Recent research has seen many behavioral comparisons between humans and deep neural networks (DNNs) in the domain of image classification. Often, comparison studies focus on the end-result of the learning process by measuring and comparing the similarities in the representations of object categories once they have been formed. However, the process of how these representations emerge—that is, the behavioral changes and intermediate stages observed during the acquisition—is less often directly and empirically compared. In this talk, I'm going to report a detailed investigation of the learning dynamics in human observers and various classic and state-of-the-art DNNs. We develop a constrained supervised learning environment to align learning-relevant conditions such as starting point, input modality, available input data and the feedback provided. Across the whole learning process we evaluate and compare how well learned representations can be generalized to previously unseen test data. Comparisons across the entire learning process indicate that DNNs demonstrate a level of data efficiency comparable to human learners, challenging some prevailing assumptions in the field. However, our results also reveal representational differences: while DNNs' learning is characterized by a pronounced generalisation lag, humans appear to immediately acquire generalizable representations without a preliminary phase of learning training set-specific information that is only later transferred to novel data.

Cognitive maps confer animals with flexible intelligence by representing spatial, temporal, and abstract relationships that can be used to shape thought, planning, and behavior. Cognitive maps have been observed in the hippocampus, but their algorithmic form and the processes by which they are learned remain obscure. Here, we employed large-scale, longitudinal two-photon calcium imaging to record activity from thousands of neurons in the CA1 region of the hippocampus while mice learned to efficiently collect rewards from two subtly different versions of linear tracks in virtual reality. The results provide a detailed view of the formation of a cognitive map in the hippocampus. Throughout learning, both the animal behavior and hippocampal neural activity progressed through multiple intermediate stages, gradually revealing improved task representation that mirrored improved behavioral efficiency. The learning process led to progressive decorrelations in initially similar hippocampal neural activity within and across tracks, ultimately resulting in orthogonalized representations resembling a state machine capturing the inherent struture of the task. We show that a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) and a biologically plausible recurrent neural network trained using Hebbian learning can both capture core aspects of the learning dynamics and the orthogonalized representational structure in neural activity. In contrast, we show that gradient-based learning of sequence models such as Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs) and Transformers do not naturally produce such orthogonalized representations. We further demonstrate that mice exhibited adaptive behavior in novel task settings, with neural activity reflecting flexible deployment of the state machine. These findings shed light on the mathematical form of cognitive maps, the learning rules that sculpt them, and the algorithms that promote adaptive behavior in animals. The work thus charts a course toward a deeper understanding of biological intelligence and offers insights toward developing more robust learning algorithms in artificial intelligence.

Extensive research on science teaching has shown the effectiveness of analogies as a didactic tool which, when appropriately and effectively used, facilitates the learning process of abstract concepts. This seminar does not contradict the efficacy of such a didactic use of analogies in this seminar but switches attention and interest on their heuristic use in approaching and understanding of what previously unknown. Such a use of analogies derives from research with 10 to 17 year-olds, who, when asked to make predictions in novel situations and to then provide explanations about these predictions, they self-generated analogies and used them by reasoning on their basis. This heuristic use of analogies can be used in science teaching in revealing how students approach situations they have not considered before as well as the sources they draw upon in doing so.

Making use of visual display technology and human-robotic interfaces, many researchers have illustrated various opportunities to distort visual and physical realities. We have had success with interventions such as error augmentation, sensory crossover, and negative viscosity.  Judicial application of these techniques leads to training situations that enhance the learning process and can restore movement ability after neural injury. I will trace out clinical studies that have employed such technologies to improve the health and function, as well as share some leading-edge insights that include deceiving the patient, moving the "smarts" of software into the hardware, and examining clinical effectiveness

Mammals instinctively explore and form mental maps of their spatial environments. Models of cognitive mapping in neuroscience mostly depict map-learning as a process of random or biased diffusion. In practice, however, animals explore spaces using structured, purposeful, sensory-guided actions. We have used threat-evoked escape behavior in mice to probe the relationship between ethological exploratory behavior and abstract spatial cognition. First, we show that in arenas with obstacles and a shelter, mice spontaneously learn efficient multi-step escape routes by memorizing allocentric subgoal locations. Using closed-loop neural manipulations to interrupt running movements during exploration, we next found that blocking runs targeting an obstacle edge abolished subgoal learning. We conclude that mice use an action-driven learning process to identify subgoals, and these subgoals are then integrated into an allocentric map-like representation. We suggest a conceptual framework for spatial learning that is compatible with the successor representation from reinforcement learning and sensorimotor enactivism from cognitive science.

A central issue in reinforcement learning (RL) is the ‘curse-of-dimensionality’, arising when the degrees-of-freedom are much larger than the number of training samples. In such circumstances, the learning process becomes too slow to be plausible. In the brain, higher cognitive functions (such as abstraction or metacognition) may be part of the solution by generating low dimensional representations on which RL can operate. In this talk I will discuss a series of studies in which we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and computational modeling to investigate the neuro-computational basis of efficient RL. We found that people can learn remarkably complex task structures non-consciously, but also that - intriguingly - metacognition appears tightly coupled to this learning ability. Furthermore, when people use an explicit (conscious) policy to select relevant information, learning is accelerated by abstractions. At the neural level, prefrontal cortex subregions are differentially involved in separate aspects of learning: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex pairs with metacognitive processes, while ventromedial prefrontal cortex with valuation and abstraction. I will discuss the implications of these findings, in particular new questions on the function of metacognition in adaptive behavior and the link with abstraction.

