Cognitive modeling: theoretical bases, methods, limitations

Objective: to review the field of cognitive-intelligent modeling and the field of knowledge visualization to identify unresolved issues, challenges and risks.

Methods: an overview of the field of cognitive modeling, which is viewed as a set of methods for the external representation of human cognitive structures and processes in the form of formal or ill-formalized cognitive maps. Some of the problems, risks, and cognitive distortions are described that arise in the conceptualization of knowledge and affect the validity, quality, reading, and understanding of cognitive models.

Results: the author shows the relationship of cognitive modeling with the concepts of ill-structured problems and wicked problems that describe a class of complex real-world situations. Five categories of cognitive modeling methods and ways of constructing collective cognitive maps were briefly described. The interrelation of cognitive modeling and knowledge management in terms of knowledge conceptualization were determined. Some risks of knowledge visualization were summarized, including excessive confidence in the visualization reliability; ambiguous interpretations due to multiple implicit meanings; dependence on the user’s previous experience and visual literacy. Unresolved issues of reliability, quality, reading, and understanding of cognitive models were outlined. A methodological gap was identified in the transition from an ill-formalized to a formal cognitive map. A shortage of review papers was marked to systematize and comprehend the results, experience and knowledge in the field of cognitive modeling.

Scientific novelty: the conducted review of the field of cognitive modeling allowed setting and justifying the research task of integrating cognitive modeling methods and knowledge visualization methods to reduce the risks arising from cognitive distortions in human intellectual activity.

Practical significance: the risks of cognitive distortion associated with any process of cognitive-intellectual modeling should be taken into account by both modelers and users. It is impossible to eliminate these risks completely, but they can be reduced to an acceptable extent through the combined use of cognitive modeling and knowledge visualization methods.

1. Abramova, N. A. (2006). Human factors in cognitive approach. Large-Scale Systems Control: proceedings, 16, 5–25. (In Russ.).

2. Abramova, N. A. (2007). On risk problem due to human factor in experimental methods and information technologies. Problemy Upravlenia, 2, 11–17. (In Russ.).

3. Abramova, N. A. (2019). On the prospects of modern paradigm of cognitive modeling. In 13th All-Russian meeting on management issues – 2019 (pp. 1858–1863). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25728/vspu.2019.1858

4. Abramova, N. A., Makarenko, D. I., & Portcev, R. Yu. (2014). Развитие методов визуального анализа при моделировании ситуаций на основе когнитивных карт. In 12th All-Russian meeting on management issues – 2014: collection of conference works (pp. 4084–4089). (In Russ.).

5. Abramova, N. A., Voronina, T. A., & Portcev, R. Yu. (2010). Ideas of cognitive graphics to support verification of cognitive maps. Large-scale Systems Control: proceedings, 30–1, 411–430. (In Russ.).

6. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2004). Using Causal mapping: individual and group; traditional and new. Systems modelling: Theory and practice, 127–145.

7. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2020). Strategic options development and analysis. In Systems approaches to making change: A practical guide (pp. 139–199). London: Springer London.

8. Avdeeva, A., & Kovriga, S. (2024). Cognitive maps for analyzing and modeling in the system of state strategic planning. Large-scale Systems Control, 111, 147–178. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25728/ubs.2024.111.6

9. Avdeeva, Z. K., & Kovriga, S. V. (2010). Heuristic method of conceptual structuring knowledge when formalizing ill-structured situations using cognitive maps. Large-scale Systems Control: proceedings, 31, 6–34. (In Russ.).

10. Avdeeva, Z. K., Kovriga, S. V., & Makarenko, D. I. (2006). Cognitive modeling for solving the tasks of managing ill-structured systems (situations). Large-scale Systems Control: proceedings, 16, 41–54. (In Russ.).

11. Axelrod, R. (Ed.). (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press.

12. Basole, R., Bendoly, E., Chandrasekaran, A., & Linderman, K. (2022). Visualization in operations management research. INFORMS Journal on Data Science, 1(2), 172–187. EDN: AINHKP. DOI: 10.1287/ijds.2021.0005

13. Beschi, S., Falessi, D., Golia, S., & Locoro, A. (2025). Characterizing Data Visualization Literacy for Standardization: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3559298

14. Bood, R. P. (2001). Images of Unfolding Diversification Projects. Charting Organizational Learning in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises from a Cognitive Perspective. Eburon, Delft.

15. Börner, K., Maltese, A., Balliet, R. N., & Heimlich, J. (2016). Investigating aspects of data visualization literacy using 20 information visualizations and 273 science museum visitors. Information Visualization, 15(3), 198–213.

16. Bresciani, S., & Eppler, M. J. (2009). The risks of visualization. In Identität und Vielfalt der Kommunikations-wissenschaft (pp. 165–178).

17. Bresciani, S., & Eppler, M. J. (2015). The pitfalls of visual representations: A review and classification of common errors made while designing and interpreting visualizations. Sage Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015611451

18. Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., & Finn, C. B. (2004). Visible thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. John Wiley & Sons.

19. Bünzli, F., & Eppler, M. J. (2024). How verbal text guides the interpretation of advertisement images: a predictive typology of verbal anchoring. Communication Theory, 34(4), 191–204.

20. Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational research, 36(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1

21. Eden, C. (1992). On the Nature of Cognitive Maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00664.x

22. Eden, C. (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European journal of operational research, 159(3), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00431-4

23. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). SODA–the principles. In J. Rosenhead, & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 21–41). John Wiley & Sons.

24. Eppler, M. J. (2006, July). Toward a pragmatic taxonomy of knowledge maps: Classification principles, sample typologies, and application examples. In Tenth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'06) (pp. 195–204). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2006.111

25. Eppler, M. J. (2013). What is an effective knowledge visualization? Insights from a review of seminal concepts. In F. T. Marchese, & E. Banissi (Eds.), Knowledge visualization currents: From text to art to culture (pp. 3–12). London: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4303-1_1

26. Eppler, M. J., & Burkhard, R. A. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: framework and cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710762756

27. Eppler, M. J., Burkhard, R. A. (2008). Knowledge visualization. In Knowledge management: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 781–793). IGI Global.

28. Felix, G., Nápoles, G., Falcon, R., Froelich, W., Vanhoof, K., & Bello, R. (2019). A review on methods and software for fuzzy cognitive maps. Artificial intelligence review, 52, 1707–1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9575-1

29. Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? where do we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00665.x

30. Geisler, E. (1999, august). Organizational change phenomena, managerial cognition, and archival measures: reconceptualization and new empirical evidence. Stuart Working Paper, 99–02.

31. Gorelova, G. (2021). Cognitive modeling of complex systems, state and prospects. In System Analysis in Engineering and Control, 25(1), 224–248. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18720/SPBPU/2/id21-66

32. Gorelova, G., & Gromakova, V. (2024). Cognitive modeling and neuroscience. In System Analysis in Engineering and Control, 27(2), 8–19. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18720/SPBPU/2/id24-141

33. Horn, R. E., & Weber, R. P. (2007). New tools for resolving wicked problems: Mess mapping and resolution mapping processes. Watertown, MA: Strategy Kinetics LLC.

34. Huang, O., Lee, P., & Nobre, C. (2025). From Reality to Recognition: Evaluating Visualization Analogies for Novice Chart Comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03385.

35. Huff, A. S. (ed.) (1990). Mapping strategic thought. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

36. Kahneman, D. (2003) Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice. Institute of Privatization and Management, pp. 540–592. (In Russ.).

37. Kapski, D., & Bogdanovich, S. (2024). Integration of cognitive analysis methods into the road infrastructure safety assessment system. Vestnik of Polotsk State University. Part B. Industry. Applied Sciences, 50(2), 36–49. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52928/2070-1616-2024-50-2-36-49

38. Khalin, Y. A., Katykhin, A I., Zinkin, S. A., & Shilin, A. A. (2022). Cognitive Modeling of Information Support for Game-Based Automated Learning. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Proceedings of the Southwest State University, 26(4), 117–131. (In Russ.).

