Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:30:00.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing structured representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Leonidas A. A. Doumas  and
Lindsey E. Richland
Leonidas A. A. Doumas
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
Lindsey E. Richland
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-5500. [email protected]@uci.eduhttp://www.gse.uci.edu/richland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leech et al.'s model proposes representing relations as primed transformations rather than as structured representations (explicit representations of relations and their roles dynamically bound to fillers). However, this renders the model unable to explain several developmental trends (including relational integration and all changes not attributable to growth in relational knowledge). We suggest looking to an alternative computational model that learns structured representations from examples.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 384 - 385
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

Andrews, G. & Halford, G. S. (2002) A cognitive complexity metric applied to cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology 45:153–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doumas, L. A. A. & Hummel, J. E. (2005a) A symbolic-connectionist model of relation discovery. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Bucciarelli, M., pp. 606–11. LEA.Google Scholar
Doumas, L. A. A. & Hummel, J. E. (2007) A computational account of the development of the generalization of shape information. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. McNamara, D. & Trafton, G.. pp. 221–26. LEA.Google Scholar
Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E. & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008) A theory of the discovery and prediction of relational concepts. Psychological Review 115:1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U., Leevers, H., Pressley, S. & Wheelwright, S. (1998) Causal reasoning about pairs of relations and analogical reasoning in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 16:553–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N. & Billman, D. O. (1984) Development of analogical problem-solving skill. Child Development 55:2042–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hummel, J. E. & Holyoak, K. J. (1997) Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review 104(3): 427–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, J. E. & Holyoak, K. J. (2003) A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review 110:220–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rattermann, M. J. & Gentner, D. (1998a) More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: Children's performance on a causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development 13:453–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G. & Holyoak, K. J. (2006) Children's development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94:249–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed