Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T23:50:49.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Marc T. Tomlinson  and
Bradley C. Love
Marc T. Tomlinson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0187. marctomlinson@mail.utexas.eduhttp://love.psy.utexas.edu/~mtomlinsonbrad_love@mail.utexas.eduhttp://love.psy.utexas.edu/~love
Bradley C. Love
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0187. marctomlinson@mail.utexas.eduhttp://love.psy.utexas.edu/~mtomlinsonbrad_love@mail.utexas.eduhttp://love.psy.utexas.edu/~love
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Penn et al. argue that the complexity of relational learning is beyond animals. We discuss a model that demonstrates relational learning need not involve complex processes. Novel stimuli are compared to previous experiences stored in memory. As learning shifts attention from featural to relational cues, the comparison process becomes more analogical in nature, successfully accounting for performance across species and development.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 150 - 151
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

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5(2):121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155–70.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Rattermann, M. J. (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In: Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development, ed. Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P., pp. 225–77. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D. & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006) Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440(7088):1204–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, B. M. & Wasserman, E. A. (2004) Time-course of control by specific stimulus features and relational cues during same-different discrimination training. Learning and Behavior 32(2):183–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D. & Weiss, D. (2002) Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86:B15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2007) Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology 55:196–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (1992) ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99:22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi, Rao, S. & Vishton, P. M. (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283(5398):77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25(4):431–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, M. T. & Love, B. C. (2006) From pigeons to humans: Grounding relational learning in concrete exemplars. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ed. Gil, Y. & Mooney, R. J., pp. 199–204. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Young, M. E., Ellefson, M. R. & Wasserman, E. A. (2003) Toward a theory of variability discrimination: Finding differences. Behavioral Processes 62:145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. E. & Wasserman, E. A. (1997) Entropy detection by pigeons: Response to mixed visual displays after same-different discrimination training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 23:157–70.Google ScholarPubMed