Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Ga naar:
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
BSL Shop
Inloggen

Welkom bij Erasmus MC & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Erasmus MC heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

» Andere revante producten voor Erasmus MC studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van Erasmus MC, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van Erasmus MC.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2009 | Original Article

Connectionist models of artificial grammar learning: what type of knowledge is acquired?

Auteurs: Annette Kinder, Anja Lotz

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2009

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Two experiments are presented that test the predictions of two associative learning models of Artificial Grammar Learning. The two models are the simple recurrent network (SRN) and the competitive chunking (CC) model. The two experiments investigate acquisition of different types of knowledge in this task: knowledge of frequency and novelty of stimulus fragments (Experiment 1) and knowledge of letter positions, of small fragments, and of large fragments up to entire strings (Experiment 2). The results show that participants acquired all types of knowledge. Simulation studies demonstrate that the CC model explains the acquisition of all types of fragment knowledge but fails to account for the acquisition of positional knowledge. The SRN model, by contrast, accounts for the entire pattern of results found in the two experiments.
vorige artikel Planning paths to multiple targets: memory involvement and planning heuristics in spatial problem solving
volgende artikel Intermodal event files: integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
There are a few differences between the version of the CC model desribed by Boucher and Dienes and the original model proposed by Servan-Schreiber and Anderson (1990). These are documented in detail by the former authors and do not seem to change the model’s predictions in any fundamental way.
 
2
It is common practice to use a higher number of training set repetitions in simulations of connectionist models than in the actual experiments. This is done for technical reasons in order to minimize catastrophic interference.
 
3
Note that adding an explicit marker for beginnings and endings in the CCM would make no difference because positions are already coded explicitly. Thus, coding the initial bigram JP (which is in fact is coded as “JP on position 1/2”) as AJP would not change anything in the network.
 
Literatuur
Berthouze, L., & Tijsseling, A. (2006). A neural model for context-dependent sequence learning. Neural Processing Letters, 23, 27–45.CrossRef
Boucher, L., & Dienes, Z. (2003). Two ways of learning associations. Cognitive Science, 27, 807–842.CrossRef
Cleeremans, A. (1993). Mechanisms of implicit learning: connectionist models of sequence processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 235–253.CrossRef
Dienes, Z. (1993). Computational models of implicit learning. In D. C. Berry & Z. Dienes (Eds.), Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 81–112). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dienes, Z., Altmann, G. T. M., & Gao, S. (1999). Mapping across domains without feedback: A neural network model of transfer of implicit knowledge. Cognitive Science, 23, 53–82.CrossRef
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.CrossRef
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Johnstone, T., & Shanks, D. R. (2001). Abstractionist and processing accounts of implicit learning. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 61–112.PubMedCrossRef
Kinder, A. (2000). The knowledge acquired during artificial grammar learning: Testing the predictions of two connectionist models. Psychological Research, 63, 95–105.PubMedCrossRef
Kinder, A. (2008). Models of artificial grammar learning: The case of overlapping chunks (Submitted).
Kinder, A., & Assmann, A. (2000). Learning artificial grammars: No evidence for the acquisition of rules. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1321–1332.
Kinder, A., & Shanks, D. R. (2001). Amnesia and the declarative/nondeclarative distinction: A recurrent network model of classification, recognition, and repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 648–669.PubMedCrossRef
Kinder, A., Shanks, D. R., Cock, J., & Tunney, R. J. (2003). Recollection, Fluency, and the Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Artificial Grammar Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 551–565.CrossRef
Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1994). The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 79–91.
Knowlton, B. J., & Squire, L. R. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 169–181.PubMedCrossRef
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meulemans, T., & Van der Linden, M. (1997). Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1007–1028.CrossRef
Perruchet, P., & Pacteau, C. (1990). Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 264–275.CrossRef
Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: Two approaches, one phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 233–238.PubMedCrossRef
Perruchet, P., & Vinter, A. (1998). PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 246–263.CrossRef
Pothos, E. M. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28, 1–49.
Reber, A. S. (1969). Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 115–119.CrossRef
Reber, R., & Perruchet, P. (2003). The use of control groups in artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A56, 97–115.
Redington, M., & Chater, N. (1996). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: A reevaluation. Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 123–138.CrossRef
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 592–608.CrossRef
Shanks, D. R., Johnstone, T., & Staggs, L. (1997). Abstraction processes in artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(A), 216–252.CrossRef
Vokey, J. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1992). Salience of item knowledge in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 328–344.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Connectionist models of artificial grammar learning: what type of knowledge is acquired?
Auteurs
Annette Kinder
Anja Lotz
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0177-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2009

Action planning with two-handed tools

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Remember judgments and the constraint of direct experience

  • Original Article

Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets

  • Original Article

Planning paths to multiple targets: memory involvement and planning heuristics in spatial problem solving

  • Original Article

Representations underlying skill in the discrete sequence production task: effect of hand used and hand position

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Do top and bottom contribute to object perception more than left and right?

  • Original Article