Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution

We show examples of how low-level, qualitative neuroanatomical hemispheric differences can give rise to detailed psychologically realistic behaviour. We illustrate this claim with examples from the cognitive modelling of unilateral visuospatial neglect and neglect dyslexia. Our models are based on two principles: the division of information processing between the two hemispheres; and the implementation of a coarse-/finecoding distinction between the hemispheres. Line-bisection is a standard test for visuospatial neglect, in which the patient is required to mark the centre of a straight line; in neglect caused by right-hemisphere (RH) damage, bisection points tend to be displaced to the right of centre. Models of neglect have been focussed on dysfunctions following RH damage; however, patients with comparable damage to the left hemisphere (LH) typically present with a different pattern of deficits: (a) damage to the LH less often results in visuospatial neglect, or results in smaller, more variable displacements in line-bisection; (b) when damage to the LH results in neglect, recovery is generally quicker; and (c) damage to the LH often results in neglect dyslexia without more general visuospatial neglect. These asymmetries present a challenge to current models of neglect. Our models provide a principled and parsimonious account.

[1]  Aniruddh D. Patel,et al.  Processing Syntactic Relations in Language and Music: An Event-Related Potential Study , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  B. Keith Jenkins,et al.  A Neural Network Model for Pitch Perception , 1989 .

[3]  J. Konczak,et al.  The development toward stereotypic arm kinematics during reaching in the first 3 years of life , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  M. E. McCarty,et al.  Visual guidance in infants' reaching toward suddenly displaced targets. , 1993, Child development.

[5]  P. Rochat,et al.  Multimodal perception in the control of infant reaching. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Ian J. Taylor,et al.  Modelling Pitch Perception with Adaptive Resonance Theory Artificial Neural Networks , 1994, Connect. Sci..

[7]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[8]  Barbara Tillmann,et al.  Effects of Global and Local Contexts on Harmonic Expectancy , 1998 .

[9]  M Kuperstein,et al.  Neural model of adaptive hand-eye coordination for single postures. , 1988, Science.

[10]  R. J. van Beers,et al.  Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: An experimentally supported model. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  P. Mcdonnell,et al.  The development of visually guided reaching , 1975 .

[12]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[13]  C. Von Hofsten,et al.  The structuring of neonatal arm movements. , 1993, Child development.

[14]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Econets: Neural networks that learn in an environment , 1990 .

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Task Decomposition Through Competition in a Modular Connectionist Architecture: The What and Where Vision Tasks , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  R. K. Clifton,et al.  Is visually guided reaching in early infancy a myth? , 1993, Child development.

[17]  MICHAEL KUPERSTEIN,et al.  INFANT neural controller for adaptive sensory-motor coordination , 1991, Neural Networks.

[18]  E. Thelen,et al.  The transition to reaching: mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. , 1993, Child development.

[19]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[20]  H. Bloch,et al.  Visual control of hand approach movements in new-borns , 1996 .

[21]  D. Parisi,et al.  Learning to Reach by Constraining the Movement Search Space , 2000 .

[22]  R. Held,et al.  OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VISUALLY-DIRECTED REACHING. , 1964, Child development.

[23]  N. Berthier.  Learning to reach: A mathematical model. , 1996 .

[24]  E. Bushnell.  The decline of visually guided reaching during infancy , 1985 .

[25]  Martin Arguin,et al.  The Interaction of Object Form and Object M eaning in the Identification Performance of a Patient with Category-specific Visual Agnosia , 1997 .

[26]  C. Hofsten.  Eye–hand coordination in the newborn. , 1982 .

[27]  B. Tillmann,et al.  Implicit learning of tonality: a self-organizing approach. , 2000, Psychological review.

[28]  J. Bharucha,et al.  Implicit knowledge versus psychoacoustic similarity in priming of chords , 1998 .

[29]  M. Bornstein,et al.  Development in Infancy , 1982 .

[30]  William Forde Thompson,et al.  Sensitivity to Key Change in Chorale Sequences: A Comparison of Single Voices and Four-Voice Harmony , 1989 .

[31]  MICHAEL P. A. PAGE,et al.  Modelling the Perception of Musical Sequences with Self-organizing Neural Networks , 1994, Connect. Sci..

[32]  E. Newport,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article INCIDENTAL LANGUAGE LEARNING: Ustening (and Learning) out of the Comer of Your Ear , 2022 .

[33]  R. Parncutt.  Revision of Terhardt's Psychoacoustical Model of the Root(s) of a Musical Chord , 1988 .

[34]  W. Abraham,et al.  Adaptation to Displacing Prisms in Human Infants , 1979, Perception.

[35]  David Zipser,et al.  Feature Discovery by Competive Learning , 1986, Cogn. Sci..