Multiple Proposal Memory in Observational Word Learning
Multiple Proposal Memory in Observational Word Learning
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
J. Köhne;J. Trueswell;L. Gleitman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Köhne;J. Trueswell;L. Gleitman
观察性词汇学习中的多重建议记忆Judith Koehne (judith.koehne@uni-bamberg.de) Otto-Friedrich-Universitat Bamberg Markusplatz 3,96045 Bamberg John C. Trueswell （trueswel@psych.upenn.edu) Lila R. Gleitman （gleitman@psych.upenn.edu）认知科学研究所，宾夕法尼亚大学，3401 Walnut Street, Suite 400A, Philadelphia， PA, USA Abstract hne & Crocker, 2011）。然而，在这些研究中被忽视的一个重要方面是每个学习者在个人学习路径中所起的作用。因此，我们不清楚同一个人是否真的存储了一个单词的多种可能性，如果是这样，又是在什么情况下。与这个问题相关的一个因素是语言新手遇到和重新遇到潜在指称物的顺序（Medina et al., 2011）。我们在两个实验中评估了学习者利用观察性词汇学习情境的方式，采用了心理调查跨情境词汇学习的标准范式。重要的是，我们既考虑了学习者的个人学习路径，也考虑了潜在指示物的暴露和再暴露的顺序。此外，我们还指出，不同研究的不同结果可能是由于实验过程的实施。特别地，我们比较了一个过程，在这个过程中，参与者在每个学习试验（实验1）中做出选择，被动的看和听学习阶段（实验2）。一个新单词和一个视觉参照物在时间上同时出现，无疑有助于确立一个单词的意义。然而，人们不太了解的是，学习者如何精确地跟踪这些共同出现的频率。观察性学习可能依赖于一个或几个高信息量的暴露（提出但验证），也可能是由以更渐进和平行的方式收集证据（多假设跟踪）驱动的。我们在两个实验中评估了这两个假设，发现学习者能够记住一个新单词的多个假设。然而，这种记忆强烈依赖于每个学习者的个人学习路径（即他们之前考虑过的含义），并受到潜在指称物呈现顺序的影响。我们主张对多重提议记忆的解释，而不是多重共现记忆。关键词：观察性词汇学习；记忆;跨情境分析；多假设跟踪；建议——但要核查;个体学习路径观察性词汇学习虽然观察世界可以非常直接地获得新单词的含义（快速映射，Carey, 1978），但两种输入来源之间的关系往往过于模糊，无法立即做出有希望的猜测。学习者可以通过各种方式解决这个问题：在每个学习实例中，她可以存储多个可能的解决方案，然后通过交叉过程在几个学习情况中确定最佳解决方案，这一假设通常被理解为跨情景单词学习概念的基础（Quine, 1960; Yu & Smith, 2007）。或者，她可以立即猜测这个词的意思，然后等待确认或拒绝。在这种情况下，学习者对没有猜出来的选项没有记忆，但最大限度地记住了一路上尝试的不同猜测，直到找到正确的那个。虽然Medina， Snedeker, Trueswell, & Gleitman（2011）和Trueswell， Medina, Ha- fri, & Gleitman（2013）报告的实验支持后一种观点（提议-但-验证），但其他研究表明，学习者能够在每个学习实例中提取多个假设(Vouloumanos, 2008; Vouloumanos & Werker, 2009； Koe-基于共现频率的学习Trueswell等人（2013）在一系列实验中检查了学习者在观察学习情境中的记忆。在学习阶段，每次试验向参与者展示两个或五个视觉参照物和一个包含一个新名词的口语句子。任务是在每个实验中（通过鼠标点击）选择学习者认为与新名词相匹配的指代物。Trueswell等人发现，即使学习情境大大简化，但仍然模棱两可（只有两个可能的参考物），参与者后来也没有对他们选择的参考物以外的任何参考物表现出记忆的迹象。具体来说，当学习者再次遇到一个名词（例如，mipen）时，如果他在之前遇到mipen时做出了错误的选择（例如，如果他选择了door而不是正确的bear），他有机会选择正确的指称（例如，bear）。如果他记得那个未被选择的（但正确的）指称物（bear）与mipen同时出现，他就可以毫不含糊地认为它在当前情况下是正确的。有趣的是，其他研究表明，学习者能够准确区分一个名词的不同替代词的共现频率。Vouloumanos (2008)
Multiple Proposal Memory in Observational Word Learning Judith Koehne (judith.koehne@uni-bamberg.de) Otto-Friedrich-Universitat Bamberg Markusplatz 3, 96045 Bamberg John C. Trueswell (trueswel@psych.upenn.edu) Lila R. Gleitman (gleitman@psych.upenn.edu) Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 400A, Philadelphia, PA, USA Abstract hne & Crocker, 2011). An important aspect that is ignored in these studies, however, is the role that each learner’s in- dividual learning path plays. It is therefore unclear whether one and the same person in fact stores multiple possibilities for a word and if this is the case, under which circum- stances. One factor that has been shown to be relevant to this question is the order in which the language novice has encountered and re-encountered potential referents (Medina et al., 2011). We evaluate the way learners exploit observational word learning situations within two experiments, employing the standard paradigm of psychologically investigating cross- situational word learning. Importantly, we consider both the learner’s individual learning path and the order of exposures and re-exposures of potential referents. We moreover ad- dress the possibility that the different outcomes in different studies may be due to the implemented experimental proce- dure. In particular, we compare a procedure, in which par- ticipants make a choice on each learning trial (Exp. 1) to a passive look-and-listen learning phase (Exp. 2). The temporal co-occurrence