Literature DB >> 19210089

Predicting transfer performance: a comparison of competing function learning models.

Mark A McDaniel1, Eric Dimperio, Jacqueline A Griego, Jerome R Busemeyer.   

Abstract

The population of linear experts (POLE) model suggests that function learning and transfer are mediated by activation of a set of prestored linear functions that together approximate the given function (Kalish, Lewandowsky, & Kruschke, 2004). In the extrapolation-association (EXAM) model, an exemplar-based architecture associates trained input values with their paired output values. Transfer incorporates a linear rule-based response mechanism (McDaniel & Busemeyer, 2005). Learners were trained on a functional relationship defined by 2 linear-function segments with mirror slopes. In Experiment 1, 1 segment was densely trained and 1 was sparsely trained; in Experiment 2, both segments were trained equally, but the 2 segments were widely separated. Transfer to new input values was tested. For each model, training performance for each individual participant was fit, and transfer predictions were generated. POLE generally better fit the training data than did EXAM, but EXAM was more accurate at predicting (and fitting) transfer behaviors. It was especially telling that in Experiment 2 the transfer pattern was more consistent with EXAM's but not POLE's predictions, even though the presentation of salient linear segments during training dovetailed with POLE's approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19210089     DOI: 10.1037/a0013982

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  7 in total

1.  Effects of testing on learning of functions.

Authors:  Sean H K Kang; Mark A McDaniel; Harold Pashler
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-10

Review 2.  A rational model of function learning.

Authors:  Christopher G Lucas; Thomas L Griffiths; Joseph J Williams; Michael L Kalish
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-03-03

3.  Modeling cross-situational word-referent learning: prior questions.

Authors:  Chen Yu; Linda B Smith
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Individual differences in category learning: memorization versus rule abstraction.

Authors:  Jeri L Little; Mark A McDaniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-02

5.  Individual differences in learning and transfer: stable tendencies for learning exemplars versus abstracting rules.

Authors:  Mark A McDaniel; Michael J Cahill; Mathew Robbins; Chelsea Wiener
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-06-10

6.  Mapping shape to visuomotor mapping: learning and generalisation of sensorimotor behaviour based on contextual information.

Authors:  Loes C J van Dam; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Structure learning and the Occam's razor principle: a new view of human function acquisition.

Authors:  Devika Narain; Jeroen B J Smeets; Pascal Mamassian; Eli Brenner; Robert J van Beers
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 2.380

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.