Using relations within conceptual systems to translate across conceptual systems

Goldstone, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00053-7

Cited by 54 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, the present results are also consistent with models that assume that the representationof a concept is based not only on its connections to the external, perceptual world (Barsalou, 1999;Goldstone & Barsalou, 1998), but also on its connectionsto other concepts (Goldstone & Rogosky, 2002). Concepts do not typically act like independent detectors polling the world.…”

Section: Models Of Isolated and Interrelated Conceptssupporting

confidence: 89%

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts are interrelatedto the extent that the characterizationof each concept is influenced by the other concepts, and are isolated to the extent that the characterization of one concept is independent of other concepts. The relative categorization accuracy of the prototype and caricature of a concept can be used as a measure of concept interrelatedness. The prototype is the central tendency of a concept, whereas a caricature deviates from the concept's central tendency in the direction opposite the central tendency of other acquired concepts. The prototype is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is relatively independent of other concepts, but the caricature is predicted to be relatively well categorized when a concept is highly related to other concepts. Support for these predictions comes from manipulations of the labels given to simultaneously acquired concepts (Experiment 1) and of the order of categories during learning (Experiment 2).

show abstract

Section: Models Of Isolated and Interrelated Conceptssupporting

confidence: 89%

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Novel shared symbols, being novel, do not have well-defined priors (3,13,14). Solving this type of communicative problem requires a mechanism that supports a rapid exploration through a large search space, generating connections between different conceptual structures (15,16).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural mechanisms of communicative innovation

Stolk

Verhagen

Schoffelen

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human referential communication is often thought as codingdecoding a set of symbols, neglecting that establishing shared meanings requires a computational mechanism powerful enough to mutually negotiate them. Sharing the meaning of a novel symbol might rely on similar conceptual inferences across communicators or on statistical similarities in their sensorimotor behaviors. Using magnetoencephalography, we assess spectral, temporal, and spatial characteristics of neural activity evoked when people generate and understand novel shared symbols during live communicative interactions. Solving those communicative problems induced comparable changes in the spectral profile of neural activity of both communicators and addressees. This shared neuronal up-regulation was spatially localized to the right temporal lobe and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and emerged already before the occurrence of a specific communicative problem. Communicative innovation relies on neuronal computations that are shared across generating and understanding novel shared symbols, operating over temporal scales independent from transient sensorimotor behavior.social interaction | theory of mind | experimental semiotics | MEG | broadband spectral change

show abstract

“…Such interaction capabilities, which need to cover natural language as well as non-verbal communication for the human-machine case, necessitate the existence of real-world solutions to the symbol grounding problem (Harnad 1990), as well as situated and embodied language learning capabilities. Thus, one needs to go much beyond capacities for body and affordance discovery (Saegusa, Metta and Sandini 2010;Stoytchev 2005); and extend to conceptual alignment with other intelligent entities (Goldstone and Rogosky 2002), language learning and social affordance discovery, among others.…”

Section: ) Social Competencies and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive architectures and autonomy: Commentary and Response

Velde

2012

Journal of Artificial General Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using relations within conceptual systems to translate across conceptual systems

Cited by 54 publications

References 43 publications

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures

Neural mechanisms of communicative innovation

Cognitive architectures and autonomy: Commentary and Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About