↓ Skip to main content

A Neurocomputational Approach to Trained and Transitive Relations in Equivalence Classes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Neurocomputational Approach to Trained and Transitive Relations in Equivalence Classes
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01848
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ángel E. Tovar, Gert Westermann

Abstract

A stimulus class can be composed of perceptually different but functionally equivalent stimuli. The relations between the stimuli that are grouped in a class can be learned or derived from other stimulus relations. If stimulus A is equivalent to B, and B is equivalent to C, then the equivalence between A and C can be derived without explicit training. In this work we propose, with a neurocomputational model, a basic learning mechanism for the formation of equivalence. We also describe how the relatedness between the members of an equivalence class is developed for both trained and derived stimulus relations. Three classic studies on stimulus equivalence are simulated covering typical and atypical populations as well as nodal distance effects. This model shows a mechanism by which certain stimulus associations are selectively strengthened even when they are not co-presented in the environment. This model links the field of equivalence classes to accounts of Hebbian learning and categorization, and points to the pertinence of modeling stimulus equivalence to explore the effect of variations in training protocols.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Professor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 53%
Arts and Humanities 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,366,228
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,256
of 30,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,683
of 327,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#400
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.