ANeuralNetworkModelofSubliminalPriming.ppt

A Neural Network Model of Subliminal Priming Contents Connectionism Now Subliminal Priming Eimer and Schlaghecken Pattern Masked Priming Lateral Inhibition and Opponent Processes The Model Predictions and Future Directions Connectionism - The Claim Connectionism claims to offer a bridge between cognition and the brain. How complex behaviour emerges from the interaction of a multitude of computationally unsophisticated (one might even say dumb) units. Is this claim justified? Arguments against Connectionism Neural networks are not actually biologically plausible, e.g. problems with backpropagation How are computational implementations related to psychological theories? Does the model work because of the theory it realises or because of hidden implementation assumptions? Models can do anything, e.g. backpropagation can learn any computable function! Connectionism Now Biological plausibility all models are abstractions connectionist abstractions are becoming more grounded, e.g. spiking neurons and biologically plausible learning re-circulation algorithms instead of backpropagation Hebbian learning, sparse representations and sparsification techniques Reducing the degrees of freedom work closely within context of existing cognitive theory; apply biological constraints; systematic and transparent parameter setting (e.g. do statistics on model); make clear the key mechanisms involved; testable predictions from the models (especially counter-intuitive ones). Theoretical Background Two central theoretical issues the role of conscious control in visuomotor performance the “cognitive levels” at which inhibition functions Issue 1: Consciousness and Visuomotor Performance Tight coupling of vision and action actions planned on basis of visual information action execution guided by vision The debate, “To what extent is conscious experience a prerequisite for the control of visuomotor performance?” “Is there a direct, below conscious, link from vision to actio