Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T08:46:23.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Structured models of semantic cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2008

Charles Kemp
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213ckemp@cmu.eduhttp://www.charleskemp.com
Joshua B. Tenenbaum
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139. jbt@mit.eduhttp://web.mit.edu/cocosci/josh.html

Abstract

Rogers & McClelland (R&M) criticize models that rely on structured representations such as categories, taxonomic hierarchies, and schemata, but we suggest that structured models can account for many of the phenomena that they describe. Structured approaches and parallel distributed processing (PDP) approaches operate at different levels of analysis, and may ultimately be compatible, but structured models seem more likely to offer immediate insight into many of the issues that R&M discuss.

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

Anderson, J. R. (1991) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review 98(3):409–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. (1985) A question of levels: Comment on McClelland and Rumelhart. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114(2):189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E. & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008) A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review 115(1):143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28:371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keil, F. C. (1979) Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, C., Goodman, N. D. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007a) Learning causal schemata. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, J. G., pp. 389–94. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Goodman, N. D. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008) Learning and using relational theories. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 20, ed. Platt, J. C., Koller, D., Singer, Y. & Roweis, S., pp. 753–60. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2004) Learning domain structures. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Forbus, K., Gentner, D. & Regier, T., pp. 672–78. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Shafto, P., Berke, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007b) Combining causal and similarity-based reasoning. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, ed Schölkopf, B., Platt, J. & Hoffman, T., pp 681–88. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2003) Theory-based induction. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D., pp. 658–63. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (2001) The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1985) Levels indeed! A response to Broadbent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114(2):193–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, L. A., Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006) Nonsense and sensibility: Discovering unseen possibilities. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Sun, R. & Miyake, N., pp. 744–49. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Baraff, E., Coley, J. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005) Context-sensitive induction. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Bucciarelli, M., pp. 20032008. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Mansinghka, V., Gordon, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006) Learning cross-cutting systems of categories. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society ed. Sun, R. & Miyake, N., pp. 2146–51. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. & Vogel, A. (2004) A connectionist model of the development of transitivity. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Forbus, K., Gentner, D. & Regier, T., pp. 1243–48. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1988) On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(1):1–23; discussion 2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B. (2000) Rules and similarity in concept learning. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 12, ed. Solla, S. A., Leen, T. K. & Muller, K. R., pp. 5965. MIT Press.Google Scholar