Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the emergent paradigm. The rest of this paper defines such an approach to building an intelligent robot. Developmental robotics A number of cognitive science researchers have recently argued that understanding the developmental processes in the brain is crucial to understanding intelligence (Elman et al. 1996). This surge of interest in development has led to the formation of a new conference on development and learning (ICDL ) and to a new subfield of robotics. Rather than considering the task oriented, largely topdown, approach to designing robots and behavior models, we are interested in a ....

Elman, J.; Bates, E.; Johnson, M.; Karmiloff-Smith, A.; Parisi, D.; and Plunkett, K. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press.

....the closed hand. This robot would not applaud until the hand was opened and the coin was seen to be gone. 2 Developmental robotics A number of cognitive science researchers have recently argued that understanding the developmental processes in the brain is crucial to understanding intelligence [5]. This surge of interest in development has led to the formation of a new conference on development and learning (ICDL ) and to a new sub eld of robotics. Rather than considering the task oriented, largely top down, approach to designing robots and behavior models, we are interested in a ....

J. Elman, E. Bates, M. Johnson, A. Karmilo-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, 1996.

....simulations of language origins [2] Research on the connectionist implementation of grounded symbolic cognitive agents is still in progress. In particular, effort has focused on the design of modular connectionist architectures and its contribution in dealing with the nature nurture debate (e.g. [3]) This paper presents new simulations based on the manipulation of the connectivity pattern of multi layer perceptrons for the grounding of symbols on categories. In addition, it will deal with some problems of current connectionist architectures, such as the scaling up of categories and ....

Elman JL, Bates EA, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A, Parisi D, and Plunkett K (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge: MIT

....contraction. We will see later that this property is automatically fulfilled if a RNN with sigmoid activation function is initialized with small weights, which is a reasonable way to initiate weights, unless one has a strong prior knowledge about the underlying dynamics of the generating source [9]. We will show that under these circumstances RNNs can be seen as finite memory models, i.e. they only use a finite memory and only a finite number of functionally different input symbols exists. Hence RNNs initiated in standard way are biased towards finite memory machines. First, we formally ....

J. Elman, E. Bates, M. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: a Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....copied from hidden layer to context layer. Simple Recurrent Network Natural language processing has been one of the most di#cult challenges for an connectionist approach. Spatial configuration, as shown in Figure 2. 1, was used in earlier studies, such as pronunciation estimation from spelling [11]. However, the configuration had an substantial problem for application to language processing. The width of the input is constant, that is, the network can never handle relation beyond the constant sized window, such as a subject verb agreement with a long relative clause. A notion of time was ....

Je#rey L. Elman, Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmilo#-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. (cited in page 22)

....a long time for finding a good solution. Natural evolution took almost 3,750,000,000 years for developing all the complex solutions that we now find on earth. But we cannot wait so long for our program to finish. The good news is: The computational problems that we have to solve See for example [Elman et al. 1996]. See for example the possible applications of Genetic Programming (one branch of Evolutionary Computation) presented in [Banzhaf et al. 1998] are far from being as complex and di#cult as the problems that natural creatures solve. It seems that artificial evolution has other advantages that ....

Je#rey L. Elman, Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmilo#-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, 1996.

....It is important to stress that there are different concepts of modules. When a neuroscientist uses the word module, s he is usually referring to the fact that brains are structured, with cells, columns, layers, and regions which divide up the labor of information processing in various ways [3]. A definition of mod ularity from the viewpoint of behavioral or cognitive science could be based on Fodor s work [4] as stated in [3] A module is a specialized, encapsulated mental organ that has evolved to handle specific information types of particular relevance to the species. In ....

.... referring to the fact that brains are structured, with cells, columns, layers, and regions which divide up the labor of information processing in various ways [3] A definition of mod ularity from the viewpoint of behavioral or cognitive science could be based on Fodor s work [4] as stated in [3]: A module is a specialized, encapsulated mental organ that has evolved to handle specific information types of particular relevance to the species. In general, modularity can be viewed as a fundamental design principle of complex systems. For example, the strategy to divide a complicated task ....

