Graduate studies at Western
Cognitive Science 36 (4):726-739 (2012)
|Abstract||Cross-situational learning has recently gained attention as a plausible candidate for the mechanism that underlies the learning of word-meaning mappings. In a recent study, Blythe and colleagues have studied how many trials are theoretically required to learn a human-sized lexicon using cross-situational learning. They show that the level of referential uncertainty exposed to learners could be relatively large. However, one of the assumptions they made in designing their mathematical model is questionable. Although they rightfully assumed that words are distributed according to Zipf's law, they applied a uniform distribution of meanings. In this article, Zipf's law is also applied to the distribution of meanings, and it is shown that under this condition, cross-situational learning can only be plausible when referential uncertainty is sufficiently small. It is concluded that cross-situational learning is a plausible learning mechanism but needs to be guided by heuristics that aid word learners with reducing referential uncertainty|
|Keywords||Zipf's law Lexicon learning time Referential uncertainty Cross‐situational learning Word learning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kenny Smith, Andrew D. M. Smith & Richard A. Blythe (2011). Cross-Situational Learning: An Experimental Study of Word-Learning Mechanisms. Cognitive Science 35 (3):480-498.
Sumarga H. Suanda & Laura L. Namy (2012). Detailed Behavioral Analysis as a Window Into Cross-Situational Word Learning. Cognitive Science 36 (3):545-559.
Jose Fernando Fontanari & Angelo Cangelosi (2011). Cross-Situational and Supervised Learning in the Emergence of Communication. Interaction Studies 12 (1):119-133.
Paul Vogt & Andrew D. M. Smith (2005). Learning Colour Words is Slow: A Cross-Situational Learning Account. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):509-510.
George Kachergis, Chen Yu & Richard M. Shiffrin (2013). Actively Learning Object Names Across Ambiguous Situations. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):200-213.
Afsaneh Fazly, Afra Alishahi & Suzanne Stevenson (2010). A Probabilistic Computational Model of Cross-Situational Word Learning. Cognitive Science 34 (6):1017-1063.
Stanka A. Fitneva & Morten H. Christiansen (2011). Looking in the Wrong Direction Correlates With More Accurate Word Learning. Cognitive Science 35 (2):367-380.
Jennifer Culbertson & Paul Smolensky (2012). A Bayesian Model of Biases in Artificial Language Learning: The Case of a Word‐Order Universal. Cognitive Science 36 (8):1468-1498.
Rosemary J. Stevenson (1998). Training Quality and Learning Goals: Towards Effective Learning for All. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):426-427.
Richard Edwards, Gert Biesta & Mary Thorpe (eds.) (2009). Rethinking Contexts for Learning and Teaching. Routledge.
John L. Lyons (2010). Autonomous Cross-Cultural Hardship Travel (Acht) as a Medium for Growth, Learning, and a Deepened Sense of Self. World Futures 66 (3 & 4):286 – 302.
Martin Možina, Jure Žabkar, Trevor Bench-Capon & Ivan Bratko (2005). Argument Based Machine Learning Applied to Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):53-73.
Bryan R. Gibson, Timothy T. Rogers & Xiaojin Zhu (2013). Human Semi-Supervised Learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):132-172.
Knud Illeris (ed.) (2009). Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists -- In Their Own Words. Routledge.
Sean Fulop & Nick Chater (2013). Editors' Introduction: Why Formal Learning Theory Matters for Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):3-12.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-24
Total downloads2 ( #246,859 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?