of a novel word and a visual ref- erent undoubtedly facilitates establishing the meaning of a word. It is less understood, however, how precisely learners can keep track of the frequencies of these co-occurrences across situations. Observational learning may rely on one or few highly informative exposures (propose-but-verify) or it may be driven by the collection of evidence in a more gradual and parallel manner (multiple-hypotheses tracking). We evaluated both hypotheses within two experiments and found that learners were able to keep track of more than one hy- pothesis for a novel word. However, this memory was strongly dependent on each learner’s individual learning path (i.e., which meanings they had considered before) and influ- enced by the order of presentation of potential referents. We argue for an account of a multiple-proposal memory rather than a multiple co-occurrence memory. Keywords: observational word learning; memory; cross- situational analysis; multiple hypotheses tracking; propose- but-verify; individual learning paths Observational Word Learning While observing the world can be a very direct path to the meaning of a novel word (fast mapping, Carey, 1978), the relationship between both sources of input is often too am- biguous to make a promising immediate guess. The learner could solve this problem in various ways: On each learning instance, she could store multiple possible solutions and then identify the best solution across several learning in- stances through an intersective process, an assumption that is commonly understood to underlie the idea of cross- situational word learning (Quine, 1960; Yu & Smith, 2007). Alternatively, she could make an immediate guess about the word’s meaning and wait for confirmation or rejection. In this case, the learner would have no memory for the alterna- tives that were not guessed, but maximally a memory for the different guesses tried along the way until the correct one is identified. While experiments reported in Medina, Snedeker, Trueswell, & Gleitman (2011) and Trueswell, Medina, Ha- fri, & Gleitman (2013) support this latter idea (propose-but- verify account), other studies indicate that learners are able to extract multiple hypotheses on each learning instance (Vouloumanos, 2008; Vouloumanos & Werker, 2009; Koe- Learning based on Co-occurrence Frequencies Trueswell et al. (2013) examined learners’ memory in ob- servational learning situations in a series of experiments. During the learning phase, participants were presented two or five visual referents and a spoken sentence containing one novel noun per trial. The task was to choose that refer- ent (by mouse click) in each trial that the learner believed to match with the novel noun. Trueswell et al. found that even if the learning situations were greatly simplified but still ambiguous (just two possible referents), participants later showed no sign of memory for any referent other than the one they had selected. Specifically, when a learner re- encountered a noun (e.g., mipen), he was at chance at select- ing the correct referent (e.g., bear) if he had made the wrong choice the previous time he had encountered mipen (e.g., if he had chosen door rather than the correct bear). Had he remembered that the unselected (but correct) referent (bear) had co-occurred with mipen, he could have unambiguously identified it as correct in the current situation. Interestingly, other studies indicate that learners are able to precisely differentiate the co-occurrence frequencies of different alternatives for one noun. Vouloumanos (2008)