J. L. Elman, E. A. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkerr. Rethinking Innateness A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, 1996.

....contraction. We will see later that this property is automatically fulfilled if a RNN with sigmoid activation function is initialized with small weights, which is a reasonable way to initiate weights, unless one has a strong prior knowledge about the underlying dynamics of the generating source [9]. We will show that under these circumstances RNNs can be seen as finite memory models, i.e. they only use a finite memory and only a finite number of functionally different input symbols exists. Hence RNNs initiated in standard way are biased towards finite memory machines. First, we formally ....

J. Elman, E. Bates, M. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: a Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....cortex. A particular subject that is now actively investigated concerns the mechanisms for developing orientational selectivity in the simple cells of the visual cortex. Some recent work in psychology has started to explain the global process of cognitive development using architecture of networks [4]. Another new trend in psychology is to use explicit dynamic models to explain some well known facts about infant behaviors (e.g. the work at Indiana University [5] These quantitative studies have begun to produce results that are more explicit and empirically verifiable than vague verbal ....

J.L. Elman, E. A. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.

....(e.g. tensor) networks. The critical question then becomes how. It is perhaps ironic that advocates of explicit representations in cognitive development (Karmiloff Smith, 1992) should consider the sorts of connectionist models that rely on, as shown here, implicit representations (Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff Smith, Parisi, Plunkett, 1996). But, just as Karmiloff Smith has argued for explicit representation in cognitive development, I have been arguing for explicit representations in the development of connectionist cognitive models. Just like the five year olds, connectionist models are in for a new stage of development. 20 By ....

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Neural Network Modeling and Connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....studies, building motivation for the model developed in the rest of the paper. 1. 1 Against statistical learning An empiricist approach to language acquisition has (re)gained popularity in computational linguistics and cognitive science; e.g. Stolcke 1994; Chen 1995; de Marcken 1996; Bates Elman 1996; Seidenberg 1997) 1 The child is viewed as an inductive and generalized data processor (such as a neural network) It derives structural regularities from the statistical distribution of patterns in the input data, without prior (innate) specific knowledge of natural language. This approach ....

Elman, Je#rey, Elizabeth Bates, Mark Johnson, Annette Karmilo#-Smith, Domenico Parisi and Kim Plunkett (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....algorithm was able to automatically develop low level vision and touch guided motor behaviors that we humans like the robots to autonomously handle by themselves after receiving human commands. 1 The literature about this subject is very rich. A good start is Rethinking innateness [3] (pages 270 314) Humanoids2000 3 Table 1. Comparison of Approaches Approach Species World System Task architecture knowledge behavior specific Knowledge based programming manual modeling manual modeling Ye s Behavior based programming avoid modeling manual modeling Ye s Learning based ....

J.L. Elman, E. A. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.

.... (ANNs) has provided new insights into the types of processes which may account for the ability of learning devices to acquire and represent language, without appealing to traditional linguistic concepts [5] 7] Despite the remarkable advances which have come out of connectionist research (e.g. [8]) and the now common use of recurrent networks, and Simple Recurrent Networks (SRNs) 9] especially, in the study of language (e.g. 10] recurrent neural networks suffer from particular problems which make them imperfectly suited to language tasks. The vast majority of work in this field ....

J. L. Elman et al (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Bradford.

....But this theoretical approach does not inform us about how such order emerges over ontogenetic and phylogenetic time, nor does it inform us about how such progression was selected for or why. Recently a neo constructivist view of development has emerged that takes a more parsimonious view [8, 19]. The hypothesis is that the infant has a number of lowlevel in built systems. From interactions between such systems themselves, and with the environment, new behavioural capacities emerge in a principled manner. Where EP argued for a stable EEA, neo constructivism says that it is the very ....

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, K. (1996) Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. London: MIT Press.

