Trace: • five_things_brain_2014
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| aslin_newport [2016/02/13 10:45] – silvia | aslin_newport [2016/02/13 11:03] (current) – silvia | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 85: | 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? | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | 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 121: | 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 129: | 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: " | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | 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 | ||