A dynamic neural field model of word learning

Theoretical and Computational Models of Word Learning: Trends in Psychology and Artificial Intelligence

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1-27

  Samuelson, Larissa K ^a,b   Spencer, John P ^a,b   Jenkins, Gavin W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b Delta Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; CURRICULA; NEURAL NETWORKS;

DYNAMIC NEURAL FIELD MODEL; DYNAMIC NEURAL FIELDS; INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR; OBJECT PERCEPTION; PROCESS-BASED; RECENT RESEARCHES; UNIFIED THEORY; WORKING MEMORY;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84877350504     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2973-8.ch001     Document Type: Chapter

References (83)

1. Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29, 832-843. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.832
2. Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: comprehension and production. Journal of Child Language, 6, 183-200. doi:10.1017/ S0305000900002245
3. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000139
4. Bloom, P. (2002). Mindreading, communication and the learning of names for things. Mind & Language, 17, 37-54. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00188
5. Booth, A. E., & Waxman, S. R. (2008). Taking stock as theories of word learning take shape. Developmental Science, 11, 185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00664.x
6. Booth, A. E., Waxman, S. R., & Huang, Y. T. (2005). Conceptual information permeates word learning in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 41, 491-505. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.491
7. Braun, M. (1994). Differential equations and their applications. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
8. Buss, A., & Spencer, J. P. (2008). The emergence of rule-use: A dynamic neural field model of the DCCS. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Capone, N. C., & McGregor, K. K. (2006). The effect of semantic representation on toddlers' word retrieval. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 48, 1468-1480. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/102)
10. Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511554377
11. Colunga, E. (2008). Flexibility and variability: Essential to human cognition and the study of human cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 174. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.012
12. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2005). From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review, 112, 347-382. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.347
13. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Knowledge embedded in process: The self-organization of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science, 11, 195. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00665.x
14. Erlhagen, W., & Schöner G. (2002). Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychological Review, 109, 545-572. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.545
15. Faubel, C., & Schöner G. (2008). Learning to recognize objects on the fly: A neurally based dynamic field approach. Neural Networks, 21, 562. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2008.03.007
16. Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Smith, L. B. (2004). Shape and the first hundred nouns. Child Development, 74, 1098-1114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00728.x
17. Gliozzi, V., Mayor, J., Hu, J., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Labels as features (not names) for infant categorization: A neurocomputational approach. Cognitive Science, 33, 709-738. doi:10.1111/ j.1551-6709.2009.01026.x
18. Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: Rate, content, and the vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language, 17, 171-183. doi:10.1017/S0305000900013167
19. Goldin-Meadow, S., Seligman, M. E. P., & Gelman, R. (1976). Language in the two-year old. Cognition, 4, 189-202. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(76)90004-4
20. Gopnik, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Bayesian networks: Bayesian learning and cognitive development. Developmental Science, 10, 281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00584.x
21. Gupta, P. (2008). The role of computational models in investigating typical and pathological behaviors. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 211-225. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1082885
22. Horst, J. S., McMurray, B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2006). Online processing is essential for learning: Understanding fast mapping and word learning in a dynamic connectionist architecture. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 339-344). LEA.
23. Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2008). Fast mapping but poor retention by 24-month-old infants. Infancy, 13, 128-157. doi:10.1080/15250000701795598
24. Horst, J. S., Scott, E. J., & Pollard, J. A. (2010). The role of competition in word learning via referent selection. Developmental Science, 13, 706-713. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00926.x
25. Jenkins, G. W., & Samuelson, L. K., & Spencer. (2011). Come down from the clouds: Grounding Bayesian insights in developmental and behavioral processes. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 204-206. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11000331
26. Jenkins, G. W., Samuelson, L. K., Smith, J. R., & Spencer, J. P. (2012). Non-Bayesian noun generalization in 3-5-year-old children: Probing the role of prior knowledge in the suspicious coincidence effect. Unpublished.
27. Johnson, J., Spencer, J. P., & Schöner G. (2008). Moving to higher ground: The dynamic field theory and the dynamics of visual cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 227. doi:10.1016/j. newideapsych.2007.07.007