39. Kontogianni, A. D., Papageorgiou, E. I., & Tourkolias, C. (2012). How do you perceive environmental change? Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping informing stakeholder analysis for environmental policy making and non-market valuation. Applied Soft Computing, 12(12), 3725–3735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.05.003

40. Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2

41. Kubryakova, E. S. (2001). On cognitive linguistics and the semantics of the term “cognitive”. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and cross-cultural communication, 1, 4–10. (In Russ.).

42. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x

43. Lawrence, C. (2025). Synthesising simulation quality: an algorithmic analysis of development practices across the simulation lifecycle. Journal of Simulation, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477778.2025.2506629

44. Lee, S., Kim, S. H., & Kwon, B. C. (2016). Vlat: Development of a visualization literacy assessment test. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23(1), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598920

45. Lengler, R., & Eppler, M. J. (2007, January). Towards a periodic table of visualization methods for management. In IASTED Proceedings of the Conference on Graphics and Visualization in Engineering (GVE 2007), Clearwater, Florida, USA (Vol. 7, No. 8, p. 31).

46. Locoro, A., Fisher, W. P., & Mari, L. (2021). Visual information literacy: Definition, construct modeling and assessment. IEEE access, 9, 71053–71071. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3078429

47. Mityakov, E. S., Karpukhina, N. N., Mityakov, S. N., & Ladynin, A. I. (2025). Cognitive modelling of economic development of industrial ecosystems. Russian Journal of Industrial Economics, 18(1), 63–77. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17073/2072-1633-2025-1-1383

48. Muntwiler, C., & Eppler, M. J. (2023). Improving decision making through visual knowledge calibration. Management Decision, 61(8), 2374–2390. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2022-1018

49. Nelson, H. J., Poels, G., Genero, M., & Piattini, M. (2012). A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Quality Journal, 20, 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9

50. Nicolini, D. (1999). Comparing methods for mapping organizational cognition. Organization studies, 20(5), 833–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069902000506

51. Orang, O., de Lima e Silva, P. C., & Guimarães, F. G. (2023). Time series forecasting using fuzzy cognitive maps: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(8), 7733–7794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10319-w

52. Papageorgiou, E. I., & Salmeron, J. L. (2013). A Review of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Research During the Last Decade. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2201727

53. Qu, H., Nordin, N. A., Tsong, T. B., & Feng, X. (2023). A bibliometrics and visual analysis of global publications for cognitive map. IEEE Access, 11, 52824–52839.

54. Quadri, G. J., Wang, A. Z., Wang, Z., Adorno, J., Rosen, P., & Szafir, D. A. (2024, May). Do you see what i see? a qualitative study eliciting high-level visualization comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–26).

55. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730

56. Roberts, F. S. (1986). Discrete mathematical models, with applications to social, biological, and environmental problems. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.).

57. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8

58. Sousa, I. V. (2022, October). To model or not to model? Assessing the value of ontology-driven conceptual modeling. In International Conference on Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing (pp. 364–369). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26886-1_25

59. Stach, W., Kurgan, L., & Pedrycz, W. (2005). A survey of fuzzy cognitive map learning methods. Issues in soft computing: theory and applications (pp. 71–84).

60. Swan, J. (1997). Using cognitive mapping in management research: decisions about technical innovation. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.0050

61. Tegarden, D. P., & Sheetz, S. D. (2003). Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition. Omega, 31(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(03)00018-5

62. Tenbergen, B., & Daun, M. (2024). Metrics to Estimate Model Comprehension: Towards a Reliable Quantification Framework. In ENASE (pp. 498–505). https://doi.org/10.5220/0012684800003687

63. Vasilyev V. I., Vulfin A. M., Kirillova A. D., & Kuchkarova N. V. (2021). Methodology for Assessing Current Threats and Vulnerabilities Based on Cognitive Modeling Technologies and Text Mining. Systems of Control, Communication and Security, 3, 110–134 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2410-9916-2021-3-110-134

64. Ware, C. (2019). Information visualization: perception for design. Morgan Kaufmann.

65. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.