Online research in philosophy

Stanovich & West's target article undervalues the power of implicit learning (particularly reinforcement learning). Implicit learning may allow the learning of more rational responses–and sometimes even generalisation of knowledge–in contexts where explicit, abstract knowledge proves only of limited value, such as for economic decision-making. Four other comments are made.

This article proposes a unified framework for understanding creative problem solving, namely, the explicit–implicit interaction theory. This new theory of creative problem solving constitutes an attempt at providing a more unified explanation of relevant phenomena (in part by reinterpreting/integrating various fragmentary existing theories of incubation and insight). The explicit–implicit interaction theory relies mainly on 5 basic principles, namely, (a) the coexistence of and the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge, (b) the simultaneous involvement of implicit and explicit processes in most tasks, (c) the redundant representation of explicit and implicit knowledge, (d) the integration of the results of explicit and implicit processing, and (e) the iterative (and possibly bidirectional) processing. A computational implementation of the theory is developed based on the CLARION cognitive architecture and applied to the simulation of relevant human data. This work represents an initial step in the development of process-based theories of creativity encompassing incubation, insight, and various other related..

This paper explicates the interaction between the implicit and explicit learning processes in skill acquisition, contrary to the common tendency in the literature of studying each type of learning in isolation. It highlights the interaction between the two types of processes and its various effects on learning, including the synergy effect. This work advocates an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit processes; moreover, it embodies a bottom-up approach (first learning implicit knowledge and then explicit knowledge on its basis) towards skill learning. The paper shows that this approach accounts for various effects in the process control task data, in addition to accounting for other data reported elsewhere.

This article explicates the interaction between implicit and explicit processes in skill learning, in contrast to the tendency of researchers to study each type in isolation. It highlights various effects of the interaction on learning (including synergy effects). The authors argue for an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit processes. Moreover, they argue for a bottom-up approach (first learning implicit knowledge and then explicit knowledge) in the integrated model. A variety of qualitative data can be accounted for by the approach. A computational model, CLARION, is then used to simulate a range of quantitative data. The results demonstrate the plausibility of the model, which provides a new perspective on skill learning.

Distinguishing explicit from implicit knowledge on the basis of the active representation of certain propositional attitudes fails to provide an explanation for dissociations in learning performance under implicit and explicit conditions. This suggests an account of implicit and explicit knowledge grounded in the presence of multiple learning mechanisms, and multiple brain systems more generally. A rough outline of a connectionist account of this kind is provided.

Implicit processes are thought to be relatively fast, inaccessible, holistic, and imprecise, while explicit processes are slow, accessible and precise (e.g., Reber, 1989, Sun 2002). This dichotomy is closely related to some other well-known dichotomies including symbolic versus subsymbolic processing (Rumelhart et al., 1986), conceptual versus subconceptual processing (Smolensky, 1988), and conscious versus unconscious processing (Jacoby et al., 1994). This dichotomy has been justified by extensive studies of implicit and explicit learning, implicit and explicit memory, and implicit versus explicit metacognition (Reder, 1996).

Implicit processes are thought to be relatively fast, inaccessible, holistic, and imprecise, while explicit processes are slow, accessible and precise (e.g., Reber, 1989, Sun 2002). This dichotomy is closely related to some other wellknown dichotomies including symbolic versus subsymbolic processing (Rumelhart et al., 1986), conceptual versus subconceptual processing (Smolensky, 1988), and conscious versus unconscious processing (Jacoby et al., 1994). This dichotomy has been justified by extensive studies of implicit and explicit learning, implicit and explicit memory, and implicit versus explicit metacognition (Reder, 1996).

This paper explores the interaction between implicit and explicit processes during skill learning, in terms of top-down learning (that is, learning that goes from explicit to implicit knowledge) versus bottom-up learning (that is, learning that goes from implicit to explicit knowledge). Instead of studying each type of knowledge (implicit or explicit) in isolation, we stress the interaction between the two types, especially in terms of one type giving rise to the other, and its effects on learning. The work presents an integrated model of skill learning that takes into account both implicit and explicit processes and both top-down and bottom-up learning. We examine and simulate human data in the Tower of Hanoi task. The paper shows how the quantitative data in this task may be captured using either top-down or bottom-up approaches, although top-down learning is a more apt explanation of the human data currently available. These results illustrate the two different directions of learning (top-down versus bottom-up), and thereby provide a new perspective on skill learning. Ó 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

We present a theoretical account of implicit and explicit learning in terms of ACT-R, an integrated architecture of human cognition as a computational supplement to Dienes & Perner's conceptual analysis of knowledge. Explicit learning is explained in ACT-R by the acquisition of new symbolic knowledge, whereas implicit learning amounts to statistically adjusting subsymbolic quantities associated with that knowledge. We discuss the common foundation of a set of models that are able to explain data gathered in several signature paradigms of implicit learning.