Representation and Organization of Knowledge in Memory

Representation and
Organization of
Knowledge in Memory:
Concepts, Categorie,
Networks, and Schemas
Cognitive Psychology
Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Dwayne Ricardo, Carmela
6/29,31/2014 Buiquil, Belle Jane Catad 1
Declarative versus Procedural
Knowledge Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 Concepts and Categories
 Can be divided in various ways:
 Natural Categories- are groupings that occur naturally
in the world, like birds and trees.
 Artifact Categories- are groupings that are designed
or invented by humans to serve particular purpose of
functions.
 Ex: automobiles and kitchen appliances
 A tiger is always a mammal for example and a knife
is always an implement used for cutting.

 Ad-hoc categories- categories which are created for
the moment or for a specific purpose. Ex: things you
can write on.
Organization of Declarative
 Levels of concepts
 Basic level (natural level)
 Neither the most abstract nor the most
specifc. Ex: Apple
 For purposes the basic level is the one that
most people find to be maximally distinctive.
 When people are shown pictures of objects,
they identify the objects at a basic level more
quickly than they identify objects at higher or
lower levels.
Feature Based Categories: A defining view
Defining features- for a thing to be an X, it must have that

feature. Otherwise it is t an X. Ex. Bachelor.
-This view is attractive because it makes category appear so

orderly and systematic. Ex: Game
- Problem: violation of those defining features does not seem

to change the category we use to define them. Ex: Zebra
• In sum, the feature –based theory has some attractive

features but it does not give a complete account of
categories.
 Prototype Theory: A characteristic view
 Takes a different approach: grouping things
together not by their defining features but
rather by their similarity to an averaged
model of the category.
 Prototype- is an abstract average of all the
objects in the category we have encountered
before.
 Characteristic features – which describe the
prototype but are not necessary for it. Ex:
consider the prototype of a game
Classical and Fuzzy concepts
2 kinds of categories:
Classical concepts- categories that can be readily
defined through defining features. Ex: Bachelor
Fuzzy concepts- categories that cannot be easily
defined. Ex: Game and Death
 Real World Examples: Using Exemplars
 Exemplars- are typical representatives of a category.
 VAM ( Varying Abstraction Model)
 Suggests that prototypes and exemplars are just the
two extremes on a continuum of abstraction.
A synthesis: Combining Feature based and
prototype theories
 Each category has both prototype and a core.
Core- refers t the defning features something
must have to be considered an example of
category.
Prototype- encompasses the characteristic
features that tend to be typical of an example
but that are not necessary for being considered
example. EX: the concept of a robber
Theory based view of categorization- a theory
based view of meaning holds that people
understand and categorize concepts in terms of
implicit theories or general ideas they have
regarding those concepts.
 In the componetial view

 In the prototype view
 In the exemplar view
 In the theory based view
 Essentialism
◦ This view holds that certain categories, such as
those of “lion” or “female,” have an underlying
reality that cannot be observed directly.
◦ Gelman showed that even young children look
beyond obvious features to understand
essential nature of things.
Finding the Essence of Things Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

 Learning, therefore, is strategically
flexible, depending on the task that the
individual will have to do; it does not
occur with a “one-size-fits-all” rigidity.
Finding the Essence of Things Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

 Culture influences many cognitive
processes including intelligence. As a
result, individuals in different cultures
may construct concepts in quite different
ways, rendering results of concept-
formation or identification studies in a
single culture suspect.
Intelligence and Concepts in

Different Cultures Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 Semantic-network models suggest that
knowledge is represented in our minds in
the form of concepts that are connected
with each other in a web-like form.
Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Collins and Quillan’s Network Model
 A semantic network is a web of elements
of meaning (nodes) that are connected
with each other through links.
 The elements are called “nodes”; they are
typically concepts. The connections
between the nodes are labeled
relationships.

Collins and Quillan’s Network Model
 This concept of inheritance implies that
the lower-level items inherit the
properties of higher-level items. This
concept, in turn, is the key to the
economy of hierarchical models.
Computer models of the network clearly
demonstrated the value of the cognitive
economy.

Comparing Semantic Features
 An alternative knowledge is organized
based on a comparison of semantic
features, rather than on a strict hierarchy
of concepts. Though this theory sounds
similar to the feature based theory of
categorization, it differs from it in a key
way: Feature of different concepts are
compared directly, rather than serving
basis for forming a category.

 A common method for examining semantic
networks involves the use of word-stem
completion. These finding are taken to mean
that the activation of one node of the
network increases the activation of related
nodes.
 We may broaden our understanding of
concepts further if we consider not only the
hierarchical and basic levels of a concept. We
also should take into account other relational
information the concept contains.

 Schemas
-mental framework for organizing
knowledge,
-creates a meaningful structure of related
concepts, and
-encompasses many subschemas
Schematic Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Characteristics of Schemas:
(1)it can include other schemas
(2)encompass typical, general facts that
can vary slightly from one specific
instance to another
(3)can vary in their degree of abstraction

 Scripts
-kind of schema (Schank & Abelson,1977)
-contain information about the particular
order in which things occur.
-less flexible than schemas

Features:
(1)props
(2)roles
(3)opening conditions
(4)scenes
(5)set of results

 Procedural knowledge representation is
acquired through practicing the
implementation of a procedure.
 Serial Processing – information is handled
through a linear sequence of operations,
one operation at a time.
 Production includes the generation and
output of a procedure.
The “Production” of Procedural

 Computer stimulation of productions
follow production rules (“if-then” rules),
comprising an “if” clause and a “then”
clause.
 The “then” clause is an action or a series
of actions that are a response to the “if”
clause.

