Publications

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Olfers, K. J. F. (2016). Authentication by the crowd: How lay students identify the style of a 17th century artist. CODART e-Zine, 8. Retrieved from http://ezine.codart.nl/17/issue/57/artikel/19-21-june-madrid/?id=349#!/page/3.
  • Poletiek, F. H., Fitz, H., & Bocanegra, B. R. (2016). What baboons can (not) tell us about natural language grammars. Cognition, 151, 108-112. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.016.

    Abstract

    Rey et al. (2012) present data from a study with baboons that they interpret in support of the idea that center-embedded structures in human language have their origin in low level memory mechanisms and associative learning. Critically, the authors claim that the baboons showed a behavioral preference that is consistent with center-embedded sequences over other types of sequences. We argue that the baboons’ response patterns suggest that two mechanisms are involved: first, they can be trained to associate a particular response with a particular stimulus, and, second, when faced with two conditioned stimuli in a row, they respond to the most recent one first, copying behavior they had been rewarded for during training. Although Rey et al. (2012) ‘experiment shows that the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level mechanisms, it is not clear how the animal behavior reported, bears on the phenomenon of Center Embedded structures in human syntax. Hence, (1) natural language syntax may indeed have been shaped by low level mechanisms, and (2) the baboons’ behavior is driven by low level stimulus response learning, as Rey et al. propose. But is the second evidence for the first? We will discuss in what ways this study can and cannot give evidential value for explaining the origin of Center Embedded recursion in human grammar. More generally, their study provokes an interesting reflection on the use of animal studies in order to understand features of the human linguistic system.
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Lai, J. (2012). How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: A statistical account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 2046 -2054. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0100.

    Abstract

    A major theoretical debate in language acquisition research regards the learnability of hierarchical structures. The artificial grammar learning methodology is increasingly influential in approaching this question. Studies using an artificial centre-embedded AnBn grammar without semantics draw conflicting conclusions. This study investigates the facilitating effect of distributional biases in simple AB adjacencies in the input sample—caused in natural languages, among others, by semantic biases—on learning a centre-embedded structure. A mathematical simulation of the linguistic input and the learning, comparing various distributional biases in AB pairs, suggests that strong distributional biases might help us to grasp the complex AnBn hierarchical structure in a later stage. This theoretical investigation might contribute to our understanding of how distributional features of the input—including those caused by semantic variation—help learning complex structures in natural languages.
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Van Schijndel, T. J. P. (2009). Stimulus set size and statistical coverage of the grammar in artificial grammar learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 1058-1064. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.6.1058.

    Abstract

    Adults and children acquire knowledge of the structure of their environment on the basis of repeated exposure to samples of structured stimuli. In the study of inductive learning, a straightforward issue is how much sample information is needed to learn the structure. The present study distinguishes between two measures for the amount of information in the sample: set size and the extent to which the set of exemplars statistically covers the underlying structure. In an artificial grammar learning experiment, learning was affected by the sample’s statistical coverage of the grammar, but not by its mere size. Our result suggests an alternative explanation of the set size effects on learning found in previous studies (McAndrews & Moscovitch, 1985; Meulemans & Van der Linden, 1997), because, as we argue, set size was confounded with statistical coverage in these studies. nt]mis|This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We thank Jarry Porsius for his help with the data analyses.
  • Poletiek, F. H. (2009). Popper's Severity of Test as an intuitive probabilistic model of hypothesis testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 99-100. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000454.
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Wolters, G. (2009). What is learned about fragments in artificial grammar learning? A transitional probabilities approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(5), 868-876. doi:10.1080/17470210802511188.

    Abstract

    Learning local regularities in sequentially structured materials is typically assumed to be based on encoding of the frequencies of these regularities. We explore the view that transitional probabilities between elements of chunks, rather than frequencies of chunks, may be the primary factor in artificial grammar learning (AGL). The transitional probability model (TPM) that we propose is argued to provide an adaptive and parsimonious strategy for encoding local regularities in order to induce sequential structure from an input set of exemplars of the grammar. In a variant of the AGL procedure, in which participants estimated the frequencies of bigrams occurring in a set of exemplars they had been exposed to previously, participants were shown to be more sensitive to local transitional probability information than to mere pattern frequencies.

Share this page