A solution to the binding problem for compositional connectionism

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-04-03, Issue , 2004, Pages 31-34

  Hummel, John E ^a   Holyoak, Keith J ^a   Green, Collin ^a   Doumas, Leonidas A A ^a   Devnich, Derek ^a   Kittur, Aniket ^a   Kalar, Donald J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONJUNCTIVE CODING; CONNECTIONIST SYSTEM; HUMAN PERCEPTION; ROLE-FILLER BINDING; STORING BINDINGS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 32844460166     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 803-864.
2. Hinton, G. E. (Ed.) (1990). Connectionist symbol processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2000). The proper treatment of symbols in a connectionist architecture. In E. Dietrich and A. Markman (Eds.). Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 229-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8, 489-517.
5. Hummel, J. E. & Biederman, I. (1990). Dynamic binding: A basis for the representation of shape by neural networks. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 614-621). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
7. Hummel, J. E., & Choplin, J. M. (2000). Toward an integrated account of reflexive and reflective reasoning. In L. R. Gleitman and A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 232-237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
9. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2001). A process model of human transitive inference. In M. Gattis (Ed.). Spatial schemas in abstract thought (pp. 279-305). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hummel
10. J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.
11. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui and J. McClelland (Eds.). Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5, 49-79.
13. Kanerva, P. (1998). Sparse distributed memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Kubose, T. T., Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2002). The role of textual coherence in incremental analogical mapping. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 407-435.
15. Love, B. C. (1999). Utilizing time: Asynchronous binding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 11, 38-44.
16. Morrison, R.G., Krawczyk, D.C., Holyoak, K.J., Hummel, J.E., Chow, T.W., Miller, B.L., & Knowlton. (2004). A neurocomputational model of analogical reasoning and its breakdown in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 260-271.
17. Plate, T. (1991). Holographic reduced representations: Convolution algebra for compositional distributed representations. In J. Mylopoulos & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 30-35). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Shastri, L., & Ajjanagadde, V. (1993). From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist representation of rules, variables and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 417-494.
19. Singer, W. (2000). Response synchronization, a universal coding strategy for the definition of relations. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Smolensky, P. (1990). Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist systems. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 159-216.
21. Viskontas, I., Morrison, R. G., Holyoak, K., J., Hummel, J. E., & Knowlton, B. J. (2004). Relational integration, attention and reasoning in older adults. Manuscript in preparation, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA.
22. von der Malsburg, C, (1981). The correlation theory of brain function. Internal Report 81-2, Department of Neurobiology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry.