Open Mind最新文献

{"title":"The Missing Half of Language Learning in Current Developmental Language Models: Exogenous and Endogenous Linguistic Input.","authors":"Nan Zhao, Xufeng Duan, Zhenguang G Cai","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.33","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.33","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developmental language models (DLMs) aim to replicate the efficiency of child language acquisition but often focus solely on the estimation of exogenous linguistic input. We argue that a child's linguistic growth is also critically shaped by endogenous processes, including (1) co-opting language in non-linguistic perception and cognition, (2) engaging in private and inner speech, and (3) benefiting from neural replay of linguistic information during sleep. These endogenous processes amplify and refine exogenous linguistic input in ways that current DLMs do not replicate. To align DLMs with child language acquisition, we propose redefining \"linguistic exposure\" to encompass both exogenous and endogenous linguistic input. By integrating label feedback, self-generated speech, and sleep-like consolidation, researchers can narrow the gap between artificial and human learning. Collaborations across machine learning, psychology, and linguistics will be essential to ground models in empirical data on child behavior and build DLMs that truly reflect the marvel of language acquisition.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1543-1549"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12506926/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145259319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Epistemic Curiosity in Kea Parrots and Human Children.","authors":"Gabriella E Smith, Megan L Lambert, Eliza Swindell, Jan M Engelmann, Christoph J Völter","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.34","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.34","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both human children and animals seek information following a violation-of-expectation event, but little research suggests the latter do so for the sake of it. In this preregistered experiment, we compared epistemic curiosity-the pursuit of information for its own sake-in kea parrots (<i>Nestor notabilis</i>) and three-year-old human children (<i>Homo sapiens</i>) following a violation-of-expectation event. Subjects were trained to push a tool into an apparatus that produced a reward before the apparatus was surreptitiously made non-functional in following trials. In both functional and non-functional trials, after solving the task, subjects were rewarded and allowed to explore the apparatus for thirty seconds with the opportunity to peek into the side of the apparatus. We found that relatively more kea peeked than children, but the children and not the kea were significantly more likely to peek in the non-functional versus functional trials, particularly when the researcher was absent. While both species showed markers of curiosity in the experiment, we found expectancy-violation-induced epistemic curiosity only in the children and not the kea in this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1528-1542"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12506928/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145259367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Semantic Anchors Facilitate Task Encoding in Continual Learning.","authors":"Mina Habibi, Pieter Verbeke, Mehdi Senoussi, Senne Braem","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.28","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.28","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Humans are remarkably efficient at learning new tasks, in large part by relying on the integration of previously learned knowledge. However, research on task learning typically focuses on the learning of abstract task rules on minimalist stimuli, to study behavior independent of the learning history that humans come equipped with (i.e., semantic knowledge). In contrast, several theories suggest that the use of semantic knowledge and labels may help the learning of new task information. Here, we tested whether providing existing, semantically rich task embeddings and response labels allowed for more robust task rule encoding and less (catastrophic) forgetting and interference. Our results show that providing semantically rich task settings and response labels resulted in less task forgetting (Experiment 1), both when using pictorial symbols or words as labels (Experiment 2), or when contrasted with visually matched shape labels without inherent meaning (Experiment 4). Using a subsequent value-based decision-making task and reinforcement learning modeling (Experiment 3), we demonstrate how the learned embedding of novel stimuli in semantically rich, representations, further allowed for a more efficient, feature-specific processing when learning new task information. Finally, using artificial recurrent neural networks fitted to our participants' task performance, we found that task separation during learning was more predictive of learning and task performance in the semantically rich conditions. Together, our findings show the benefit of using semantically rich task rules and response labels during novel task learning, thereby offering important insights into why humans excel in continual learning and are less susceptible to catastrophic forgetting compared to most artificial agents.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1467-1505"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483573/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145207745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predictive Structure Emerges During the Generalisation of Kin Terms to New Referents.","authors":"Maisy Hallam, Fiona M Jordan, Simon Kirby, Kenny Smith","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.27","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.27","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite cross-linguistic diversity in how kin relations map to terminology, there are constraints on which kin may be categorised together. But what are the constraints on kin term variation, and where do they come from? One proposed constraint is internal co-selection-an evolutionary process where terminological changes in one generation of kin co-occur with parallel changes in other generations. This results in kin categories which are predictable on the basis of other kin categories, a property we call <i>predictive structure</i>. To determine the strength of this constraint, we measured the predictive structure of kinship terminology systems from 731 languages. We found that kinship terminologies exhibit a significant degree of predictive structure, and we argue that its prevalence reflects a cognitive pressure for simplicity imposed during the generalisation of known kin categories to new referent types. We tested this claim using an artificial kin term generalisation task. Our results suggest that people do favour predictive structure when generalising from known kin categories to new referents, but that this preference faces interference from other pressures to distinguish kin by features like gender.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1431-1466"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483572/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145207810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Relative Contributions of Traits and Contexts on Social Network Learning.","authors":"Ameer Ghouse, Raphael Kaplan","doi":"10.1162/OPMI.a.31","DOIUrl":"10.1162/OPMI.a.31","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Navigating the social world is guided by remembering which people know each other. Yet, different factors might influence how social relationships are remembered, where people's shared attributes could distort a social network's mnemonic representation. Here, we study whether dyadically shared contexts and personality traits impact how people remember relationships in social networks. Through varying levels of network topological complexity, we find the contexts where people know each other are most memorable and that better contextual retrieval predicts relationship recall. In contrast, shared personality traits affect relationship recall differently depending on social network complexity, where shared negatively valenced traits relate to worse relationship recall in the simple network. Subsequent modeling revealed that as networks become more complex, relationships between more centrally positioned individuals that share negatively valenced traits are better recalled compared to less well-connected individuals. These results suggest contextual memory can serve as a scaffold for remembering relationships in a social network, while affective traits' impact on social network retrievability depends on emotional valence and the individuals involved. More generally, our findings give insight into how the same social network can be represented differently based on one's past experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1506-1527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483571/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145207861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"People Evaluate Agents Based on the Algorithms That Drive Their Behavior.","authors":"Eric Bigelow, Tomer Ullman","doi":"10.1162/opmi.a.26","DOIUrl":"10.1162/opmi.a.26","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When people see an agent perform a task, do they care if the underlying algorithm driving it is 'intelligent' or not? More generally, when people intuitively evaluate the performance of others, do they value external performance metrics (intuitive behaviorism) or do they also take into account the underlying algorithm driving the agent's behavior (intuitive cognitivism)? We propose 3 dimensions for examining this distinction: Action Efficiency, Representation Efficiency, and Generalization. Across 3 tasks (<i>N</i> = 598), we showed people pairs of maze-solving agents, together with the programs driving the agents' behavior. Participants were asked to pick the 'better' of the two programs, based on a single example of the two programs, evaluated on the same maze. Each pair of programs varied along one of our 3 proposed dimensions. Our framework predicts people's choice of program across the tasks, and the results support the idea that people are intuitive cognitivists.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1411-1430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435988/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Reasonable, the Rational, and the Good: On Folk Theories of Deliberative Judgment.","authors":"Igor Grossmann, Niyati Kachhiyapatel, Ethan A Meyers, Hanxiao Zhang, Richard P Eibach","doi":"10.1162/opmi.a.24","DOIUrl":"10.1162/opmi.a.24","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Judgment is often described in terms of an intuitive (System 1) versus deliberative (System 2) dichotomy, yet sound deliberation itself can take more than one form. Building on philosophical traditions and distinctions in treatment of sound judgment in economics and law, we propose that lay conceptions revolve around two distinct types of deliberate judgment: <i>rational</i>, emphasizing rule-based and utility-focused reasoning for well-defined problems, and <i>reasonable</i>, prioritizing context-sensitive and socially conscious reasoning for ill-defined problems. Across four studies in English-speaking Western samples (Studies 1-4; <i>N</i> = 2,130) and a Mandarin-speaking Chinese sample (Study 4; <i>N</i> = 697), participants described their notions of \"sound\" and \"good\" judgment, evaluated social scenarios, chose between candidates with distinct judgmental profiles, and categorized non-social objects. Results consistently showed that people view both rationality and reasonableness as common forms of deliberate sound judgment, while treating them as distinct. Participants preferred rational deliberation for algorithmic social roles linked to well-defined tasks and reasonable deliberation for interpretive roles linked to ill-defined tasks. Moreover, framing decisions as rational vs. reasonable influenced whether participants relied on rule-based vs. overall-similarity strategies in classification tasks. These findings suggest that lay understanding of sound judgment does not rely on a single standard of judgmental competence. Instead, people recognize that both rationality and reasonableness are critical for competent deliberation on different types of problems in life.