Similarity and rules united: Similarity- and rule-based processing in a single neural network

Cognitive Science

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 243-259

  Verguts, Tom ^a   Fias, Wim ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Learning processes; Neural networks; Rules; Similarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649170345     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01011.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allen, S. W., & Brooks, L. R. (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 3-19.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409-429.
3. Ashby, F. G., Ell, S. W., & Waldron, E. M. (2003). Procedural learning in perceptual categorization. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1114-1125.
4. Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., De Houwer, J., & Urushihara, K. (2006). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (1), 92-102.
5. Blaisdell, A. P., Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2006). Causal reasoning in rats. Science, 311, 1020-1022.
6. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
7. Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107-140.
8. Garlick, D. (2002). Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence: The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism. Psychological Review, 109, 116-136.
9. Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686-708.
10. Johansen, M. K., & Palmeri, T. J. (2002). Are there representational shifts during category learning? Cognitive Psychology, 45, 482-553.
11. Kemp, C., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning causal schemata. Proceedings of the twenty ninth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Nashville, TN.
12. Kurtz, K. J. (2007). The divergent auto-encoder (DIVA) model of category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 560-576.
13. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 720-733.
14. Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309-332.
15. Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Rao, B., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 283, 77-80.
16. McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465-472.
17. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1987). A distributed model of human learning and memory. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 170-215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 104-114.
19. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
20. Pearce, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (2001). Theories of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 111-139.
21. Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007). Causal cognition in human and nonhuman animals: A comparative, critical review. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 97-118.
22. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
23. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
24. Pothos, E. (2005). The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 1-49.
25. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Rougier, N. P., Noelle, D. C., Braver, T. S., Cohen, J. D., & O'Reilly, R. C. (2005). Prefrontal cortex and flexible cognitive control: Rules without symbols. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 7338-7343.
27. Rumelhart, D., Hinton, G., & Williams, R. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing (pp. 318-362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1987). On learning the past tense of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 170-215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Seidenberg, M. S., & Elman, J. (1999). Networks are not 'hidden rules'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 288-289.
30. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
31. Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Graded state machines-The representation of temporal contingencies in simple recurrent networks. Machine Learning, 7, 161-193.
32. Shanks, D. R. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291-309.
33. Shanks, D. R., & Darby, R. J. (1998). Feature-and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 405-415.
34. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
35. Smith, E. E. (2005). Rule and similarity as prototype concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 34-35.
36. Smith, E. E., Langston, C. L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16, 1-40.
37. Smith, E. E., Patalano, A. L., & Jonides, J. (1998). Alternative strategies of categorization. Cognition, 65, 167-196.
38. Smith, J. D., & Kemler, D. G. (1984). Overall similarity in adults' classification: The child in all of us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 137-159.
39. Smith, J. D., Tracy, J. I., & Murray, M. J. (1993). Depression and category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 331-346.
40. St. John, M. F., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Learning and applying contextual constraints in sentence comprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 217-257.
41. Tenenbaum, J. B. (2000). Rules and similarity in concept learning. In S. Solla, T. Leen & K. Muller (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 12 (pp. 59-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Vandorpe, S., De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2005). Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1047-1056.
43. Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Lexical and syntactic structures in a connectionist model of reading multi-digit numbers. Connection Science, 18, 265-285.