Object‐Label‐Order Effect When Learning From an Inconsistent Source

Abstract

Learning in natural environments is often characterized by a degree of inconsistency from an input. These inconsistencies occur, for example, when learning from more than one source, or when the presence of environmental noise distorts incoming information; as a result, the task faced by the learner becomes ambiguous. In this study, we investigate how learners handle such situations. We focus on the setting where a learner receives and processes a sequence of utterances to master associations between objects and their labels, where the source is inconsistent by design: It uses both “correct” and “incorrect” object‐label pairings. We hypothesize that depending on the order of presentation, the result of the learning may be different. To this end, we consider two types of symbolic learning procedures: the Object‐Label (OL) and the Label‐Object (LO) process. In the OL process, the learner is first exposed to the object, and then the label. In the LO process, this order is reversed. We perform experiments with human subjects, and also construct a computational model that is based on a nonlinear stochastic reinforcement learning algorithm. It is observed experimentally that OL learners are generally better at processing inconsistent input compared to LO learners. We show that the patterns observed in the learning experiments can be reproduced in the simulations if the model includes (a) an ability to regularize the input (and also to do the opposite, i.e., undermatch) and (b) an ability to take account of implicit negative evidence (i.e., interactions among different objects/labels). The model suggests that while both types of learners utilize implicit negative evidence in a similar way, there is a difference in regularization patterns: OL learners regularize the input, whereas LO learners undermatch. As a result, OL learners are able to form a more consistent system of image‐utterance associations, despite the ambiguous learning task.

Co‐Occurrence, Extension, and Social Salience: The Emergence of Indexicality in an Artificial Language

“…Along similar, though not identical, lines, Ma and Komarova (2019) directly compared Object–Label and Label–Object learning (which differ in terms of what is presented first) and found that they had different consequences: Learners who were exposed to the object rather than the label (i.e., Object–Label learning) were better at learning from an inconsistent source. They argued that Object–Label learning and Label–Object learning may be computationally different, with the former involving more frequency boosting (resulting in overmatching) and the latter involving more undermatching.…”