Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T08:30:56.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Computational Approaches to Cognitive Development

Bayesian and Artificial-Neural-Network Models

from Subpart II.1 - Infancy: The Roots of Human Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
Ardavan S. Nobandegani  and
Thomas R. Shultz
Edited by
Olivier Houdé  and
Grégoire Borst
Olivier Houdé
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Grégoire Borst
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
Get access

Summary

As in other sciences, formal modeling and simulation have assumed an important role in organizing and explaining cognitive development and providing a more unified account of its computational underpinnings. This chapter reviews research using two of the most influential approaches to such modeling: Bayesian and artificial neural networks. The techniques are explained for a general audience and concrete examples are described, providing both an in-depth and broad coverage of the literature.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Development , pp. 318 - 338
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8 month old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.Google Scholar
Baluja, S., & Fahlman, S. E. (1994). Reducing network depth in the cascade-correlation learning architecture. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-209, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Berthiaume, V. G., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2013). A constructivist connectionist model of transitions on false-belief tasks. Cognition, 126, 441–458.Google Scholar
Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Win-Stay, Lose-Sample: A simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 74, 35–65.Google Scholar
Bonawitz, E., & Shafto, P. (2016). Computational models of development, social influences. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 7, 95–100.Google Scholar
Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322–330.Google Scholar
Boom, J., Hoijtink, H., & Kunnen, S. (2001). Rules in the balance: Classes, strategies, or rules for the Balance Scale Task? Cognitive Development, 16, 717–735.Google Scholar
Boom, J., & ter Laak, J. (2007). Classes in the balance: Latent class analysis and the balance scale task. Developmental Review, 27, 127–149.Google Scholar
Buchsbaum, D., Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2011). Children’s imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition, 120, 331–340.Google Scholar
Bulf, H., Johnson, S. P., & Valenza, E. (2011). Visual statistical learning in the newborn infant. Cognition, 121, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassidy, K. W. (1998). Three- and four-year-old children’s ability to use desire- and belief- based reasoning. Cognition, 66, B1.Google Scholar
Dandurand, F., & Shultz, T. R. (2010). Automatic detection and quantification of growth spurts. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 809–823.Google Scholar
Dandurand, F., & Shultz, T. R. (2014). A comprehensive model of development on the balance-scale task. Cognitive Systems Research, 31–32, 1–25.Google Scholar
Denison, S., Reed, C., & Xu, F. (2013). The emergence of probabilistic reasoning in very young infants: Evidence from 4.5- and 6-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 49, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2014). The origins of probabilistic inference in human infants. Cognition, 130, 335–347.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2005). Connectionist models of cognitive development: Where next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 111–117.Google Scholar
Fahlman, S. E. (1988). An empirical study of learning speed in back-propagation networks. Neural Networks, 6, 1–19.Google Scholar
Fahlman, S. E., & Lebiere, C. (1990). The cascade-correlation learning architecture. In Touretzky, D. S. (ed.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 524–532). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Ferretti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1986). Are children’s rule-assessment classifications invariant across instances of problem types? Child Development, 57, 1419–1428.Google Scholar
French, R. M., Mermillod, M., Mareschal, D., & Quinn, P. C. (2004). The role of bottom-up processing in perceptual categorization by 3- to 4-month-old infants: Simulations and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 382–397.Google Scholar
Friedman, O., & Leslie, A. M. (2005). Processing demands in belief-desire reasoning: Inhibition or general difficulty? Developmental Science, 8, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gershman, S., & Beck, J. (2017). Complex probabilistic inference: from cognition to neural computation. In Moustafa, A. (ed.), Computational Models of Brain and Behavior (p. 453). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. D., Baker, C. L., Bonawitz, E. B., Mansinghka, V. K., Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2006). Intuitive theories of mind: A rational approach to false belief. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1382–1387). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. D., Ullman, T. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Learning a theory of causality. Psychological Review, 118, 110.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Bonawitz, E. (2015). Bayesian models of child development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6, 75–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Norris, D., & Pouget, A. (2012). How the Bayesians got their beliefs (and what those beliefs actually are): Comment on Bowers and Davis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 415–422.Google Scholar
Hamlin, K., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., Goodman, N., & Baker, C. (2013). The mentalistic basis of core social cognition: Experiments in preverbal infants and a computational model. Developmental Science, 16, 209–226.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307–321.Google Scholar
Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83, 4–5.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R. (1987). Production System Models of Learning and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klahr, D., & Wallace, J. G. (1976). Cognitive Development: An Information Processing View. Hillsdale; NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lochmann, T., & Deneve, S. (2011). Neural processing as causal inference. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21, 774–781.Google Scholar
Mareschal, D., & French, R. (2017). Tracx2: A connectionist autoencoder using graded chunks to model infant visual statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372, 20160057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (2010). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayor, J., & Plunkett, K. (2010). A neurocomputational account of taxonomic responding and fast mapping in early word learning. Psychological Review, 117, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2003). Connectionist models of development. Developmental Science, 6, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobandegani, A., & Shultz, T. (2018). Example generation under constraints using cascade correlation neural nets. CogSci. Available from https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0456/index.html. Last accessed August 23, 2021.Google Scholar
