Why Are There Failures of Systematicity? The Empirical Costs and Benefits of Inducing Universal Constructions.
Why Are There Failures of Systematicity? The Empirical Costs and Benefits of Inducing Universal Constructions.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01310
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Sugimoto F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Phillips S;Takeda Y;Sugimoto F
系统性是认知的一种属性，其中某些认知能力的能力意味着某些其他（结构相关的）认知能力的能力。该属性被认为源自表示/处理可认知实体的组成部分之间的共同结构关系的能力，然而，系统性可能并不总是在这种可接受的上下文中实现。理论上的挑战是解释为什么系统性无法在允许实现（例如通过归纳）共同结构（通用构造）的背景下实现。我们假设，当通过共同结构归纳所提供的潜在收益被学习任务作为独立的刺激-反应关联的直接好处所掩盖时，失败的原因之一就会出现。这一假设在一项实验中得到了检验，该实验需要学习两个系列的配对图，这些配对图涉及不同大小的产品（通用结构）或非产品（控制）：构成对的独特线索/目标元素（三到六个）的数量。每个系列都是按大小升序或降序学习的。只有产品系列的性能受顺序影响：在下降组中普遍获得了系统性，但仅在上升组中的大集合上获得了系统性，如产品条件中错误的显着顺序 × 大小交互作用所示，F(3, 87) = 3.38，p < 0.05。较小的地图更容易学习，而无需引入共同的产品结构，而使用较大的地图更容易观察到共同的产品结构：较大的地图为刺激维度之间的关系提供了更多证据，从而有助于发现共同结构。那么，新的挑战是解释刺激-反应图的系统可学习性，即二阶系统性。
Systematicity is a property of cognition where capacity for certain cognitive abilities implies capacity for certain other (structurally related) cognitive abilities. This property is thought to derive from a capacity to represent/process common structural relations between constituents of cognizable entities, however, systematicity may not always materialize in such admissible contexts. A theoretical challenge is to explain why systematicity fails to materialize in contexts that allow the realization (e.g., by induction) of common structure (universal construction). We hypothesize that one cause of failure arises when the potential gain afforded by induction of common structure is overshadowed by the immediate benefit of learning the task as independent stimulus-response associations. This hypothesis was tested in an experiment that required learning two series of pair maps that involved products (universal construction), or non-products (control) of varied size: the number of unique cue/target elements (three to six) constituting pairs. Each series was learned in either ascending or descending order of size. Only performance on the product series was affected by order: systematicity was obtained universally in the descend group, but only on large sets in the ascend group, as revealed by the significant order × size interaction for errors in the product condition, F(3, 87) = 3.38, p < 0.05. Smaller maps are more easily learned without inducing the common product structure, which is more readily observable with larger maps: larger maps provide more evidence for relationships between stimulus dimensions that facilitate the discovery of the common structure. The new challenge, then, is to explain the systematic learnability of stimulus-response maps, i.e., second-order systematicity.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
HALFORD, GS;WILSON, WH
通讯作者：
WILSON, WH
影响因子：
0.900
作者：
E. S. Starnovskaya;M. I. Savchuk;Ya. K. Shtaitz;D. S. Kopchuk;I. S. Kovalev;D. E. Pavlyuk;A. F. Khasanov;G. V. Zyryanov;O. N. Chupakhin
通讯作者：
O. N. Chupakhin
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Phillips, S
通讯作者：
Phillips, S
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Marchiori D;Warglien M
通讯作者：
Warglien M
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Hadley, RF;Hayward, MB
通讯作者：
Hayward, MB