Recent years have seen a considerable surge of research on interest-based engagement, examining how and why people are engaged in activities without relying on extrinsic rewards. However, the field of inquiry has been somewhat segregated into three different research traditions which have been developed relatively independently --- research on curiosity, interest, and trait curiosity/interest. The current talk sets out an integrative perspective; the reward-learning framework of knowledge acquisition. This conceptual framework takes on the basic premise of existing reward-learning models of information seeking: that knowledge acquisition serves as an inherent reward, which reinforces people’s information-seeking behavior through a reward-learning process. However, the framework reveals how the knowledge-acquisition process is sustained and boosted over a long period of time in real-life settings, allowing us to integrate the different research traditions within reward-learning models. The framework also characterizes the knowledge-acquisition process with four distinct features that are not present in the reward-learning process with extrinsic rewards --- (1) cumulativeness, (2) selectivity, (3) vulnerability, and (4) under-appreciation. The talk describes some evidence from our lab supporting these claims.

Recent years have seen a considerable surge of research on interest-based engagement, examining how and why people are engaged in activities without relying on extrinsic rewards. However, the field of inquiry has been somewhat segregated into three different research traditions which have been developed relatively independently -- research on curiosity, interest, and trait curiosity/interest. The current talk sets out an integrative perspective; the reward-learning framework of knowledge acquisition. This conceptual framework takes on the basic premise of existing reward-learning models of information seeking: that knowledge acquisition serves as an inherent reward, which reinforces people’s information-seeking behavior through a reward-learning process. However, the framework reveals how the knowledge-acquisition process is sustained and boosted over a long period of time in real-life settings, allowing us to integrate the different research traditions within reward-learning models. The framework also characterizes the knowledge-acquisition process with four distinct features that are not present in the reward-learning process with extrinsic rewards -- (1) cumulativeness, (2) selectivity, (3) vulnerability, and (4) under-appreciation. The talk describes some evidence from our lab supporting these claims.

Analogies are widely used by teachers and coaches of different movement disciplines, serving a role during the learning phase of a new skill, and honing one’s performance to a competitive level. In previous studies, analogies improved motor control in various tasks and across age groups. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of analogies throughout the learning process, using kinematic measures for an in-depth analysis. We tested whether applying analogies can shorten the motor learning process and induce insight and skill improvement in tasks that usually demand many hours of practice. The experiment included a drawing task, in which subjects were asked to connect four dots into a closed shape, and a mirror game, in which subjects tracked an oval that moved across the screen. After establishing a baseline, subjects were given an analogy, explicit instructions, or no further instruction. We compared their improvement in overall skill, accuracy, and speed. Subjects in the analogy and explicit groups improved their performance in the drawing task, while significant differences were found in the mirror game only for slow movements between analogy and controls. In conclusion, analogies are an important tool for teachers and coaches, and more research is needed to understand how to apply them for maximum results. They can rapidly change motor control and strategy but may also affect only some aspects of a movement and not others. Careful thought is needed to construct an effective analogy that encompasses relevant movement facets, as well as the practitioner’s personal background and experience.

Comparison is a powerful learning process that improves learning in many domains. For over 10 years, my colleagues and I have researched how we can use comparison to support better learning of school mathematics within classroom settings. In 5 short-term experimental, classroom-based studies, we evaluated comparison of solution methods for supporting mathematics knowledge and tested whether prior knowledge impacted effectiveness. We next developed supplemental Algebra I curriculum and professional development for teachers to integrate Comparison and Explanation of Multiple Strategies (CEMS) in their classrooms and tested the promise of the approach when implemented by teachers in two studies. Benefits and challenges emerged in these studies. I will conclude with evidence-based guidelines for effectively supporting comparison and explanation in the classroom. Overall, this program of research illustrates how cognitive science research can guide the design of effective educational materials as well as challenges that occur when bridging from cognitive science research to classroom instruction.

Pain is a major clinical problem affecting 1 in 5 people in the world. There are unresolved questions that urgently require answers to treat pain effectively, a crucial one being how the feeling of pain arises from brain activity. Computational models of pain consider how the brain processes noxious information and allow mapping neural circuits and networks to cognition and behaviour. To date, they have generally have assumed two largely independent processes: perceptual and/or predictive inference, typically modelled as an approximate Bayesian process, and action control, typically modelled as a reinforcement learning process. However, inference and control are intertwined in complex ways, challenging the clarity of this distinction. I will discuss how they may comprise a parallel hierarchical architecture that combines pain inference, information-seeking, and adaptive value-based control. Finally, I will discuss whether and how these learning processes might contribute to chronic pain.

Across species, humans are uniquely able to acquire deep relational systems of the kind needed for mathematics, science, and human language. Analogical comparison processes are a major contributor to this ability. Analogical comparison engages a structure-mapping process (Gentner, 1983) that fosters learning in at least three ways: first, it highlights common relational systems and thereby promotes abstraction; second, it promotes inferences from known situations to less familiar situations; and, third, it reveals potentially important differences between examples. In short, structure-mapping is a domain-general learning process by which abstract, portable knowledge can arise from experience. It is operative from early infancy on, and is critical to the rapid learning we see in human children. Although structure-mapping processes are present pre-linguistically, their scope is greatly amplified by language. Analogical processes are instrumental in learning relational language, and the reverse is also true: relational language acts to preserve relational abstractions and render them accessible for future learning and reasoning. Although structure-mapping processes are present pre-linguistically, their scope is greatly amplified by language. Analogical processes are instrumental in learning relational language, and the reverse is also true: relational language acts to preserve relational abstractions and render them accessible for future learning and reasoning.