Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):559-559 (1997)
The present commentary addresses the Quartz & Sejnowski (Q&S) target article from the point of view of the dynamical learning algorithm for neural networks. These techniques implicitly adopt Q&S's neural constructivist paradigm. Their approach hence receives support from the biological and psychological evidence. Limitations of constructive learning for neural networks are discussed with an emphasis on grammar learning.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Is the Learning Paradox Resolved?M. E. J. Raijmakers - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):573-574.
Stacked Neural Networks Must Emulate Evolution's Hierarchical Complexity.Michael Lamport Commons - 2008 - World Futures 64 (5 - 7):444 – 451.
The Fables of Lucy R.: Association and Dissociation in Neural Networks.Dan Lloyd - 1998 - In Dan J. Stein & J. Ludick (eds.), Neural Networks and Psychopathology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 248--273.
From Neural Constructivism to Children's Cognitive Development: Bridging the Gap.Denis Mareschal & Thomas R. Shultz - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):571-572.
On Stability and Solvability (or, When Does a Neural Network Solve a Problem?).Stan Franklin & Max Garzon - 1992 - Minds and Machines 2 (1):71-83.
From Neural Constructivism to Cognitive Constructivism: The Steps to Be Taken.Andreas Demetriou - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):781-782.
Out of Their Minds: Legal Theory in Neural Networks. [REVIEW]Hunter Dan - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):129-151.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #427,147 of 2,158,177 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #356,322 of 2,158,177 )
How can I increase my downloads?