Quantum Bayesian nets. International Journal of Modern Physics, B, 9, 295–337.Google Scholar

Tucci, R. R. (1997). Quantum Bayesian refs. arxivsquant-ph/9706039v1.

Tversky, A. & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102(2), 269–283.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1990). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309.Google Scholar

Van Rijsbergen, K. (2004). The Geometry of Infomation Retrieval. Cambridge University Press.

Ventura, D. & Martinez, T. (2000). Quantum associative memory. Information Sciences, 124, 273–296.Google Scholar

Vickers, D. (1979). Decision Processes in Perception. Academic Press.

Vitiello, G. (1995). Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. International Journal of Modern Physics, B, 9, 973–989.Google Scholar

Vitiello, G. (2001). My Double Unveiled. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Vitiello, G. (2009). Fractals and the Fock–Bargmann representation of coherent states. In QI2009, ed. P., Bruza, D., Sofge, W., Lawless, K., van Rijsbergen, & M., Klusch. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5494. Springer, 6–16.

von Foerster, H. (1950). Quantum mechanical theory of memory. In Cybernetics: Transactions of the Sixth Conference, ed. H., von Foerster. Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, pp. 112–145.

Von Neumann, J. (1932/1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory. Princeton University Press.

Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Von Sidow, M. (2011). The Bayesian logic of frequency–based conjunction fallacies. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 119–139.Google Scholar

Von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press.

Wakker, P. (2010). Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.

Wallsten, T., Budescu, D., & Zwick, R. (1992). Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science, 39, 176–190.Google Scholar

Wang, J., Song, D., Zh, , Hou, Y., & Bruza, P. (2010). Explanation of relevance judgement discrepancy with quantum interference. In Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes (QI 2010), ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, C., von Rijsbergen, D., Sofge, & D., Widdows. AAAI Press.

Wang, Z. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2012). Explaining and predicting question order effects using a quantum probability model. Under review (http:mypage.in.edu/~jbusemeyer/quantum/QuestOrdEff.pdf).

Ward, L. M. (2003). Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive processes. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(12), 553–559.Google Scholar

Wedell, D. H. & Moro, R. (2008). Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition, 107, 105–136.Google Scholar

Weiskopf, D. (2007). Compound nominals, context and compositionality. Synthese, 156, 161–204.Google Scholar

Widdows, D. (2004). Geometry and Meaning. CSLI Publications.

Widdows, D. & Bruza, P. (2007). Quantum information dynamics and open world science. In Quantum Interaction, ed. P., Bruza, W., Lawless, C., von Rijsbergen, & D., Sofge. AAAI Press.

Widdows, D. & Cohen, T. (2008). Semantic vector combinations and the synoptic gospels. In Proceedings of the Third Quantum Interaction Symposium, vol. 5494. Springer, pp. 251–264.

Wiles, J., Halford, G., Stewart, J., Humphreys, M., Bain, J., & Wilson, W. (1994). Tensor models: a creative basis for memory and analogical mapping. In Artificial Intelligence and Creativity, ed. T., Dartnall. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 145–159.

Winsberg, E. & Fine, A. (2003). Quantum life: interaction, entanglement, and separation. Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 80–97.Google Scholar

Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 435–453.Google Scholar

Woolf, N. J. & Hameroff, S. R. (2001). A quantum approach to visual consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 472–478.Google Scholar

Wyer, R. (1976). An investigation of the relations among probability estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 1–18.Google Scholar

Yukalov, V. I. & Sornette, D. (2008). Quantum decision theory as quantum theory of measurement. Physical LettersA, 372, 6867–6871.

Yukalov, V. I. & Sornette, D. (2009). Physics of risk and uncertainty in quantum decision making. European Physical JournalB, 71, 533–548.Google Scholar

Yukalov, V. I. & Sornette, D. (2010). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70, 283–328.Google Scholar

Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.Google Scholar

Zadrozny, W. (1994). From compositional to systematic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17(4), 329–342.Google Scholar

Zak, M. & Williams, C. P. (1998). Quantum neural nets. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 651–684.Google Scholar

Zuccon, G. & Azzopardi, L. (2010). Using the quantum probability ranking principle to rank interdependent documents. In Advances in Information Retrieval, 32nd European Conference on IR Research (ECIR 2010). Springer, pp. 357–369.

Zuccon, G., Azzopardi, L., & van Rijsbergen, C. (2009). Semantic spaces: measuring the distances between different subspaces. In Proceedings of the Third Quantum Interaction Symposium, vol. 5494. Springer, pp. 225–236.

Zuccon, G., Azzopardi, L., Hauff, C., & von Rijsbergen, C. (2010). Estimating interference in the QPRP for subtopic retrieval. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference of Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2004).