Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-m9wwp Total loading time: 0.231 Render date: 2021-07-29T23:19:54.594Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

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

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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D. & Weiss, D. (2002) Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86:B1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2007) Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology 55:196231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J. K. (1992) ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99:2244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi, Rao, S. & Vishton, P. M. (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283(5398):7780.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. 199204. 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

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *