title: How the statistics of sequential presentation influence the learning of structure.
abstract: Recent work has shown that humans can learn or detect complex dependencies among variables. Even learning a simple dependency involves the identification of an underlying model and the learning of its parameters. This process represents learning a structured problem. We are interested in an empirical assessment of some of the factors that enable humans to learn such a dependency over time. More specifically, we look at how the statistics of the presentation of samples from a given structure influence learning. Participants engage in an experimental task where they are required to predict the timing of a target. At the outset, they are oblivious to the existence of a relationship between the position of a stimulus and the required temporal response to intercept it. Different groups of participants are either presented with a Random Walk where consecutive stimuli were correlated or with stimuli that were uncorrelated over time. We find that the structural relationship implicit in the task is only learned in the conditions where the stimuli are independently drawn. This leads us to believe that humans require rich and independent sampling to learn hidden structures among variables.
authors: MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.narain@vu.nl
authors: Devika
authors: D
authors: Narain
authors: Pascal
authors: P
authors: Mamassian
authors: Robert J
authors: RJ
authors: van Beers
authors: Jeroen B J
authors: JB
authors: Smeets
authors: Eli
authors: E
authors: Brenner
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D013223:Statistics as Topic
references: Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):20-58
references: 19159147
references: Curr Biol. 2009 Feb 24;19(4):352-7
references: 19217296
references: Science. 2011 Mar 11;331(6022):1279-85
references: 21393536
references: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Dec;51(4):334-84
references: 16168981
references: J Neurophysiol. 2012 Feb;107(4):1111-22
references: 22131385
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Aug;24(4):629-40; discussion 652-791
references: 12048947
references: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Oct 19;6:291
references: 23125827
references: J Neurosci. 2009 May 20;29(20):6472-8
references: 19458218
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):348-56
references: 20598626
references: PLoS One. 2010 Jan 29;5(1):e8973
references: 20126409
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jul;10(7):309-18
references: 16797219
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):357-64
references: 20576465
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 5;105(31):10687-92
references: 18669663
references: J Neurophysiol. 2013 Mar;109(5):1259-67
references: 23235999