Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples

  • Marc T. Tomlinson (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
Gentner, D. (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7:155–70.
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.
Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D. & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006) Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440(7088):1204–207.
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.
Hauser, M. D. & Weiss, D. (2002) Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86:B1522.
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2007) Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology 55:196231.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992) ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99:2244.
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi, Rao, S. & Vishton, P. M. (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283(5398):7780.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25(4):431–67.
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.
Young, M. E., Ellefson, M. R. & Wasserman, E. A. (2003) Toward a theory of variability discrimination: Finding differences. Behavioral Processes 62:145–55.
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.

Monkey see, monkey do: Learning relations through concrete examples

  • Marc T. Tomlinson (a1) and Bradley C. Love (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.