Dickinson A. (1980) Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....algorithm. These terms acted to rectify the errors found in the P(R) Shettleworth argued that function could explain mechanism, and suggested that modular explanations were distinguishable cognitive mechanisms [9] Further attempts to rectify a general theory of learning were made by Dickinson [19] who claimed that the particular features of causes and e ects in the ecological history of an animals lineage determined the properties of an animals learning mechanism. The idea being that animals evolving in a world in which physical laws place constraints on the patterns of causes and ....

A Dickinson. Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1980.

....learning, and associative classical conditioning. A full and complete review of these extremely well studied topics would be an enormous undertaking and is well beyond the scope of this paper. Hence, we concentrate here on the basic points which have influenced our model. The reader is referred to [25, 43, 46, 47] for extensive, additional background on associative and non associative learning. According to Brooks [14, p. 298] Two classical types of learning that have been little used in robotics are habituation and sensitization. Both . seem to be critical in adapting a complex robot to a ....

A. Dickinson. Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980.

....in theoretical models of memory and activity dependent plasticity. However, animal conditioning experiments showed that they could not, at least on their own, account for the psychological data on the circumstances under which animals learn about the associations between stimuli and reinforcers [15]. Conditioned stimuli such as lights or tones generally have to precede delivery of unconditioned stimuli such as shocks or food for animals to learn the association between them; simultaneous presentation is not nearly so effective. Likewise, in a phenomenon called blocking, stimuli that are ....

.... notable and debatable exceptions in invertebrate conditioning and the cerebellum [16] There are many strands of conditioning research and also theoretical conflicts that have yet to be resolved; however one main focus has been on how animals learn about the causal texture of their environments [15] and learn to act, presumably on the basis of this knowledge. When the task is posed in this way, insights from the study of learned prediction and action in other systems, including artificial ones, can be applied. To put it somewhat starkly, if plasticity in the brain is partly directed at ....

Dickinson, A. Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

....competition is a natural consequence of the structure of a computational task. A good example comes from the eld of animal conditioning, in which multiple conditioned stimuli (CSs) such as lights and tones have to be used to predict unconditioned stimuli (USs) such as rewards and punishments (see Dickinson, 1980; Mackintosh, 1983) There are rich interactions in the ways that collections of CSs learn, that have been modeled in terms of attentional competition amongst the CSs (Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce Hall, 1980; Grossberg, 1988) Arguing from a statistical perspective, Dayan Long (1998) separated two ....

Dickinson, A (1980) Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

.... to a stimulus response (S R) view of instrumental learning based on a version of the Law of Effect [65] it is not our aim to argue for the validity of this view of animal instrumental learning, which probably involves more than can be accounted for by an S R model (see, for example, Dickinson [14] and Rescorla [46] In Section 7 we provide an example of how the TD procedure can be used with this kind of reinforcement learning method, but the TD procedure can also be combined with model based methods in a variety of ways, as was done, for example, by Samuel [54] whose system performed ....

A. Dickinson. Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.

....As such, these additional assumptions over and above those made by the models discussed in 5.1 seem perfectly reasonable ones to make. Neither would it be reasonable to argue that these additional assumptions provide the model with the more complex and powerful forms of representations that Dickinson (1980) accepts would probably be able to account for outcome devaluation in a procedural manner. Rather, coming from a functional viewpoint has provided a new perspective on the kind of information that these representations could carry and this makes an opportunity for a simpler explanation than ....

Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

....interesting because at the very least they indicate that there must be some hidden state within the rats that can change between the two Skinner box sessions, one where they would activate the manipulandum and another, under exactly the same external physical conditions, where they would not. Dickinson (1980 and subsequently 1989) gives a detailed consideration of possible internal mechanisms that could exhibit such a behaviour. He outlines the two forms which he calls either procedural or declarative; where a procedural system follows a behaviourist (Watson 1919; Skinner, 1938; Hull, 1943) ....

....of the agent s state vector and would not account for, say, differently coloured resources. Such behaviour as described above is reminiscent of what would be expected in an outcome devaluation experiment and the model is certainly described with the same (or even greater) rigour than those in Dickinson (1980). It is now necessary to consider where this model sits in the procedural declarative classificatory scheme. The significant difference between the drk model and the stimulus response model that Dickinson (1980) presents is that both the appetitive instrumental cue and the consummatory ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Dickinson, A. (1980). Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

Dickinson A. (1980) Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

No context found.

Dickinson, A (1980). Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

Dickinson, A (1980). Contemporary Animal Learning Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

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