The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How Limited Systematicity Emerges
Abstract
Is human cognition best characterized in terms of the systematic nature of classical symbol processing systems (as argued by Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988), or in terms of the context-sensitive, embedded knowledge characteristic of classical connectionist or neural network systems? We attempt to bridge these contrasting perspectives in several ways. First, we argue that human cognition exhibits the full spectrum, from extreme context sensitivity to high levels of systematicity. Next, we leverage biologically-based computational modeling of different brain areas (and their interactions), at multiple levels of abstraction, to show how this full spectrum of behavior can be understood from a computational cognitive neuroscience perspective. In particular, recent computational modeling of the prefrontal cortex / basal ganglia circuit demonstrates a mechanism for variable binding that supports high levels of systematicity, in domains where traditional connectionist models fail. Thus, we find that this debate has helped advance our understanding of human cognition in many ways, and are optimistic that a careful consideration of the computational nature of neural processing can help bridge seemingly opposing viewpoints.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, people also relied on inductive biases that sometimes support the algebraic solution and sometimes deviate from it; indeed, people are not purely algebraic machines3,6,7.”
From Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Beyond natural language, people require a years-long process of education to master other forms of systematic generalization and symbolic reasoning6,7, including mathematics, logic and computer programming.”
From Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network
Lake, B. M., & Baroni, M. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06668-3 · Cited by 230
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Reilly, R. C., Petrov, A. A., Cohen, J. D., Lebiere, C. J., Herd, S. A., & Kriete, T.
- Venue
- The Architecture of Cognition
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2014-05-30
- Pages
- 191-226
- OpenAlex
- W2489034491
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
- Keywords
- systematicity, context sensitivity, symbolic processing, connectionism, artificial neural networks, computational cognitive neuroscience, prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, variable binding, cognitive architecture
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