Unlearning Incorrect Associations in Word Learning: Evidence From Eye-Tracking

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Tanja C. Roembke, Bob McMurray
{"title":"Unlearning Incorrect Associations in Word Learning: Evidence From Eye-Tracking","authors":"Tanja C. Roembke,&nbsp;Bob McMurray","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Computational and animal models suggest that the unlearning or pruning of incorrect meanings matters for word learning. However, it is currently unclear how such pruning occurs during word learning and to what extent it depends on supervised and unsupervised learning. In two experiments (<i>N</i><sub>1</sub> = 40; <i>N</i><sub>2</sub> = 42), adult participants first completed a pretraining, in which each word was paired with two objects across trials: its target and another object (termed secondary target [T2]). Subsequently, participants learned the correct word-object-mappings in a supervised training paradigm and were then tested on the word meanings. During training, trials were structured such that some T2s never occurred with the targets, while others did, allowing us to disentangle the contributions of supervised and unsupervised pruning accounts. Eye movements were tracked during training and testing to measure the activation strength of alternative meanings. The experiments were identical but differed in how often the word was paired with the T2 during pretraining. We found that while weak incorrect associations were pruned quickly (Experiment 1), stronger ones remained present even after ceiling performance (Experiment 2), suggesting that the extent to which incorrect associations are unlearned depends on the strength of the initial mappings. Additionally, pruning was observed even for T2s that did not co-occur with their corresponding word during training in line with unsupervised pruning. Overall, these findings imply that subtle incorrect associations may remain in the lexicon and contribute to other language processes (e.g., word recognition) even after word learning is completed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70077","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70077","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Computational and animal models suggest that the unlearning or pruning of incorrect meanings matters for word learning. However, it is currently unclear how such pruning occurs during word learning and to what extent it depends on supervised and unsupervised learning. In two experiments (N1 = 40; N2 = 42), adult participants first completed a pretraining, in which each word was paired with two objects across trials: its target and another object (termed secondary target [T2]). Subsequently, participants learned the correct word-object-mappings in a supervised training paradigm and were then tested on the word meanings. During training, trials were structured such that some T2s never occurred with the targets, while others did, allowing us to disentangle the contributions of supervised and unsupervised pruning accounts. Eye movements were tracked during training and testing to measure the activation strength of alternative meanings. The experiments were identical but differed in how often the word was paired with the T2 during pretraining. We found that while weak incorrect associations were pruned quickly (Experiment 1), stronger ones remained present even after ceiling performance (Experiment 2), suggesting that the extent to which incorrect associations are unlearned depends on the strength of the initial mappings. Additionally, pruning was observed even for T2s that did not co-occur with their corresponding word during training in line with unsupervised pruning. Overall, these findings imply that subtle incorrect associations may remain in the lexicon and contribute to other language processes (e.g., word recognition) even after word learning is completed.

Abstract Image

消除单词学习中的错误联想:来自眼动追踪的证据
计算模型和动物模型表明,忘记或删除不正确的含义对单词学习很重要。然而,目前尚不清楚这种修剪是如何在单词学习过程中发生的,以及它在多大程度上取决于监督学习和非监督学习。在两次实验中(N1 = 40;N2 = 42),成年参与者首先完成一个预训练,其中每个单词在试验中与两个物体配对:其目标和另一个物体(称为次级目标[T2])。随后,参与者在监督训练范式中学习了正确的词-对象映射,然后对单词的含义进行了测试。在训练期间,试验的结构是这样的,一些t25从未与目标一起发生,而另一些则发生了,这使我们能够理清监督和非监督修剪账户的贡献。在训练和测试期间跟踪眼球运动,以测量替代意义的激活强度。这些实验是相同的,但在预训练期间,单词与T2配对的频率有所不同。我们发现,虽然较弱的不正确关联被迅速修剪(实验1),但较强的不正确关联即使在天花板表现之后仍然存在(实验2),这表明不正确关联被遗忘的程度取决于初始映射的强度。此外,在训练过程中,即使T2s没有与其对应的单词同时出现,也会根据无监督修剪观察到修剪。总的来说,这些发现表明,即使在单词学习完成后,微妙的不正确的联想可能仍然存在于词汇中,并有助于其他语言过程(例如,单词识别)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信