Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning
Given that there is referential uncertainty (noise) when learning words, to what extent can forgetting filter some of that noise out, and be an aid to learning? Using a Cross Situational Learning model we find a U-shaped function of errors indicative of a “Goldilocks” zone of forgetting: an optimum...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01301/full |
| _version_ | 1828792559065890816 |
|---|---|
| author | Paul Ibbotson Diana G. López Alan J. McKane |
| author_facet | Paul Ibbotson Diana G. López Alan J. McKane |
| author_sort | Paul Ibbotson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Given that there is referential uncertainty (noise) when learning words, to what extent can forgetting filter some of that noise out, and be an aid to learning? Using a Cross Situational Learning model we find a U-shaped function of errors indicative of a “Goldilocks” zone of forgetting: an optimum store-loss ratio that is neither too aggressive nor too weak, but just the right amount to produce better learning outcomes. Forgetting acts as a high-pass filter that actively deletes (part of) the referential ambiguity noise, retains intended referents, and effectively amplifies the signal. The model achieves this performance without incorporating any specific cognitive biases of the type proposed in the constraints and principles account, and without any prescribed developmental changes in the underlying learning mechanism. Instead we interpret the model performance as more of a by-product of exposure to input, where the associative strengths in the lexicon grow as a function of linguistic experience in combination with memory limitations. The result adds a mechanistic explanation for the experimental evidence on spaced learning and, more generally, advocates integrating domain-general aspects of cognition, such as memory, into the language acquisition process. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T03:11:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1d0c2a0fecad421e9e2e666dc68c0c21 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T03:11:37Z |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-1d0c2a0fecad421e9e2e666dc68c0c212022-12-22T00:40:23ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782018-08-01910.3389/fpsyg.2018.01301387015Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational LearningPaul Ibbotson0Diana G. López1Alan J. McKane2Childhood, Youth and Sports Group, Open University, Milton Keynes, United KingdomTheoretical Physics Division, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United KingdomTheoretical Physics Division, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United KingdomGiven that there is referential uncertainty (noise) when learning words, to what extent can forgetting filter some of that noise out, and be an aid to learning? Using a Cross Situational Learning model we find a U-shaped function of errors indicative of a “Goldilocks” zone of forgetting: an optimum store-loss ratio that is neither too aggressive nor too weak, but just the right amount to produce better learning outcomes. Forgetting acts as a high-pass filter that actively deletes (part of) the referential ambiguity noise, retains intended referents, and effectively amplifies the signal. The model achieves this performance without incorporating any specific cognitive biases of the type proposed in the constraints and principles account, and without any prescribed developmental changes in the underlying learning mechanism. Instead we interpret the model performance as more of a by-product of exposure to input, where the associative strengths in the lexicon grow as a function of linguistic experience in combination with memory limitations. The result adds a mechanistic explanation for the experimental evidence on spaced learning and, more generally, advocates integrating domain-general aspects of cognition, such as memory, into the language acquisition process.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01301/fullcross-situational learningnoisememoryforgettingword learning |
| spellingShingle | Paul Ibbotson Diana G. López Alan J. McKane Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning Frontiers in Psychology cross-situational learning noise memory forgetting word learning |
| title | Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning |
| title_full | Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning |
| title_fullStr | Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning |
| title_full_unstemmed | Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning |
| title_short | Goldilocks Forgetting in Cross-Situational Learning |
| title_sort | goldilocks forgetting in cross situational learning |
| topic | cross-situational learning noise memory forgetting word learning |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01301/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulibbotson goldilocksforgettingincrosssituationallearning AT dianaglopez goldilocksforgettingincrosssituationallearning AT alanjmckane goldilocksforgettingincrosssituationallearning |