Silvia Rădulescu

Trace:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
aslin_newport [2016/02/13 10:43] – silviaaslin_newport [2016/02/13 11:03] (current) – silvia
Line 66: Line 66:
 two processes are in fact not distinct, but rather are different two processes are in fact not distinct, but rather are different
 outcomes of the same learning mechanism.** outcomes of the same learning mechanism.**
 +\\
 \\ \\
 //MyNote//:this is the most relevant question they ask in this study. //MyNote//:this is the most relevant question they ask in this study.
 +\\
 \\ \\
 For example, some stimulus dimensions are naturally more For example, some stimulus dimensions are naturally more
-salient than others. If stimuli are encoded in terms of their+salient than others. **If stimuli are encoded in terms of their
 salient dimensions rather than their specific details, then learners salient dimensions rather than their specific details, then learners
 will appear to generalize a rule by applying it to all stimuli will appear to generalize a rule by applying it to all stimuli
-that exhibit the same pattern on these salient dimensions.+that exhibit the same pattern on these salient dimensions.** 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +//MyNote//: what triggers encoding in terms of the salient dimensions that apply to all stimuli? 
 +\\
 \\ \\
 Although perceptual cues can serve as powerful constraints on Although perceptual cues can serve as powerful constraints on
Line 79: Line 85:
 are defined in the natural environment. are defined in the natural environment.
 \\ \\
-They acquire rules when patterns in the input indicate+**They acquire rules when patterns in the input indicate
 that several elements occur interchangeably in the same contexts, but acquire specific instances when the patterns that several elements occur interchangeably in the same contexts, but acquire specific instances when the patterns
-apply only to the individual elements. For example, Xu and+apply only to the individual elements.**  
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +//MyNote//: **CRUCIAL POINT**: what features of the input indicate that elements occur interchangeably? How much evidence is needed to this end for generalization to new elements to occur? 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +For example, Xu and
 Tenenbaum (2007) have shown that if children hear the word Tenenbaum (2007) have shown that if children hear the word
 “glim” applied to three different dogs, they will infer that “glim” applied to three different dogs, they will infer that
Line 115: Line 127:
 ended in four different syllables, only the AAB rule was ended in four different syllables, only the AAB rule was
 reliable. reliable.
 +\\
 +\\
 +//MyNote//: **QUESTION**: 
 +\\
 +Consider the set of 4 strings: //leledi, wiwije, jijili, dedewe//
 +\\
 +The following rules are equally reliable for all strings:
 +\\
 +1. AAB
 +\\
 +2. starts with 2x //le, wi, ji or de//
 +\\
 +3. ends in //di, je, li, we//
 +\\
 +Why do learners sometimes stick to the narrow generalizations [2,3] and sometimes make a wider generalization (category-based) [1]? 
 +\\
 +\\
 In recent work, we (Reeder, Newport, & Aslin, 2009, 2010) In recent work, we (Reeder, Newport, & Aslin, 2009, 2010)
 demonstrated a similar phenomenon—and described some of demonstrated a similar phenomenon—and described some of
Line 123: Line 152:
 B), much like subjects, verbs, and direct objects in sentences B), much like subjects, verbs, and direct objects in sentences
 such as “Bill ate lunch.” Depending on the experiment, the such as “Bill ate lunch.” Depending on the experiment, the
-input included sentences in which all of the words within a +input included sentences in which **all of the words within a 
-particular category occurred in the same contexts (e.g., words+particular category occurred in the same contexts** (e.g., words
 X1, X2, and X3 all occurred after any of the A words and before X1, X2, and X3 all occurred after any of the A words and before
-any of the B words), or the input included only sentences in+any of the B words), or **the input included only sentences in
 which the X words occurred in a limited number of overlapping which the X words occurred in a limited number of overlapping
-A-word or B-word contexts.+A-word or B-word contexts**.
 Adult learners are surprisingly sensitive to these differences. Adult learners are surprisingly sensitive to these differences.
-Our results showed that participants’ tendency to generalize+Our results showed that **//participants’ tendency to generalize
 depended on the precise degree of overlap among word depended on the precise degree of overlap among word
 contexts that they heard in the input, and also on the consistency contexts that they heard in the input, and also on the consistency
 with which a particular A or B word was missing from with which a particular A or B word was missing from
-possible X-word contexts. Adults generalize rules when the+possible X-word contexts//**.  
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +**Adults generalize rules when the
 shared contexts are largely the same, with only an occasional shared contexts are largely the same, with only an occasional
 absence of overlap (i.e., a “gap”). However, when the gaps are absence of overlap (i.e., a “gap”). However, when the gaps are
 persistent, adults judge them to be legitimate exceptions to the persistent, adults judge them to be legitimate exceptions to the
-rule and no longer generalize to these contexts. Thus, similar+rule and no longer generalize to these contexts.** 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +//MyNote//: this is a broad description of the observed results, but no explanation as to why this is the case, and no precision in describing: "largely", "persistent" -> What is large enough? When is persistent enough? Why? 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +Thus, similar
 to the results of Gerken (2006), our findings showed that it to the results of Gerken (2006), our findings showed that it
 was the consistency of context cues that led learners to generalize was the consistency of context cues that led learners to generalize