28. Johnson, J. S., Spencer, J. P., Luck, S. J., & Schöner G. (2009). A dynamic neural field model of visual working memory and change detection. Psychological Science, 20(5), 568-577. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02329.x
29. Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 169-231. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X10003134
30. Jones, S. (2003). Late talkers show no shape bias in a novel name extension task. Developmental Science, 6, 477. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00304
31. Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (1993). The place of perception in children's concepts. Cognitive Development, 8, 113-139. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(93)90008-S
32. Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (2005). Object name learning and object perception: A deficit in late talkers. Journal of Child Language, 32, 223-240. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006646
33. Kelso, J. A. S., Scholz, J. P., & Schöner G. (1988). Dynamics govern switching among patterns of coordination in biological movement. Physics Letters. [Part A], 1, 8-12. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(88)90537-3
34. Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x
35. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 999, 22-44. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.22
36. Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(88)90014-7
37. Mandel, D., Jusczyk, P. W., & Pisoni, D. B. (1995). Infants' recognition of the sound patterns of their own names. Psychological Science, 6, 314. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00517.x
38. McMurray, B. (2007). Defusing the childhood vocabulary explosion. Science, 317, 631. doi:10.1126/science.1144073
39. McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Using your lexicon at two timescales: Investigating the interplay of word learning and recognition. Unpublished.
40. McMurray, B., Xhao, L., Kucker, S., & Samuelson, L. (2012). Probing the limits of associative learning: Generalization and the statistics of words and referents. In Gogate, L., & Hollich, G. (Eds.), Theoretical and Computational Models of Word Learning: Trends in Psychology and Artificial Intelligence. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
41. McMurray, B. A., Horst, J. S., Toscano, J., & Samuelson, L. K. (2009). Connectionist learning and dynamic processing: Symbiotic developmental mechanisms. In Spencer, J., Thomas, M., & McClelland, J. (Eds.), Toward a Unified Theory of Development: Connectionism and Dynamic Systems Theory Reconsidered (pp. 218-249). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195300598.003.0011
42. Mervis, C. B., & Bertrand, J. (1995). Early lexical acquisition and the vocabulary spurt: A response to Goldfield & Reznick. Journal of Child Language, 22, 461-468. doi:10.1017/ S0305000900009880
43. Nosofsky, R. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 87. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.87
44. Oviatt, S. L. (1980). The emerging ability to comprehend language: An experimental approach. Child Development, 51, 97-106. doi:10.2307/1129595
45. Oviatt, S. L. (1982). Inferring what words mean: Early development in infants' comprehension of common object names. Child Development, 53, 274-277. doi:10.2307/1129662
46. Pereira, A. (2009). Developmental changes in visual object recognition between 18 and 24 months of age. Developmental Science, 12, 67-83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00747.x
47. Perry, L. K., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). The shape of the vocabulary predicts the shape of the bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 345. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2011.00345
48. Perry, L. K., Samuelson, L. K., Malloy, L. M., & Schiffer, R. N. (2010). Learn locally, think globally: Exemplar variability supports higher-order generalization and word learning. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1897-1902. doi:10.1177/0956797610389189
49. Regier, T. (2005). The emergence of words: Attentional learning in form and meaning. Cognitive Science, 29, 819-865. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog0000_31
50. Roy, D. K., & Pentland, A. P. (2002). Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 113-146.
51. Samuelson, L., & Bloom, P. (2008). The shape of controversy: What counts as an explanation of development? Introduction to the special section. Developmental Science, 11, 183. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-7687.2007.00663.x
52. Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15-20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1016-1037. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.1016
53. Samuelson, L. K., & Horst, J. S. (2007). Dynamic noun generalization: Moment-to-moment interactions shape children's naming biases. Infancy, 11, 97-110. doi:10.1207/s15327078in1101_5
54. Samuelson, L. K., & Horst, J. S. (2008). Confronting complexity: Insights from the details of behavior over multiple timescales. Developmental Science, 11, 209-215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00667.x
55. Samuelson, L. K., Horst, J. S., Schutte, A. R., & Dobbertin, B. N. (2008). Rigid thinking about deformables: Do children sometimes overgeneralize the shape bias? Journal of Child Language, 35, 559. doi:10.1017/S0305000908008672
56. Samuelson, L. K., & Schiffer, R. N. (2012). Statistics and the shape bias: It matters what statistics you get and when you get them. Unpublished Manuscript.
57. Samuelson, L. K., Schutte, A. R., & Horst, J. S. (2009). The dynamic nature of knowledge: Insights from a dynamic field model of children's novel noun generalization. Cognition, 110, 322-345. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.017
58. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category organization and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73, 1-33. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00034-7
59. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (2000). Children's attention to rigid and deformable shape in naming and non-naming tasks. Child Development, 71, 1555-1570. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00248
60. Samuelson, L. K., Smith, L. B., Perry, L. K., & Spencer, J. P. (2011). Grounding word learning in space. PLoS ONE, 6(12). doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0028095
61. Schöner G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1988). Dynamic pattern generation in behavioral and neural systems. Science, 239, 1513-1520. doi:10.1126/ science.3281253
62. Schutte, A. R., Spencer, J. P., & Schöner G. (2003). Testing the dynamic field theory: Working memory for locations becomes more spatially precise over development. Child Development, 74, 1393-1417. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00614
63. Shultz, T. R. (2007). The Bayesian revolution approaches psychological development. Developmental Science, 10, 357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00588.x
64. Smith, L. B. (2003). Learning to recognize objects. Psychological Science, 14, 244-250. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.03439
65. Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. K. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13, 13-19. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00403
66. Smith, L. B., & Pereira, A. F. (2009). Shape, action, symbolic play and words: Overlapping loops of cause and consequence in developmental process. In Johnson, S. (Ed.), Neo-Constructivism: The New Science of Cognitive Development (pp. 109-131). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195331059.003.0006
67. Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. (2006). An attentional learning account of the shape bias: Reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005). Developmental Psychology, 42, 1339-1343. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1339
68. Smith, L. B., Yoshida, H., Colunga, E., Jones, S., & Drake, C. (2003). Whose DAM account? Attentional learning explains Booth and Waxman. Cognition, 87, 209-213. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00236-6
69. Spencer, J. P., Dineva, E., & Schöner G. (2009). Moving toward a unified theory while valuing the importance of the initial conditions. In Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S. C., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Toward a Unified Theory of Development: Connectionism and Dynamic Systems Theory Re-Considered (pp. 354-372). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acpr of:oso/9780195300598.003.0018
70. Spencer, J. P., Perone, S., & Johnson, J. S. (2009). The dynamic field theory and embodied cognitive dynamics. In Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Toward a Unified Theory of Development: Connectionism and Dynamic Systems Theory Re-Considered (pp. 86-118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acpro f:oso/9780195300598.003.0005
71. Spencer, J. P., Perone, S., Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). Non-Bayesian noun generalization from a capacity-limited system. Psychological Science, 22, 1049-1057. doi:10.1177/0956797611413934
72. Spencer, J. P., Simmering, V. R., Schutte, A. R., & Schöner G. (2007). What does theoretical neuroscience have to offer the study of behavioral development? Insights from a dynamic field theory of spatial cognition. In Plumert, J., & Spencer, J. P. (Eds.), The Emerging Spatial Mind (pp. 320-361). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195189223.003.0014
73. Thelen, E., Shiner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1-86. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01003910
74. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Xu, F. (2007). Sensitivity to sampling in Bayesian word learning. Developmental Science, 10, 288-297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00590.x
76. Xu, F., Dewar, K., & Perfors, A. (2009). Induction, overhypotheses, and the shape bias: Some arguments and evidence for rational constructivism. In Hood, B. M., & Santos, L. (Eds.), The Origins of Object Knowledge (pp. 263-284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199216895.003.0011
77. Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245-272. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245
78. Samuelson, L. K., & Faubel, C. (2012). Grounded word learning. In J. Spencer & G. Schöner (Eds.), Dynamic Thinking-A Primer on Dynamic Field Theory. Unpublished.
79. Samuelson, L. K., Schutte, A. R., & Horst, J. S. (2009). The dynamic nature of knowledge: Insights from a dynamic field model of children's novel noun generalization. Cognition, 110, 322-345. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.017
80. Samuelson, L. K., Smith, L. B., Perry, L. K., & Spencer, J. P. (2011). Grounding word learning in space. PLoS ONE, 6(12). doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0028095
81. Schöner G., & Spencer, J. P. (Eds.). (2012). Dynamic thinking-A primer on dynamic field theory. Unpublished.
82. Spencer, J. P., Perone, S., & Johnson, J. S. (2009). The dynamic field theory and embodied cognitive dynamics. In Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Toward a Unified Theory of Development: Connectionism and Dynamic Systems Theory Re-Considered (pp. 86-118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acpro f:oso/9780195300598.003.0005
83. Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (2009). Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory re-considered. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o so/9780195300598.001.0001