| 研究実績の概要 |
Systematicity is a cognitive property whereby the capacity for certain cognitive abilities implies the capacity for certain other (structurally related) cognitive abilities. Yet, this property is not always present. The theoretical challenge, then, is to explain both the presence and absence of systematicity. Our category theory approach explains systematicity as a necessary and sufficient consequence of a universal construction. This explanation implies that failure of systematicity arises from failure to acquire the appropriate construction. We tested this implication with an experiment that required learning two series of cue-target (character-shape) pair maps whose underlying structures were either products (universal construction), or non-products (control). Each series was learned in either ascending or descending order of size: number of unique cue/target elements constituting pairs, which varied from three to six. Only performance on the product series was affected by order: systematicity was obtained universally in the descend group, but only on large sets in the ascend group. The results suggest that learning small maps directly, without reference to the underlying product, may be perceived as more cost-effective, i.e., acquisition of a universal construction, hence systematicity, depends on an empirical cost-benefit tradeoff. The categorical approach also affords a general method for other tradeoffs.
|
| 今後の研究の推進方策 |
In a follow-up study, we plan to test the implications of the cost-benefit (dual-route) hypothesis that emerged from the results of the previous year's achievements. The dual-route hypothesis says that people will opt for the primal or alternative dual route depending on which is more "cost-effective" (informative). To test this hypothesis we employ a variation on the visual search paradigm. In this task, participants are required to search for a target (component) object A in a display of pairs of objects (A, B). For example, participants are shown the target, A1, then a display containing 4 pairs of objects , (A1, B1), …, (A4, B4), from which they must identify the location (screen quadrant) containing the target, A1. In this scenario, search for the target can be done in one of three ways: (1) directly - search for the target A independently of its relation to B, (2) indirectly via intersection (product) - use the intersection of each pair of objects, A x B, to locate the target, or (3) indirectly via union (coproduct) - use the union of each pair of objects, A + B, to locate the target. Search difficulty can be manipulated at the object, intersection (product), or union (coproduct) levels. We predict that participants will choose the route that is more informative (i.e. has the higher salience). For example, response time will be shorter in the high versus low intersection saliency condition with object saliency controlled.
|
