Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:53:36.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The missing link: Dynamic, modifiable representations in working memory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Graeme S. Halford ,
Steven Phillips  and
William H. Wilson
Graeme S. Halford
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia
Steven Phillips
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tsukuba, 305-8568. Japan
William H. Wilson
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. [email protected]://www.griffith.edu.au/school/psy/[email protected]://staff.aist.go.jp/[email protected]://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~billw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose that the missing link from nonhuman to human cognition lies with our ability to form, modify, and re-form dynamic bindings between internal representations of world-states. This capacity goes beyond dynamic feature binding in perception and involves a new conception of working memory. We propose two tests for structured knowledge that might alleviate the impasse in empirical research in nonhuman animal cognition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 137 - 138
Copyright
Copyright ©Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bessemer, D. W. & Stollnitz, F. (1971) Retention of discriminations and an analysis of learning set. In: Behavior of nonhuman primates, vol. 4, ed. Schrier, A. M. & Stollnitz, F., pp. 1–58. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S. (1993) Children's understanding: The development of mental models. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S. & Busby, J. (2007) Acquisition of structured knowledge without instruction: The relational schema induction paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 33:586–603.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H. & Phillips, S. (1998a) Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21(6):803–31; discussion831–64.Google Scholar
Harlow, H. F. (1949) The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review 56:51–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, K. J., Thompson, R. & Hayes, C. (1953) Discrimination learning sets in chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 46:99–104.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W. & Engle, R. W. (2004) The generality of working memory capacity: A latent variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(2):189–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberauer, K. (2005) Control of the contents of working memory – a comparison of two paradigms and two age groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31:714–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Oberauer, K., Suess, H.-M., Wilhelm, O. & Sander, N. (2007) Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning ability. In: Variation in working memory, ed. Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A. & Towse, J. N.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, J. N. & Grafman, J. (2003) Human prefrontal cortex: Processing and representational perspectives. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4(2):139–47.Google Scholar