Is formal simplicity a guide to learning in humans, as simplicity is said to be a guide to the acceptability of theories in science? Does simplicity determine the difficulty of various learning tasks? I argue that, similarly to how scientists sometimes preferred complex theories when this facilitated calculations, results from perception, learning and reasoning suggest that formal complexity is generally unrelated to what is easy to learn and process by humans, and depends on assumptions about available representational and processing primitives. (...) “Simpler” hypotheses are preferred only when they are also easier to process. Historically, “simpler”, easier‐to‐process, scientific theories might also be preferred if they are transmitted preferentially. Empirically viable complexity measures should build on the representational and processing primitives of actual learners, even if explanations of their behaviour become formally more complex. (shrink)

The ability to represent same-different relations is an important condition for abstract thought. However, there is mixed evidence for when this ability develops, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. Apparent success in relational reasoning may be evidence for genuine conceptual understanding or may be the result of low-level, perceptual strategies. We introduce a method to discriminate these possibilities by pitting two conditions that are perceptually matched but conceptually different: in a "fused" condition, same and different objects are joined, creating single objects that (...) have the same perceptual features as the two object pairs in the "relational" condition. However, the "fused" objects do not provide evidence for the relation 'same.' Using this method with human toddlers in a causal relational reasoning task provides evidence for genuine conceptual understanding. This novel technique offers a simple manipulation that may be applied to a variety of existing match-to-sample procedures used to assess same-different reasoning to include in future research with non-human animals across species, as well as human infants. (shrink)

Gervain et al. discuss both behavioral and neurophysiological AGL studies that investigate rule and structure learning processes in infants. The paper provides an overview of all the major AGL paradigms used to date to investigate infant learning abilities at the level of morpho‐phonology and syntax from a very early age onwards. Gervain et al. also discuss the implications of the results for a general theory of natural language acquisition.

Gervain et al. discuss both behavioral and neurophysiological AGL studies that investigate rule and structure learning processes in infants. The paper provides an overview of all the major AGL paradigms used to date to investigate infant learning abilities at the level of morpho‐phonology and syntax from a very early age onwards. Gervain et al. also discuss the implications of the results for a general theory of natural language acquisition.