The formation of categories and the representation of feature saliency: analysis with a computational model trained with an Hebbian paradigm.

An important issue in semantic memory models is the formation of categories and taxonomies, and the different role played by shared vs. distinctive and salient vs. marginal features. Aim of this work is to extend our previous model to critically discuss the mechanisms leading to the formation of categories, and to investigate how feature saliency can be learned from past experience. The model assumes that an object is represented as a collection of features, which belong to different cortical areas and are topologically organized. Excitatory synapses among features are created on the basis of past experience of object presentation, with a Hebbian paradigm, including the use of potentiation and depression of synapses, and thresholding for the presynaptic and postsynaptic. The model was trained using simple schematic objects as input (i.e., vector of features) having some shared features (so as to realize a simple category) and some distinctive features with different frequency. Three different taxonomies of objects were separately trained and tested, which differ as to the number of correlated features and the structure of categories. Results show that categories can be formed from past experience, using Hebbian rules with a different threshold for postsynaptic and presynaptic activity. Furthermore, features have a different saliency, as a consequence of their different frequency during training. The trained network is able to solve simple object recognition tasks, by maintaining a distinction between categories and individual members in the category, and providing a different role for salient features vs. not-salient features. In particular, not-salient features are not evoked in memory when thinking about the object, but they facilitate the reconstruction of objects when provided as input to the model. The results can provide indications on which neural mechanisms can be exploited to form robust categories among objects and on which mechanisms could be implemented in artificial connectionist systems to extract concepts and categories from a continuous stream of input objects (each represented as a vector of features).

[1]  Gutfreund Neural networks with hierarchically correlated patterns. , 1988, Physical review. A, General physics.

[2]  Alessandro Treves,et al.  Uninformative memories will prevail: The storage of correlated representations and its consequences , 2007, HFSP journal.

[3]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Lesioning an attractor network: investigations of acquired dyslexia , 1991 .

[4]  Mauro Ursino,et al.  Recognition of Abstract Objects Via Neural Oscillators: Interaction Among Topological Organization, Associative Memory and Gamma Band Synchronization , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.

[5]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Semantic Boost on Episodic Associations: An Empirically-Based Computational Model , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Peter J. Siekmeier,et al.  Enhanced semantic priming in schizophrenia: a computer model based on excessive pruning of local connections in association cortex. , 2002, The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science.

[8]  Gail Tillman,et al.  Neural substrates of semantic memory , 2007, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[9]  R. R. Poznanski,et al.  Associable representations as field of influence for dynamic cognitive processes. , 2011, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[10]  George S. Cree,et al.  Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  E. Bienenstock,et al.  Theory for the development of neuron selectivity: orientation specificity and binocular interaction in visual cortex , 1982, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[12]  Ch. von der Malsburg,et al.  A neural cocktail-party processor , 1986, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  B. Jansen,et al.  A computational model for generation of the P300 evoked potential component. , 2012, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[14]  A. H. Kawamoto Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. , 1993 .

[15]  Mauro Ursino,et al.  An integrated neural model of semantic memory, lexical retrieval and category formation, based on a distributed feature representation , 2011, Cognitive Neurodynamics.

[16]  G. Gainotti Anatomical functional and cognitive determinants of semantic memory disorders , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[17]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Subsymbolic natural language processing - an integrated model of scripts, lexicon, and memory , 1993, Neural network modeling and connectionism.

[18]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Domain-Specific Knowledge Systems in the Brain: The Animate-Inanimate Distinction , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach , 2004 .

[20]  Stephanie Huette,et al.  Negation without symbols: the importance of recurrence and context in linguistic negation. , 2012, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[21]  Mauro Ursino,et al.  A Computational Model of the Lexical-Semantic System Based on a Grounded Cognition Approach , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[22]  L. Tyler,et al.  Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects , 2012, Cognition.

[23]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Ken McRae,et al.  Semantic Memory: Some Insights from Feature-Based Connectionist Attractor Networks , 2004 .

[25]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[26]  B. Rossion,et al.  Fixation Patterns During Recognition of Personally Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[27]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. , 1984, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  L. Tyler,et al.  Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  M. Garrett,et al.  Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  R. Miikkulainen Dyslexic and Category-Specific Aphasic Impairments in a Self-Organizing Feature Map Model of the Lexicon , 1997, Brain and Language.

[31]  Néstor Parga,et al.  The ultrametric organization of memories in a neural network , 1986 .

[32]  Christopher M. O'Connor,et al.  Conceptual Hierarchies in a Flat Attractor Network: Dynamics of Learning and Computations , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  B. Mesquita,et al.  Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness Health Psychology : Psychological Adjustment to Chronic Disease , 2006 .

[34]  Peter Dayan,et al.  Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems , 2001 .

[35]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.