11 found
Sort by:
  1. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (2010). Relational Knowledge: The Foundation of Higher Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (11):497-505.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips & William H. Wilson (2008). The Missing Link: Dynamic, Modifiable Representations in Working Memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):137-138.
    We propose that the missing link from nonhuman to human cognition lies with our ability to form, modify, and re-form dynamic bindings between internal representations of world-states. This capacity goes beyond dynamic feature binding in perception and involves a new conception of working memory. We propose two tests for structured knowledge that might alleviate the impasse in empirical research in nonhuman animal cognition.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Steven Phillips (2008). Abstract Analogies Not Primed by Relations Learned as Object Transformations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (4):393-394.
    Analogy by priming learned transformations of (causally) related objects fails to explain an important class of inference involving abstract source-target relations. This class of analogical inference extends to ad hoc relationships, precluding the possibility of having learned them as object transformations. Rather, objects may be placed into momentarily corresponding, symbolic, source-target relationships just to complete an analogy.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips, William H. Wilson, Julie McCredden, Glenda Andrews, Damian Birney, Rosemary Baker & Bain & D. John (2007). Relational Processing is Fundamental to the Central Executive and It is Limited to Four Variables. In Naoyuki Osaka, Robert H. Logie & Mark D'Esposito (eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Graeme Sydney Halford, Steven Phillips, William H. Wilson, Julie McCredden, Glenda Andrews, Damian Birney, Rosemary Baker & John Duncan Bain (2007). Relational Processing is Fundamental to the Central Executive and It is Limited to Four Variables. In Naoyuki Osaka, Robert H. Logie & Mark D'Esposito (eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory. Oup Oxford.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Steven Phillips (2007). Kenneth Aizawa, The Systematicity Arguments, Studies in Brain and Mind. Minds and Machines 17 (3):357-360.
  7. Steven Phillips (2002). Neo-Associativism: Limited Learning Transfer Without Binding Symbol Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3):350-351.
    Perruchet & Vinter claim that with the additional capacity to determine whether two arbitrary stimuli are the same or different, their association-based PARSER model is sufficient to account for learning transfer. This claim overstates the generalization capacity of perceptual versus nonperceptual (symbolic) relational processes. An example shows why some types of learning transfer also require the capacity to bind arbitrary representations to nonperceptual relational symbols.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Graeme S. Halford, Steven Phillips & William H. Wilson (2001). Processing Capacity Limits Are Not Explained by Storage Limits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):123-124.
    Cowan's review shows that a short-term memory limit of four items is consistent with a wide range of phenomena in the field. However, he does not explain that limit, whereas an existing theory does offer an explanation for capacity limitations. Furthermore, processing capacity limits cannot be reduced to storage limits as Cowan claims.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Steven Phillips (1999). Systematic Minds, Unsystematic Models: Learning Transfer in Humans and Networks. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 9 (3):383-398.
    Minds are said to be systematic: the capacity to entertain certain thoughts confers to other related thoughts. Although an important property of human cognition, its implication for cognitive architecture has been less than clear. In part, the uncertainty is due to lack of precise accounts on the degree to which cognition is systematic. However, a recent study on learning transfer provides one clear example. This study is used here to compare transfer in humans and feedforward networks. Simulations and analysis show, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Processing Capacity Defined by Relational Complexity: Implications for Comparative, Developmental, and Cognitive Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):803-831.
    Working memory limits are best defined in terms of the complexity of the relations that can be processed in parallel. Complexity is defined as the number of related dimensions or sources of variation. A unary relation has one argument and one source of variation; its argument can be instantiated in only one way at a time. A binary relation has two arguments, two sources of variation, and two instantiations, and so on. Dimensionality is related to the number of chunks, because (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Relational Complexity Metric is Effective When Assessments Are Based on Actual Cognitive Processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):848-860.
    The core issue of our target article concerns how relational complexity should be assessed. We propose that assessments must be based on actual cognitive processes used in performing each step of a task. Complexity comparisons are important for the orderly interpretation of research findings. The links between relational complexity theory and several other formulations, as well as its implications for neural functioning, connectionist models, the roles of knowledge, and individual and developmental differences, are considered.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation