Learning and transfer of identity-difference relationships by infants

Tyrrell, Donald J.; Zingaro, Maria; Minard, Kathleen L.

doi:10.1016/0163-6383(93)80027-6

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adult humans can extract statistics and rules from a variety of domains (Altmann, Diennes, & Goode, 1995; though perhaps not equally from all domains-see Conway & Christiansen, 2005), and infants can extract rules from visual stimuli that are presented co-temporally such that the relevant pattern can be apprehended in a single glance (Tyrell, Stauffer, & Snowman, 1991;Tyrell, Zingardo, & Minard, 1993). But extracting abstract structure from sequences that extend over time may be more challenging; presumably, this requires establishing memory traces of individual elements within and across trials (Oakes & Ribar, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infant Rule Learning Facilitated by Speech

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-Sequences of speech sounds play a central role in human cognitive life, and the principles that govern such sequences are crucial in determining the syntax and semantics of natural languages. Infants are capable of extracting both simple transitional probabilities and simple algebraic rules from sequences of speech, as demonstrated by studies using ABB grammars (la ta ta, gai mu mu, etc.). Here, we report a striking finding: Infants are better able to extract rules from sequences of nonspeechsuch as sequences of musical tones, animal sounds, or varying timbres-if they first hear those rules instantiated in sequences of speech.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infant Rule Learning Facilitated by Speech

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We first look for evidence that infants use abstract representations in MTS and NMTS tasks, and then ask what those representations might be. While we focus on MTS and NMTS, in the general discussion we also consider the representations that might underlie infants’ success on other tasks that probe repesentations of sameness and difference, including habituation to pairs of objects that are the same or to pairs of different objects (Addyman & Mareschal, 2010; Ferry et al, 2015; Tyrell et al, 1991), habituation to patterns specified by pairs of identical elements; e.g., ABA or ABB (Dawson & Gerken, 2009; Johnson et al, 2009; Marcus et al, 1999; Rabagliati et al, 2012; Saffran et al, 2007), and conditioned responses on pairs of identical elements (Hochmann, 2010; Hochmann et al, 2011; Kovács, 2014; Tyrell et al, 1993; Walker & Gopnik, 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infants’ representations of same and different in match- and non-match-to-sample

Hochmann

Mody

Carey

2016

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated the representations that underlie 14-month-old infants’ and adults’ success at match-to-sample (MTS) and non-match-to-sample (NMTS) tasks. In Experiment 1, 14-month-old infants were able to learn rules based on abstract representations of sameness and/or difference. When presented with one of eighteen sample stimuli (A) and a choice between a stimulus that was the same as the sample (A) and a different stimulus (B), infants learned to choose A in MTS and B in NMTS. In Experiments 2 and 3, we began to explore the nature of the representations at play in these paradigms. Experiment 2 confirmed that abstract representations are at play, as infants generalized the MTS and NMTS rules to stimuli unseen during familiarization. Experiment 2 also showed that infants tested in MTS learned to seek the stimulus that was the same as the sample, whereas infants tested in NMTS did not learn to seek the different stimulus, but instead learned to avoid the stimulus that was the same as the sample. Infants appeared to only use an abstract representation of the relation same in these experiments. Experiment 3 showed that adult participants, despite knowing the words “same” and “different”, also relied on representations of sameness in both MTS and NMTS in a paradigm modeled on that of Experiment 2. We conclude with a discussion of how young infants may possibly represent the abstract relation same.

show abstract

“…Such an analysis implies processes that go beyond simple learned associations and their generalization. But children do show evidence of identity learning at a very early age (Tyrrell et al 1993) and pigeons too show the capacity for identity learning .…”

Section: Assoc Iative Learning Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imitation in Animals: Evidence, Function, and Mechanisms

Zentall¹

2001

Cybernetics and Systems

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The terms social learning and social in£uence have been used descriptively and theoretically to characterize a broad range of animal behavior from physical antipredatory adaptations such as eye spots, which are totally under genetic control, to the human capacity for the exaggeration of individual characteristics, known as caricature, which are largely under cognitive control. In the present review, the various forms of social in£uence and social learning are identi¢ed and distinghished from imitation, a term that generally has been reserved for behavioral matching that cannot be accounted for using simpler speci¢cally predisposed, motivational, or learning mechanisms. It is suggested that much of the ambiguity in the literature concerning the various forms of social learning can be attributed to the distinction between the function of a behavior and the mechanisms responsible for its occurrence. Finally, the various mechanisms that have been proposed to account for imitative learning are presented and an attempt is made to evaluate them.When the term imitation is used by psychologists it typically implies more than the simple reproduction of behavior. In everyday language, imitation carries with it the implication of intentionality or purposiveness (see Mitchell, 1987). When humans use imitation to describe their own behavior, it implies that there is an understanding of the relation between that behavior and the behavior being modeled (or visually demonstrated). For example, when a child imitates the

show abstract

Learning and transfer of identity-difference relationships by infants

Cited by 23 publications

References 13 publications

Infant Rule Learning Facilitated by Speech

Infant Rule Learning Facilitated by Speech

Infants’ representations of same and different in match- and non-match-to-sample

Imitation in Animals: Evidence, Function, and Mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About