O’Loughlin, C., & Thagard, P. (2000). Autism and coherence: A computational model. Mind and Language, 15, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, K., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255–258.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., Griffiths, T., & Xu, F. (2011a). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120, 302–321.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Regier, T. (2011b). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118, 306–338.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Bootstrapping in a language of thought: A formal model of numerical concept learning. Cognition, 123, 199–217.Google Scholar
Quinlan, P. T., van der Maas, H. L. J., Jansen, B. R. J., Booij, O., & Rendell, M. (2007). Re-thinking stages of cognitive development: An appraisal of connectionist models of the balance scale task. Cognition, 103, 413–459.Google Scholar
Restle, F. (1962). The selection of strategies in cue learning. Psychological Review, 69, 329–343.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Schapiro, A. C., & McClelland, J. L. (2009). A connectionist model of a continuous developmental transition in the balance scale task. Cognition, 110, 395–411.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W., & Ling, C. (1996). A decision-tree model of balance scale development. Machine Learning, 24, 203–229.Google Scholar
Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Can being scared cause tummy aches? Naive theories, ambiguous evidence, and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1124–1139.Google Scholar
Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2012). Learning from others: The consequences of psychological reasoning for human learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 341–351.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2003). Computational Developmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2007). The Bayesian revolution approaches psychological development. Developmental Science, 10, 357–364.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2010). Computational modeling of infant concept learning: The developmental shift from features to correlations. In Oakes, L. M., Cashon, C. H., Casasola, M., & Rakison, D. H. (eds.), Infant Perception and Cognition: Recent Advances, Emerging Theories, and Future Directions (pp. 125–152). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2012). A constructive neural-network approach to modeling psychological development. Cognitive Development, 27, 383–400.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2013). Computational models in developmental psychology. In Zelazo, P. D. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 1: Body and Mind (pp. 477–504). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2017). Constructive artificial neural-network models for cognitive development. In Budwig, N., Turiel, E., & Zelazo, P. D. (eds.), New Perspectives on Human Development (pp. 13–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Bale, A. C. (2006). Neural networks discover a near-identity relation to distinguish simple syntactic forms. Minds and Machines, 16, 107–139.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Cohen, L. B. (2004). Modeling age differences in infant category learning. Infancy, 5, 153–171.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Doty, E. (2014). Knowing when to quit on unlearnable problems: Another step towards autonomous learning. In Mayor, J., & Gomez, P. (ed.), Computational Models of Cognitive Processes (pp. 211–221). London: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Fahlman, S. E. (2010). Cascade-correlation. In Sammut, C., & Webb, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning Part 4/C (pp. 139–147). Heidelberg, Germany: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., Mareschal, D., & Schmidt, W. C. (1994). Modeling cognitive development on balance scale phenomena. Machine Learning, 16, 57–86.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., Mysore, S. P., & Quartz, S. R. (2012). Why let networks grow? In Mareschal, D., Sirois, S., Westermann, G., & Johnson, M. H. (eds.), Neuroconstructivism: Perspectives and Prospects (Vol. 2, pp. 65–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Nobandegani, A. S. (2020). Probability without counting and dividing: A fresh computational perspective. In Denison, S., Mack, M., Xu, Y., & Armstrong, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1–7). Toronto ON: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Rivest, F. (2001). Knowledge-based cascade-correlation: Using knowledge to speed learning. Connection Science, 13, 43–72.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., Rivest, F., Egri, L., Thivierge, J.-P., & Dandurand, F. (2007). Could knowledge-based neural learning be useful in developmental robotics? The case of KBCC. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 4, 245–279.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Sirois, S. (2008). Computational models of developmental psychology. In Sun, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology (pp. 451–476). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481–520.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279–1285.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2003). Connectionist models of development, developmental disorders and individual differences. In Sternberg, R. J., Lautrey, J., & Lubart, T. (eds.), Models of Intelligence: International Perspectives (pp. 133–150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140.Google Scholar
Triona, L. M., Masnick, A. M., & Morris, B. J. (2019). What does it take to pass the false belief task? An ACT-R model. CogSci. Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49c346x1. Last accessed August 23, 2021.Google Scholar
Tummeltshammer, K., Amso, D., French, R. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2017). Across space and time: Infants learn from backward and forward visual statistics. Developmental Science, 20, e12474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, T. D., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2012). Theory learning as stochastic search in the language of thought. Cognitive Development, 27, 455–480.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.Google Scholar
Westermann, G., Sirois, S., Shultz, T. R., & Mareschal, D. (2006). Modeling developmental cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 227–232.Google Scholar
Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245–272.Google Scholar
Younger, B. A., & Cohen, L. B. (1986). Developmental change in infants’ perception of correlations among attributes. Child Development, 57, 803–815.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×