Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 73–90 | Cite as

Connectionism, classical cognitive science and experimental psychology

  • Mike Oaksford
  • Nick Chater
  • Keith Stenning
Article

Abstract

Classical symbolic computational models of cognition are at variance with the empirical findings in the cognitive psychology of memory and inference. Standard symbolic computers are well suited to remembering arbitrary lists of symbols and performing logical inferences. In contrast, human performance on such tasks is extremely limited. Standard models donot easily capture content addressable memory or context sensitive defeasible inference, which are natural and effortless for people. We argue that Connectionism provides a more natural framework in which to model this behaviour. In addition to capturing the gross human performance profile, Connectionist systems seem well suited to accounting for the systematic patterns of errors observed in the human data. We take these arguments to counter Fodor and Pylyshyn's (1988) recent claim that Connectionism is, in principle, irrelevant to psychology.

Keywords

Connectionism Classical cognitive science Experimental psychology Memory Inference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1976).The Psychology of Memory, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: a Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bobrow, D. G. and Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins (eds)Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. N. Y.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bower, G. H. (1970). Analysis of a mnemonic device.American Scientist, 58, 496–510.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R. and Franks, J. J. (1972). Sentence memory: a constructive versus interpretive approach.Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D. and Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D. and Johnson, M. K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W. G. Chase (ed.)Visual Information Processing, pp. 389–392. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D. and McCarrell, N. S. (1975). A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: some thoughts about what it means to comprehend. In W. B. Weimar and D. S. Palermo (eds)Cognition and Symbolic Processes, pp. 189–229. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Chater, N. and Oaksford, M. R. (in press). Autonomy, implementation and cognitive architecture: a reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn.Cognition.Google Scholar
  10. Cheng, P. W. and Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schema.Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–416.Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E. and Oliver, L. M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches in training deductive reasoning.Cognitive Psychology, 18, 293–328.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H. and Haviland, S. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.)Discourse Production and Comprehension, Volume 1, pp. 1–40. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A. M. and Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8, 240–247.Google Scholar
  14. Craik, F. I. M. and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.Google Scholar
  15. de Kleer, J. (1986). Extending the ATMS.Artificial Intelligence, 28, 163–196.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, J. S. B. T. (1982).The Psychology of Deductive Reasoning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G. and Garrett, M. F. (1974)The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Fodor, J. A. (1975).The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Crowell.Google Scholar
  19. Fodor, J. A. (1980). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology.Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 3, 63–109.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. A. (1983).Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. A. (1987).Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis.Cognition, 28, 3–71.Google Scholar
  23. Griggs, R. A. and Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task.British Journal of Psychology, 73, 407–420.Google Scholar
  24. Harman, G. (1986).Change in View. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hinton, G. E. (1981). Implementing semantic networks in parallel hardware. Chapter 6 inParallel Models of Associative Memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Hinton, G. E. (1987). Learning distributed representations of concepts. InProceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed Representations. InParallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition, Volume 1:Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Israel, D. J. (1980). What's wrong with non-monotonic logic? InProceedings of AAAI-80, 1980, pp. 99–101.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson-Laird, P. N. and Wason, P. C. (1970). A theoretical analysis of insight into a reasoning task.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 134–148.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson-Laird, P. N. and Steedman, M. J. (1978). The psychology of syllogisms.Cognitive Psychology, 10, 64–99.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1986). Reasoning without logic. Chapter 1 in T. Myers, K. Brown and B. McGonigle (eds)Reasoning and Discourse Processes, pp. 13–51. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of research programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds)Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lindsay, P. H. and Norman, D. A. (1977).Human Information Processing, 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lorayne, H. and Lucas, J. (1974).The Memory Book. New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar
  36. Luria, A. R. (1976).Cognitive Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds)Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription: a form of non-monotonic reasoning.Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. and Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. InParallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition, Volume 1:Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. McDermott, D. (1986). A Critique of Pure Reason. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Yale University, June, 1986.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, G. A. and Selfridge, J. A. (1950). Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material.American Journal of Psychology, 63, 176–185.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two, or, some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63, 81–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Minsky, M. (1975). Frame-system theory. In R. Schank and B. L. Nash-Webber (eds)Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, Mass, June 10–13, 1975.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, G. L. and Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review, 92, 289–316.Google Scholar
  45. Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.Google Scholar
  46. Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. (1976). On the role of active memory processes in perception and cognition. In C. N. Cofer (ed.)The Structure of Human Memory. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  47. Norman, D. A. and Bobrow, D. G. (1979). Descriptions: an intermediate stage in memory retrieval.Cognitive Psychology, 11, 107–123.Google Scholar
  48. Oaksford, M. R. (1988). Cognition and Inquiry: The Pragmatics of Conditional Reasoning. PhD Thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  49. Oaksford, M. R. and Stenning, K. (1988). Process and Pragmatics in Reasoning with Conditionals containing Negated Constituents. Presented to the International Conference on Thinking, University of Aberdeen, August, 1988.Google Scholar
  50. Peterson, L. R. and Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual items.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar
  51. Pollard, P. and Evans, J. S. B. T. (1981). The effects of prior belief in reasoning: an associational interpretation.British Journal of Psychology, 72, 73–82.Google Scholar
  52. Putnam, H. (1974). The ‘corroboration’ of theories. In P. A. Schilpp (ed.)The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Volume I, pp. 221–240. La Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  53. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: a critique of mental imagery.Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1–24.Google Scholar
  54. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984).Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Montgomery, Vermont: Bradford.Google Scholar
  55. Reiter, R. (1985). On reasoning by default. In R. Brachman and H. Levesque (eds)Readings in Knowledge Representation. Los Altos, California: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  56. Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L. and Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. Chapter 14 in J. L. McClelland, and D. E. Rumelhart (eds)Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition, Volume 2:Psychological and Biological Processes, pp. 7–57. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for word, sentences and pictures.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.Google Scholar
  58. Stenning, K., Shepherd, M. and Levy, J. (1988). On the construction of representations for individuals from descriptions in text.Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 129–164.Google Scholar
  59. Stenning, K. and Levy, J. (1988) Knowledge-rich solutions to the binding problem: a simulation of some human computational mechanisms.Knowledge Based Systems, 1, 143–152.Google Scholar
  60. Wason, P. C. (1966) Reasoning. In Foss, B. (ed.)New Horizons in Psychology. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  61. Wason, P. C. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972).Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wason, P. C. and Shapiro, D. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 23, 63–71.Google Scholar
  63. Young, M. N. and Gibson, W. B. (1962).How to Develop an Exceptional Memory. Chilton: Radnor, Pa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Oaksford
    • 1
  • Nick Chater
    • 1
  • Keith Stenning
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations