The education of perception

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 265-284

  Goldstone, Robert L ^a   Landy, David H ^b   Son, Ji Y ^c  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Complex systems; Education; Mathematical reasoning; Perceptual learning; Scientific reasoning

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; PERCEPTION; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; SCIENCE; TEACHING; VISION;

COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; PERCEPTION; PREGNANCY; SCIENCE; TEACHING; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77957724045     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01055.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science, 29, 313-341.
2. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind exist in the physical world? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Abstraction as dynamic interpretation in perceptual symbol systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories (pp. 389-431), Carnegie Symposium Series. Majwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
5. Beech, A., Powell, T., McWilliam, J., & Claridge, G. (1989). Evidence of reduced "cognitive inhibition" in schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 109-116.
6. Bukach, C. M., Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2006). Beyond faces and modularity: The power of an expertise framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 159-166.
7. Cajori, F. (1928). A history of mathematical notations. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
8. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-29.
10. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 1-24.
11. Cheng, P. C.-H. (2002). Electrifying diagrams for learning: Principles for effective representational systems. Cognitive Science, 26(6), 685-736.
12. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
13. Clark, A. (2009). Supersizing the mind. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
14. DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols: The model model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 109-113.
15. Detterman, D. R. (1993). The case for prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction, (pp. 1-24) Westport, CT: Ablex.
16. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
17. Fahle, M., & Morgan, M. (1996). No transfer of perceptual learning between similar stimuli in the same retinal position. Current Biology, 6, 292-297.
18. Fahle, M., & Poggio, T. (2002). Perceptual learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Fine, I., & Jacobs, R. A. (2002). Comparing perceptual learning across tasks: A review. Journal of Vision, 2, 190-203.
20. Fodor, J. A. (1992). A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., & Bubb, D. (2009). Perceptual expertise: Bridging brain and behavior. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
22. Gibson, E. J. (1991). An odyssey in learning and perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Review, 62, 32-41.
24. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
25. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-39.
26. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424-436.
27. Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231-262.
28. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
29. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110.
30. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 465-516.
31. Goodman, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In N. Goodman (Ed.), Problems and projects, (pp. 437-447). New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
32. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455.
33. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., Roth, Z., Burke, T., Zucker, J., Saw, A., Aguero, K., & Wise, J. (2008). Perceptual learning and the technology of expertise: Studies in fraction learning and algebra. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 356-405.
34. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2009). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students' pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science. DOI: .
35. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007a). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 720-733.
36. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007b). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2033-2040.
37. Landy, D. H., Jones, M. N., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). How the appearance of an operator affects its formal precedence. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2109-2114). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
38. Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 41-75.
39. Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., & Schreibman, L. (1979). Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1236-1254.
40. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of the fraction concept. Cognitive Science, 29, 587-625.
41. McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46, 309-316.
42. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171-184.
43. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1963). GPS: A program that simulates human thought. In E. A. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.), Computers and thought (pp. 312-344). New York: McGraw-Hill.
44. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical enquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19, 113-126.
45. Notman, L. A., Sowden, P. T., & Özgen, E. (2005). The nature of learned categorical perception effects: A psychophysical approach. Cognition, 95, B1-B14.
46. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259-303). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Postman, L. (1955). Association theory and perceptual learning. Psychological Review, 62, 438-446.
48. Pylyshyn, Z. (2000). Situating vision in the world. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 197-207.
49. Quine, W. V. (1977). Natural kinds. In S. P. Schwartz (Ed.), Naming, necessity, and natural kinds (pp. 155-175). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
50. Rumelhart, D. E., & Zipser, D. (1985). Feature discovery by competitive learning. Cognitive Science, 9, 75-112.
51. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 154-219.
52. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
53. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
54. Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009a). Fostering general transfer with specific simulations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17, 1-42.
55. Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009b). Contextualization in perspective. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 51-89.
56. Sowden, P. T., Davies, I. R. L., & Roling, P. (2000). Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: A functional role for improvements in adults' visual sensitivity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 379-390.
57. Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a hostile world: The evolution of human cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
58. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97-159.
59. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Ed.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177-192). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
60. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.