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1375-1410"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435989/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring Meta-Reasoning Propositional Confidence in Conspiratorial Beliefs and Socio-Cognitive Polarization.","authors":"Carola Salvi, Marta K Mielicki, Alice Cancer, Paola Iannello, Tim George","doi":"10.1162/opmi.a.20","DOIUrl":"10.1162/opmi.a.20","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conspiracy theories have pervaded human thought across time and cultures, often emerging during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where they influenced public behaviors and attitudes, notably in vaccine hesitancy. This research explores the metacognitive foundations of conspiracy beliefs, particularly focusing on how individuals monitor and assess their problem-solving processes. We propose that conspiracy beliefs are linked to high <i>propositional confidence</i>-often unsupported by accurate reasoning. Two studies were conducted to investigate the potential relationship between meta-reasoning inaccuracies (i.e., prospective confidence judgments and commission errors) during problem solving and conspiracy beliefs. Across two studies, we examine metacognitive markers of this overconfidence. Study 1 analyzes archival data from George and Mielicki's (2023) to investigate how COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs are associated with initial judgments of solvability in solvable and unsolvable Compound Remote Associate (CRA) tasks. Study 2 examines the relationship between commission errors on Rebus puzzles and conspiracy beliefs, while also assessing <i>Socio-Cognitive Polarization</i> (SCP)-a construct encompassing ideological rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, and xenophobia. Results show that SCP amplified the effects of commission errors on conspiracy beliefs, situating these cognitive patterns within socio-political contexts. These findings offer novel evidence that conspiracy beliefs are not merely a product of what people think, but how they think-underscoring the intertwined roles of flawed meta-reasoning and socio-political attitudes in sustaining conspiratorial worldviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1339-1362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435987/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Signers and Speakers Show Distinct Temporal Kinematic Signatures in Their Manual Communicative Movements.","authors":"Rui Liu 刘睿, Wim Pouw, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Diane Brentari","doi":"10.1162/opmi.a.18","DOIUrl":"10.1162/opmi.a.18","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using our hands to move a stick along a path differs in systematic ways from using our hands to communicate about moving the stick. Kinematic signatures (e.g., enlarged moving trajectories) have been found to mark a movement as communicative, relative to its non-communicative counterpart. But communicative movements are frequently embedded within an expressive system and might differ as a function of that system. For example, deaf signers move their hands when they communicate with sign language, which is a linguistic system. Hearing speakers also move their hands-they gesture along with speech-but those gestures do not form a linguistic system unto themselves. Do the communicative movements signers and speakers use to describe the same event differ as a function of the expressive systems within which they are embedded? Because some signs are highly iconic, researchers often assume that movements in these signs have the same properties as speakers' gestures. To test this assumption, we compared spontaneous hand gestures produced by hearing speakers when they talk (co-speech gesture) to productive iconic hand signs produced by deaf signers when the signs superficially resemble co-speech gestures (classifier signs). We used motion tracking and kinematic analyses to disentangle the spatial and temporal kinematic patterns of communicative movements in 33 English-speakers and 10 American Sign Language (ASL) signers, using each group's non-communicative movements as a control. Participants copied a movement on an object performed by a model (non-communicative movement) and then described what they did with the object (communicative movement). We found no differences between groups in how non-communicative movements related to communicative movements for spatial kinematics. However, for temporal kinematics, speakers' co-speech movements were <i>less</i> rhythmic and jerkier than their non-communicative movements, but signers' communicative movements were <i>more</i> rhythmic and smoother than their non-communicative movements. We thus found differences in the temporal aspects of co-speech gestures vs. classifier signs, leading to 3 conclusions: (i) Communicative movements do not always have the same kinematic signatures but depend on the expressive system within which they are embedded. (ii) Since signers' and speakers' communicative movements have different kinematic features, even highly iconic signed movements cannot be considered entirely gestural. (iii) We need fine-grained techniques to measure communicative movements, particularly when trying to identify the gestural aspects of sign. Communicative movements, even when superficially similar, differ as a function of the system they are part of.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1323-1338"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435986/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Quest for Truth: Experimenter Identity Impacts Children's Response to Surprising Information.","authors":"Thomas St Pierre, Katherine S White, Elizabeth K Johnson, Samuel Ronfard","doi":"10.1162/opmi.a.23","DOIUrl":"10.1162/opmi.a.23","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Much of what children know about the world is learned from information provided by others, and children's endorsement of this information depends on the social attributes of the person providing the information (e.g., their accent, attractiveness, etc.). Previous work on how the identity of a person providing information (i.e., informant) influences children's learning has tended to focus on a highly specific, simplified learning context, where children are provided with conflicting claims from two individuals (e.g., one foreign- and one locally accented speaker) and are immediately asked to indicate whose information they endorse more. In the current study, we investigated the effect of informant identity on 5- to 7-year-old children's (<i>N</i> = 144) learning in a more real-world context, where children encountered surprising information from only one person (a foreign- or locally accented speaker), and were subsequently given the opportunity to engage further with that information (by testing for themselves whether the information was true). In contrast to previous research using a forced choice method, almost all children initially endorsed the surprising claim; however, their subsequent testing of the claim and later endorsement <i>did</i> differ based on whether children were interacting with a foreign- or locally accented speaker. These results highlight the need to investigate the influence of social factors on selective learning in more ecologically valid contexts, which, importantly, consider the influence of an informant at multiple points throughout the learning process.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"1363-1374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435985/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}