....the one exception) Connectionist models are loosely based on neural information processing. They are ideal for modelling perceptual and cognitive development because the models develop their own task appropriate internal representations as part of the learning process (Mareschal and Shultz, 1996; Elman, Bates, Johnsons, Karmiloff Smith, Parisi, and Plunkett, 1996). The representations developed reflect interactions between the constraints built into the network architectures and the statistics of the learning environment. Rather than aiming to capture the whole range of memory and categorisation phenomena, this paper will focus on two surprising and ....

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....2000) Still other qualms concern the nature of the learning algorithm employed in most SRN experiments, viz. the backpropagation of error. Indeed, Elman and co authors have expressed some misgivings about employing a training algorithm whose biological basis has persistently eluded discovery (Elman et al., 1996). In this paper, we shall have little to say about the first class of worries just mentioned (i.e. the scope of learnable patterns) Rather, our discussion and results will address the last two areas of concern. We hope to show that a shift from local, lexical representations to distributed, ....

....in the preceding paragraph would preclude that possibility. However, we believe that the model presented here constitutes something strongly akin to a competitive implementation of SRNs, and, as mentioned, possesses some advantages over standard SRNs. Prominent connectionist researchers (including Elman et al., 1996) have remarked upon the desirability of replacing backpropagation based networks with behaviourally similar architectures which are (at least) closer to biological reality. We believe that the model described here represents an appreciable step in this direction. Systematicity from Semantic ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Elman, J.L., Bates, E.A., Johnson, M.H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., Plunkett, K., 1996, Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

....and experimental studies of infant behaviors designed to test the legitimacy of the modeling. Computational modeling provides a tool for exploring the mechanisms that underlying behavior. Connectionist models are computer models loosely based on the principles of neural information processing (Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff Smith, Parisi, Plunkett, 1996; Mareschal, in press; McLeod, Plunkett, Rolls, 1998; Rumelhart McClellend, 1986) They are not intended to be neural models. Instead, they attempt to strike the balance between importing some of the basic concepts from the neurosciences while formulating questions about behavior in terms of ....

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....across the output units when presented with some particular input. One implication of this process is that connectionist networks develop their own task appropriate internal representations as part of the learning process. This is what makes them ideal systems for modeling development (e.g. Elman, Bates, Johnson, KarmiloffSmith, Plunkett, 1997; Mareschal Shultz, 1996; Plunkett Sinha, 1992; McClelland, 1989) Initially, a network is constructed with random connection weight values. As the network encounters task exemplars, the weights are slowly tuned to produce meaningful (task appropriate) internal representations across the hidden units. Building the ....

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

.... has been most closely associated with the psychologist Jean Piaget (see photograph) More recently, it has appeared in a new approach to learning and development in brains and brain like computers alternatively called connectionism, parallel distributed processing and neural networks (Elman et al. 1996; Rumelhart McClelland, 1986) and in a related theory of development inspired by the nonlinear dynamical systems of modern physics (Thelen Smith, 1994) To understand this difficult but important idea, we need to distinguish between two kinds of interactionism: simple interactions (black and ....

.... the onset of synaptogenesis (a burst in synaptic growth that begins around 8 months and peaks somewhere between 2 3 years of age) together with evidence for changes in metabolic activity within the frontal lobes, and an increase in frontal control over other cortical and subcortical functions (Elman et al. 1996). This interesting correlation between brain and behavioral development is not restricted to changes in 10 speech; indeed, the 8 10 month period is marked by dramatic changes in many different cognitive and social domains, including developments in tool use, categorization and memory for objects, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

No context found.

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

No context found.

Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1996). Rethinking innateness: a connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Elman, J.L., E. Bates, M.H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett, Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. 1996, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

J. L. Elman, E. A. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. KarmiloffSmith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

No context found.

J. L. Elman, E.A. Bates, M.H. Johnson, K. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective On Development. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1996.

No context found.

J.L. Elman, E. Bates, M.A. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi, and K. Plunkett. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. J.D. Fodor. 1998. Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(1):1--36.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC