0000000000372395

AUTHOR

Michael D. Tyler

0000-0003-1642-7941

showing 2 related works from this author

Learning nonadjacent dependencies : No need for algebraic-like computations.

2004

Is it possible to learn the relation between 2 nonadjacent events? M. Pena, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (2002) claimed this to be possible, but only in conditions suggesting the involvement of algebraic-like computations. The present article reports simulation studies and experimental data showing that the observations on which Pena et al. grounded their reasoning were flawed by deep methodological inadequacies. When the invalid data are set aside, the available evidence fits exactly with the predictions of a theory relying on ubiquitous associative mechanisms. Because nonadjacent dependencies are frequent in natural language, this reappraisal has far-reaching implications for t…

Relation (database)ComputationExperimental and Cognitive Psychology[ SCCO.PSYC ] Cognitive science/Psychology050105 experimental psychologyAssociation03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineCognitionDevelopmental NeurosciencePhoneticsEvaluation methodsHumansLearning0501 psychology and cognitive sciencesAlgebraic numberAdaptation (computer science)General PsychologyAssociative propertyProblem SolvingComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUSCognitive science05 social sciencesInvalid Data[SCCO.PSYC]Cognitive science/Psychology[SCCO.PSYC] Cognitive science/PsychologyPsychologyPsychological Theory030217 neurology & neurosurgeryNatural languageMathematics
researchProduct

Do we need algebraic-like computations? A reply to Bonatti, Pena, Nespor, and Mehler (2006).

2006

L. L. Bonatti, M. Pena, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (2006) argued that P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (2004) confused the notions of segmentation and generalization by ignoring the evidence for generalization in M. Pena, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (2002). In this reply, the authors reformulate and complement their initial arguments, showing that their way of dealing with segmentation and generalization is not due to confusion or ignorance but rather to the fact that the tests used in Pena et al. make it likely that neither segmentation nor generalization were captured in their experiments. Finally, the authors address the challenge posed by Pena et al. of a…

GeneralizationComputationmedia_common.quotation_subjectExperimental and Cognitive PsychologyIgnorance[ SCCO.PSYC ] Cognitive science/Psychology050105 experimental psychology03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineDevelopmental Neurosciencemedicine0501 psychology and cognitive sciencesAlgebraic numberGeneral PsychologyComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUSConfusionmedia_commonComplement (set theory)Cognitive science05 social sciences[SCCO.PSYC]Cognitive science/Psychology[SCCO.PSYC] Cognitive science/Psychologymedicine.symptomPsychologyMathematical economics030217 neurology & neurosurgery
researchProduct