Cited by 23Neural Networks and ApplicationsCognitive Science and Education ResearchCognitive Computing and Networks

The problem of rapid variable creation

Hadley, Robert F.·2009·Neural Computation

Abstract

Both Marcus (2001) and Jackendoff (2002) have emphasized the importance of finding credible explanations for the occurrence of variables within cognitive representations. Marcus, in particular, has argued that a prevailing form of connectionist modeling, eliminative connectionism, cannot adequately explain crucial forms of human generalization. Eliminative connectionism eschews the use of explicitly represented variables, and the latter, Marcus contends, play an essential role in the forms of generalization that he considers. Recently, van der Velde and de Kamps (2006) proposed a neural blackboard architecture, which they assert to have satisfied the variable representation needs that Marcus and Jackendoff identified. However, this letter argues that closely related variants of Marcus's generalization examples possess variable requirements that are incompatible with the van der Velde and de Kamps approach. Moreover, it is argued here that these newly proposed variants present a severe challenge not only for eliminative connectionism but for all network training methods that require iterative tuning of synaptic strengths. The letter focuses on generalization cases that necessitate either virtually instantaneous creation of variables or very rapid deployment of preexisting variables within highly novel contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/neco.2008.07-07-572

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Language and reasoning appear to present a problem for neural networks: we seem to be able to apply common grammatical rules to sentences regardless of the content of those sentences, and regardless of whether we have ever seen even remotely similar sentences in the training data.

    “Language and reasoning appear to present a problem for neural networks (Minsky, 1991; Marcus, 2001; Hadley, 2009): we seem to be able to apply common grammatical rules to sentences regardless of the content of those sentences, and regardless of whether we have ever seen even remotely similar sentences in the training data.”

    From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Hadley, 2009

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 23

Authors
Hadley, R. F.
Affiliations
Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Hadley, Robert F.
Venue
Neural Computation
Published
2009-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
510-532
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W1964746899
Cited by
23
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
Keywords
generalization, mental representation, connectionist models
MeSH terms
Cognition, Creativity, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Language, Memory, Models, Theoretical, Time Factors, Neural Networks, Computer, Long-Term Potentiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review