 Routines- instructions regarding
procedure for implementing a task.
 Subroutine- instructions for implementing
a subtask within a larger task governed
by a routine.

 Bugs are flaws in the instructions for the
conditions or for executing the actions.

 Perceptual, motor, and cognitive skills
(procedural knowledge)
 Simple associative knowledge (classical
and operant conditioning)
 Simple non-associative knowledge
(habituation and sensitization)
 Priming (fundamental links within a
knowledge network)
Nondeclarative Knowledge Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

 Two Types of Priming
◦ Semantic Priming- primed by a meaningful
context or by meaningful information.
◦ Repetition Priming

 According to spreading activation
theories, the amount of activation
between a prime and a given target node
is a function of two things: the number of
links connecting the prime and the target,
and the relative strengths of each
connection.

 ACT- adaptive control of thought
 John Anderson synthesize some of the
features of serial information-processing
models and some of the features of
semantic network models and some of the
feature of semantic-network models in
ACT, procedural knowledge is represented
in the form of production system.
Combining Representations: ACT-

R Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 The most recent version of ACT, ACT-R
(where the R stands for rational), is a
model of information processing that
integrates a network representation for
declarative knowledge and the
production-system representation for
procedural knowledge
Combining Representations: ACT-

 Anderson’s declarative network model,
like many other models contains a
mechanism by which information can be
retrieved and also a structure for storing
information. According to Anderson’s
model, the nodes can be either active or
inactive at a given time. An active node is
one that is, in a sense, “turned on.”
Declarative Knowledge within

ACT-R Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 ACT-R also suggest means by which the
network changes as a result of activation.
For one thing, the more often particular
links between nodes are used, the
stringer the links become. In a
complimentary fashion, activation is likely
to spread along the routes of frequently
traveled connections. It is less likely to
spread along infrequently used
connections between nodes.
Declarative Knowledge within

ACT-R Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 Knowledge representation of procedural
skills occurs in three stages: cognitive,
associative and autonomous.
 Proceduralization is the overall process by
which we transform slow, explicit
information about procedures (“knowing
that”) into speedy, implicit,
implementation of procedures (“knowing
how”).
Procedural Knowledge within ACT-

 Production tuning- it involves two
complimentary processes of generalization
and discrimination.
Procedural Knowledge within ACT-

 Parallel processing, in which multiple
operations go an all at once.
 According to Parallel Distributed
Processing (PDP) models or connectionist
models, we handle very large numbers of
cognitive operations at once through a
network distributed across incalculable
numbers of locations in the brain.
Parallel Processing: The

Connectionist Model Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 In connectionist networks, all forms of
knowledge are represented within the
network structure.
 The PDP model demonstrates another way
in which a brain-inspired model differs
from a computer-inspired one.
How the PDP Model Works Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

 Inactive neurons are not stimulated
beyond their threshold of excitation. They
do not release any neurotransmitters into
the synapse (the interneuronal gap).
 Excitatory neurons release
neurotransmitters that stimulate receptive
neurons at the synapse. They increase the
likelihood that receiving neurons will
reach their threshold of excitation.

 Inhibitory neurons release
neurotransmitters that inhibit receptive
neurons. They reduce the likelihood that
receiving neurons will their threshold of
excitation.
 Connectionist model of knowledge
representation explain many phenomena
of knowledge representation and
processing, such as perception and
memory.

 These processes may be learned gradually
by our storing knowledge through the
strengthening of patterns of connections
within the network. But connectionist
model are not flawless.

 Our general criticism is that connectionist
networks neglect properties that neural
systems have, or that they propose
properties that neural network do not
have. Furthermore, critics ask why any
model should be more credible than
another for explaining cognitive
mechanisms just because it resembles the
structure of the brain.
Criticisms of the Connectionist

Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 In the network representation, the nodes
represent concepts.
 In contrast, the connectionist network
represents pattern of activativation.
Comparing Connectionist with

Network Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 Starting in the late 1970’s, the balance
shifted towards domain specificity.
 A key book, The Modularity of Mind,
presented as argument for extreme
domain specificity. In this view, the mind
is modular, divided into discrete modules
that operate more or less independently
of each other.
How Domain General or Domain

Specific Is Cognition? Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle
 Further evidence for domain specificity of
face recognition can be observed in
studies employing functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) methods.
 Fodor (1983) asserted the modularity
(distinct origins) of lower-level processes
such as the basic perceptual processes
involved in lexical access.
How Domain General or Domain

Specific Is Cognition? Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Representation and Organization of Knowledge in Memory

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Representation and Organization of Knowledge in Memory

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Representation and

Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Defining features- for a thing to be an X, it must have that

-This view is attractive because it makes category appear so

- Problem: violation of those defining features does not seem

• In sum, the feature –based theory has some attractive

 In the componetial view

Finding the Essence of Things Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Finding the Essence of Things Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Intelligence and Concepts in

Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Semantic Network Models Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Schematic Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Schematic Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Schematic Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Schematic Representations Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

The “Production” of Procedural

The “Production” of Procedural

The “Production” of Procedural

The “Production” of Procedural

Nondeclarative Knowledge Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Nondeclarative Knowledge Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Nondeclarative Knowledge Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Combining Representations: ACT-

Combining Representations: ACT-

Declarative Knowledge within

Declarative Knowledge within

Procedural Knowledge within ACT-

Procedural Knowledge within ACT-

Parallel Processing: The

How the PDP Model Works Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

How the PDP Model Works Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

How the PDP Model Works Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

How the PDP Model Works Brylle Deeiah Tumarong, Brylle

Criticisms of the Connectionist

Comparing Connectionist with

How Domain General or Domain

How Domain General or Domain

Вам также может понравиться