Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Evolution of attention in learning
- 2 The arguments of associations
- 3 The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning
- 4 Within-compound associations: models and data
- 5 Associative modulation of US processing: implications for understanding of habituation
- 6 Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning
- 7 Computer simulation of the cerebellum
- 8 The operant/respondent distinction: a computational neural-network analysis
- Index
- References
1 - Evolution of attention in learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Evolution of attention in learning
- 2 The arguments of associations
- 3 The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning
- 4 Within-compound associations: models and data
- 5 Associative modulation of US processing: implications for understanding of habituation
- 6 Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning
- 7 Computer simulation of the cerebellum
- 8 The operant/respondent distinction: a computational neural-network analysis
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
A variety of phenomena in associative learning suggest that people and some animals are able to learn how to allocate attention across cues. Models of attentional learning are motivated by the need to account for these phenomena. We start with a different, more general motivation for learners, namely, the need to learn quickly. Using simulated evolution, with adaptive fitness measured as overall accuracy during a lifetime of learning, we show that evolution converges to architectures that incorporate attentional learning. We describe the specific training environments that encourage this evolutionary trajectory and we describe how we assess attentional learning in the evolved learners.
Birds do it, bees do it; maybe ordinary fleas do it. They all learn from experience. But why is learning so ubiquitous? Why not just be born already knowing how to behave? That would save a lot of time and a lot of error. Presumably, we are born ignorant either because evolution is unfinished or because what we need to know is too complex to be fully coded in the genome. Either way, it seems that evolution has cleverly found a mechanism for dealing with the birth of ignorance; a mechanism that we call learning.
Of course, it may be that learning is merely something that organisms do for fun in their spare time. Perhaps there is not much adaptive value in learning, and little cost, and therefore no selective pressure on the mechanisms of learning.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Computational Models of Conditioning , pp. 10 - 52Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(2007). Evolving artificial neural networks in Pavlovian environments. In and , eds., Neural-Network Models of Cognition: Biobehavioral Foundations. The Netherlands: North-Holland Elsevier, pp. 58–80.Google Scholar
(2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 170–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2003). The behavioral ecology of a cognitive constraint: limited attention. Behavioral Ecology, 14(2), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2001). Contextual dependencies in predictive learning. Memory, 9(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2004). Causes and consequences of limited attention. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 63, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2007). Integrating learning and inference in multi-agent systems using cognitive context. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4442, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
, , & (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1985). A comparison of intradimensional and extradimensional shift learning in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 10, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1987). Using fast weights to deblur old memories. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
(1982). Selective costs and benefits in the evolution of learning. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 12, 65–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In and , eds., Punishment. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
(1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996a). Base rates in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 3–26.Google ScholarPubMed
(1996b). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science, 8, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Toward a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Attentional theory is a viable explanation of the inverse base rate effect: a reply to Winman, Wennerholm, and Juslin (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1396–1400.Google Scholar
(2009). Highlighting: a canonical experiment. In , ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 51. Illinois: Elsevier, pp. 153–185.Google Scholar
& (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 636–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 830–845.Google ScholarPubMed
& (2009). Beyond non-utilization: irrelevant cues can gate learning in probabilistic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(2), 530–550.Google Scholar
(1989). Latent Inhibition and Conditioned Attention Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1989). Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: the sequential learning problem. In , ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 24. New York: Academic Press, pp. 109–165.Google Scholar
& (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2003). A fitness cost of learning ability in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1532), 2465–2469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1990). Exploring adaptive agency i: theory and methods for simulating evolution of learning. In , , , and , eds., Proceedings of the 1990 Connectionist Models Summer School. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
& (1988). The comparator hypothesis: a response rule for the expression of associations. In , ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, vol. 22. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 51–92.Google Scholar
& (2006). A context-specific latent inhibition effect in a human conditioned suppression task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1003–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1994). Comparing models of rule-based classification learning: a replication of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Memory and Cognition, 22, 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2008). The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1636), 803–808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In and , eds., Classical Conditioning ii: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
& (2006). Context switch effects on acquisition and extinction in human predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 461–474.Google ScholarPubMed
, & (1986). Learning internal representations by back-propagating errors. In and , eds., Parallel Distributed Processing, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Latent Inhibition and Its Neural Substrates: From Animal Experiments to Schizophrenia. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
, & (1996). Latent inhibition: a neural network approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 321–349.Google ScholarPubMed
, & (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75(13). (Whole No. 517.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1968). A methodological analysis of shift paradigms in human discrimination learning. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1991). Exploring adaptive agency ii: simulating the evolution of adaptive learning. In and , eds., From Animals to Animats: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 306–315.Google Scholar
& (2003). Context-gated knowledge partitioning in categorization. Learning and Memory, 29(4), 663–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 6
- Cited by