Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Evolution of diverse (and advanced) cognitive abilities through adaptive fine-tuning of learning and chunking mechanisms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that adaptive fine-tuning of learning and chunking parameters can explain the evolution of diverse cognitive abilities, including the apparent human-animal sequence-learning gap.

desk verdict A clear restatement of the authors' own chunking framework with a genuinely new but unquantified proposal for sequence learning; worth reviewing, not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11201 v2 pith:JCGENPPK submitted 2025-01-20 q-bio.NC

Arnon Lotem , Joseph Y. Halpern This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords cognitiveevolutionoflearningnon-elementalconfiguralchunkingsequenceanimalcognitionfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the evolution of cognition, including abilities usually called advanced, can be explained by natural selection fine-tuning a handful of basic learning parameters rather than by inventing new cognitive mechanisms or simply growing bigger brains. The core idea is that animals build an internal network of nodes and edges representing associations between elements of experience, and that the rates at which weights increase, decay, and cross a fixation threshold determine which associations and chunks become permanent. Getting these parameters right for a species' ecology is the main adaptive challenge, because chunking too fast fills memory with misleading combinations while chunking too slow loses meaningful structure. The paper applies this view to foraging, configural learning, problem solving, and flexibility, and claims that even the human-animal gap in sequence learning is a difference in tuning of the same chunking process, not a different mechanism. If correct, cognitive evolution is primarily a story of selection on learning-rate, decay, and attention parameters, with brain structure playing a permissive role.

What carries the argument

The central object is a learned network of nodes and edges, where each node represents an element or a chunk (a combination of elements) and each edge's weight encodes associative strength. Two mechanisms carry the argument: a memory-weight dynamic in which weights increase with observation, decay over time, and become permanent only after crossing a fixation threshold, and a chunk-formation process in which coactivation of nodes raises the weight of a shared downstream node, turning it into a chunk. For sequence-sensitive chunks, the framework adds asymmetric signal arrival times so that the node n' peaks more for AB and node n'' peaks more for BA. The fine-tuning of the weight increase/decrease parameters and of the data-acquisition filters determines which chunks form, how large they grow, and whether the resulting network supports generalization, problem solving, or rigid, over-chunked behavior.

What would settle it

A simulation of the Section 7 network with explicit weight dynamics that fails to produce a growing weight difference between the AB node and the BA node after hundreds of trials, under realistic decay and interference, would falsify the sequence-learning claim. Alternatively, a neurophysiological experiment showing that sequence-sensitive activation differences are not present in non-human animals even after extended training would count against the account.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the evolution of cognitive abilities can be captured by the fine-tuning of basic learning mechanisms and, in particular, chunking mechanisms. The framework represents knowledge as a network whose nodes stand for elements or combinations of elements and whose edges carry associative weights; weight increase and decrease parameters, together with a fixation threshold, act as a filter that keeps only statistically significant, ecologically meaningful associations. The same dynamic of decay and fixation that keeps the network from exploding into all possible combinations also creates chunks when coactivated nodes converge on a new node. The paper's most specific claim is that humans' superior sequence learning is not a separate mechanism but arises from the same chunking process tuned so that sequence-sensitive nodes, created by asymmetric signal arrival times, are activated more strongly and gain weight faster. Thus, gradual evolutionary modification of these parameters can produce both the slow, error-prone sequence discrimination seen in other animals and the fast, accurate sequence learning seen in humans.

Load-bearing premise

The explanation of the human-animal sequence-learning gap depends on the idea that tiny, repeated differences in how strongly a chunk node is activated can gradually accumulate into lasting differences in memory weight, even while those memories are decaying and other nodes are simultaneously active.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If cognitive evolution is mostly fine-tuning, then selection should act on learning-rate, decay, and attention parameters in response to ecological statistics, and brain enlargement should be favored only when it relieves constraints on network growth.
  • Fast chunking is not always better: creating chunks too readily produces misleading chunks (as in the cleaner-fish case) and blocks generalization by embedding elements in fixed combinations.
  • The slow, inaccurate sequence discrimination of non-human animals follows naturally from a chunking process whose parameters are tuned against sequence sensitivity, because small activation differences require many trials to accumulate into weight differences.
  • Humans' sequence-learning advantage would be a derived tuning of the same mechanism, selected when language and cultural innovations made sequential information critical.
  • The model predicts that memory limitations and slow learning are adaptive features that manage computational load, not just constraints to be overcome.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the framework suggests a concrete comparative prediction: species whose ecology rewards combining cues, such as specialized flower feeders, should show faster chunk formation and better configural discrimination, but also more false-positive chunks in unnatural lab tasks.
  • Editorial inference: one could test the sequence-learning claim by training animals on AB/BA discrimination with inter-trial intervals tuned to reduce decay, predicting an approach to human-like accuracy if the only difference is parameter tuning.
  • Editorial inference: the same parameter-fine-tuning story could be extended to artificial systems, where imposing memory constraints and decay on a network might produce chunk structures similar to those the paper describes.
  • Editorial inference: the claim that humans use the same chunking mechanism as animals implies that human sequence learning should show the same qualitative signatures of chunk formation, such as spacing effects and sensitivity to fixation thresholds, at compressed timescales.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the evolution of diverse and advanced cognitive abilities can be understood as adaptive fine-tuning of basic learning mechanisms, especially chunking (broadly defined as non-elemental learning). The authors sketch a previously proposed network model in which nodes and edges represent elements and associations, with memory weight increase, decay, and fixation thresholds shaping which chunks persist. They apply this framework to foraging decisions, configural learning, the cleaner fish ephemeral-reward task, generalization and creativity, cognitive flexibility, and, in Section 7, to the human–animal gap in sequence learning. The central claim is that humans' superior sequence learning reflects different tunings of a similar chunking process rather than a fundamentally different mechanism. The paper is written as a perspective piece, with qualitative model description and references to earlier computational work, and it concludes by acknowledging that the modeling approach may not be entirely accurate and that further neurobiological testing is needed.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it offers a unifying account of cognitive evolution grounded in learning and memory parameters rather than brain morphology alone, with the notable strength of generating specific, falsifiable claims about when chunking should be fast or slow. I credit the authors for the internally consistent arithmetic (e.g., the 2^20 − 1 − 20 = 1,048,555 combinations in Section 7), for clearly acknowledging that the specialized sequence-discrimination architecture is unlikely to arise by chance, and for explicitly stating the limitations of the model and the need for future neurobiological tests. The paper also connects to a substantial body of empirical work in animal cognition and clearly separates its own network-level constructs from neuronal-level implementation. However, the most load-bearing component—the proposed mechanism by which small per-trial activation differences accumulate into stable sequence-discrimination weights in Section 7—is presented only verbally, with no parameter regime, stability condition, or simulation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7, Fig. 2d] The central claim that repeated exposure to AB gradually increases the weight of node n′ faster than n and n′′, so that 'small differences in activation can gradually build up larger differences in weight,' is stated without any mathematical specification. The text does not define the weight-update rule, the activation-to-increment mapping, the decay rate, the fixation threshold, or the trial-to-trial schedule (including whether AB and BA trials are interleaved, as in the animal experiments reviewed by Ghirlanda et al.). Without such a model, it is not established that decay and co-activation of all three nodes on both AB and BA trials do not erase the differential. A threshold nonlinearity, reward-modulated update, or explicit accumulation mechanism is needed to show that accuracy can rise to the observed 60–85% range after hundreds of trials. This is a load-bearing step: if the accumulation dynamic fails, the proposed explanation of the human–animal gap collapses.
  2. [§7, Fig. 2c] The text states that humans' faster and more accurate sequence learning is due to 'adjusted synchrony in time of arrival' of signals to n′ and n′′, and concedes that the resulting specialized asynchronous architecture 'is unlikely to happen by chance.' This sits uneasily with the abstract's claim that the human–animal gap is explained by 'different tunings of a similar chunking process' rather than a different mechanism. If the relevant difference is a structural feature of the network (asymmetric delays requiring selection) plus a context-dependent weight-increase rule, the manuscript should clarify how this is a tuning of the same process rather than a structural innovation. Otherwise the central claim of Section 7 is weaker than stated.
  3. [§5, cleaner fish] The argument that chunking must be finely tuned to avoid the misleading RV chunk rests on the model of Prat et al. [24], but the present paper does not report the model's equations, parameter values, or an independent derivation. Since the cleaner fish case is used as a concrete demonstration that chunking speed must be ecologically tuned, the reader cannot assess whether the conclusion follows from the assumed dynamics or from unstated parameter choices. The authors should either summarize the relevant model dynamics and its parameter sensitivity or clearly present the cleaner fish case as an illustrative interpretation of [24] rather than as a self-contained demonstration.
  4. [§7, Ghirlanda et al. comparison] The claim that the trace-memory model cannot explain why repeated trials improve performance because 'the information is already available after the first few trials' requires more justification. Ghirlanda et al.'s model may need multiple trials for the animal to learn which trace pattern is associated with reward, even if the trace patterns themselves are discriminable after one trial. The distinction between trace discriminability and the learned mapping from traces to responses should be addressed explicitly, otherwise the proposed chunk-accumulation mechanism is contrasted with a straw man.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are minor typographical and formatting issues, including 'n odes' in the Figure 1 caption and inconsistent spacing in the reference list; these should be corrected in a proofread.
  2. [§7, formula] The formula for the number of combinations is given as '2n – 1 – n combinations' with the substitution '1,048,555 when n=20'; please use superscripted notation (2^n − 1 − n) to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§2, parameters] The illustrative parameters (increment 1, decay 0.1 per minute, fixation threshold 4) would be easier to follow if the units and the update interval were defined precisely, since the same parameters are invoked later in Section 7.
  4. [§3] The discussion of prepared learning would benefit from a brief statement of how the Garcia effect maps onto the data-acquisition mechanism versus the learning parameters, since the framework distinguishes these two sources of tuning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is explicitly a perspective that applies the authors' prior framework, and its load-bearing examples have external empirical anchors rather than reducing to their own definitions.

full rationale

The paper does not present a formal derivation with equations, fitted parameters, or a uniqueness theorem; it is an explicitly self-described application of a previously proposed framework ("making use of a previously proposed theory" and "using a theoretical framework developed with our colleagues over the past fifteen years"). The central claim that fine-tuning of learning and chunking parameters shapes cognitive evolution is a hypothesis supported by external data and by prior computational models that the paper cites, including the cleaner fish model [24] with independent behavioral tests and the language acquisition model [22] against human language findings. The Section 7 sequence-learning explanation is a proposed mechanism, explicitly hedged as possible ("we explain how", "it is possible that", "expressing this high-level model at the neuronal level is still premature"), not a prediction that is definitionally equivalent to its inputs. The paper's broad definition of chunking ("We use the term chunking broadly for all types of non-elemental learning") is a scope choice, not a circular reduction: it does not define cognitive abilities in terms of chunking parameters, and the argument still relies on empirical examples such as the Heliconius butterflies, the house sparrow context-dependent decisions, and the cleaner fish tradeoff. Self-citations are numerous, but they point to published models that are externally falsifiable or code-implemented, and the paper explicitly acknowledges its theory "is unlikely to be quite right" and "may not be entirely accurate," which is inconsistent with a forced or definitionally guaranteed conclusion. No circular step can be exhibited from the text, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on a handful of postulated learning parameters (weight increase rate, decay rate, fixation threshold, activation decay, signal-arrival asymmetry) whose values are not fixed in this paper; their tuning is the entire explanatory engine, so they function as free parameters even though no numbers are fitted here. The key domain assumptions are the network representation of knowledge, the decay-as-significance filter, the convergence mechanism for chunk creation, and the priority of learning-parameter selection over structural brain change. The most fragile assumption is the Section 7 accumulation dynamic, which is ad hoc to this paper. The paper invents three main constructs: chunk nodes (including sequence-sensitive n' and n''), the node-edge network, and the data-acquisition mechanism; the first two have no independent falsifiable handle specified in this paper, while the third is anchored to established phenomena such as prepared learning.

free parameters (6)
  • Memory weight increase rate = not quantified here (illustrative: +1 unit per observation)
    Section 2: the rate at which nodes and edges gain weight per observation; the paper states that evolution of this parameter "is largely responsible for the evolution of cognition."
  • Memory weight decay rate = not quantified here (illustrative: -0.1 per minute)
    Section 2: determines which elements and associations survive, acting as a "test of statistical significance"; the example given is illustrative only.
  • Memory fixation threshold = not quantified here (illustrative: 4 weight units)
    Section 2: weight level required for long-term fixation; its value controls which chunks become permanent, tuning both learning speed and memory load.
  • Activation decay rate of element nodes = not quantified here
    Section 7 and Fig. 2: fast decay enables sequence sensitivity; slow decay creates order-insensitive chunks. The tradeoff is described qualitatively.
  • Signal arrival-time asymmetry between A and B signals = not quantified here
    Section 7 and Fig. 2c: the delay difference that makes chunks sequence-sensitive (n' for AB, n'' for BA); the paper concedes this architecture "is unlikely to happen by chance."
  • Chunking speed (tendency to form chunks) = tuned per species in prior simulations ([21], [24]); not quantified here
    The central explanatory variable: chunking too fast creates misleading chunks (cleaner fish RV error), too slow delays learning; human vs. animal sequence learning is attributed to its tuning.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Knowledge is represented as a network of nodes (elements) and weighted directed edges (associations) constructed by learning, starting from innate association sections.
    Section 2: the entire framework rests on this representation; the paper states nodes and edges "do not correspond to neuronal cells and synapses" but could represent engram-like communities of neurons.
  • domain assumption Memory decay with a fixation threshold acts as a statistical-significance filter that keeps only ecologically meaningful associations and chunks.
    Section 2: "This test of memory decay can be viewed as a test of statistical significance"; the claim that tuned parameters match environmental statistics is asserted, not derived.
  • domain assumption Chunk nodes form when a node receives converging signals from coactivated element nodes and its weight crosses the fixation threshold.
    Sections 2 and 7: the mechanism for creating configural and sequence chunks (nodes n, n', n'') is postulated; all chunking claims depend on it.
  • domain assumption Natural selection acts primarily on learning and data-acquisition parameters rather than on representational architecture or brain structure.
    Sections 1-2: "genetic modifications of neuroanatomical structure are favored by selection only if they release the constraints on network development"; the framing that brain evolution is permissive rather than generative is an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Small activation-peak differences accumulate monotonically into node weight differences over hundreds of trials despite ongoing decay.
    Section 7, Fig. 2d: the explanation of slow, imperfect animal sequence learning requires this dynamic, but no parameter regime or stability condition is given; it is introduced specifically to make the sequence-learning account work.
  • domain assumption Observed behavioral results (sparrows, starlings, partial-reinforcement extinction) are best explained by network context-matching rather than by simpler conditioning accounts.
    Section 4: the paper argues simple conditioning is insufficient and interprets the data through the network model; no quantitative comparison with alternative associative accounts is provided.
invented entities (3)
  • Sequence-sensitive chunk nodes (n' and n'') with asymmetric signal arrival times
    purpose: Represent order-specific combinations such as AB versus BA so that each sequence can acquire its own associations and rewards, which is the paper's proposed basis for human-level sequence learning.
    Section 7 and Fig. 2c: the architecture is presented as a possibility that "is unlikely to happen by chance" and would need to be finely tuned by selection. No quantitative prediction (e.g., trials-to-criterion as a function of delay asymmetry) is given that could be tested outside the model, so it lacks a falsifiable handle in this paper.
  • Network nodes and edges representing elements and associations (engram-like, not neuronal)
    purpose: The substrate of knowledge representation and planning in the framework; nodes and edges are strengthened or pruned by learning parameters.
    Section 2: "Nodes and edges in our network are theoretical constructs; they do not correspond to neuronal cells and synapses." The paper argues they could be implemented by communities of neurons, citing the engram concept, but provides no independent evidence that such a node-edge code is how brains represent knowledge.
  • Data-acquisition mechanism (sensory and attentional filters) independent evidence
    purpose: Controls which environmental inputs are available for learning and memory, coevolving with learning parameters; determines the perceived distribution of input that learning must be tuned to.
    Sections 2 and 3: grounded in established external phenomena (prepared learning, the Garcia effect, experimental evolution of sensory biases in Drosophila, refs [42]-[45]), so the construct maps onto documented biology, although its formalization is the authors' own.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of diverse (and advanced) cognitive abilities through adaptive fine-tuning of learning and chunking mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCGENPPK

@misc{pith2026250111201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of diverse (and advanced) cognitive abilities through adaptive fine-tuning of learning and chunking mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCGENPPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11201}
}
read the original abstract

The evolution of cognition is frequently discussed as the evolution of cognitive abilities or the evolution of some neuronal structures in the brain. However, since such traits or abilities are often highly complex, understanding their evolution requires explaining how they could have gradually evolved through selection acting on heritable variations in simpler cognitive mechanisms. With this in mind, making use of a previously proposed theory, here we show how the evolution of cognitive abilities can be captured by the fine-tuning of basic learning mechanisms and, in particular, chunking mechanisms. We use the term chunking broadly for all types of non-elemental learning, claiming that the process by which elements are combined into chunks and associated with other chunks, or elements, is critical for what the brain can do, and that it must be fine-tuned to ecological conditions. We discuss the relevance of this approach to studies in animal cognition, using examples from animal foraging and decision-making, problem solving, and cognitive flexibility. Finally, we explain how even the apparent human-animal gap in sequence learning ability can be explained in terms of different fine-tunings of a similar chunking process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic description of how similar edge structure of two nodes in the network can support generalization. a) The incoming and outgoing edges of nodes A (red arrows) and Z (blue arrows) have the same structure (both have incoming edges from X and Y, and outgoing edges to B, C, and D). b) As a result of this similar edge profile, using the network for planning a sequence of actions (by some mechanism that tracks the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic description of the process that creates chunks that are either sequence insensitive (cannot represent the sequential order of A and B) or sequence sensitive (that represent this sequential order). A and B are nodes representing the elements A and B. Solid arrows are edges leading from A and B to n, n’ or n’’, which are the nodes that will form the chunks {A, B}, AB, and BA, respectively (see text for full … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    2022 Modelling how cleaner fish approach an ephemeral reward task demonstrates a role for ecologically tuned chunking in the evolution of advanced cognition

    Prat Y, Bshary R, Lotem A. 2022 Modelling how cleaner fish approach an ephemeral reward task demonstrates a role for ecologically tuned chunking in the evolution of advanced cognition. PLoS Biol. 20, 1–22. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001519)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001519 2022

  2. [1]

    2024 Evolutionary–developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of hominin brain size

    González-Forero M. 2024 Evolutionary–developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of hominin brain size. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1321–1333 (doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01887-8)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01887-8 2024

  3. [2]

    2024 A molecular and cellular perspective on human brain evolution and tempo

    Lindhout FW, Krienen FM, Pollard KS, Lancaster MA. 2024 A molecular and cellular perspective on human brain evolution and tempo. Nature 630, 596–608. (doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07521-x)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07521-x 2024

  4. [3]

    2022 Human TKTL1 implies greater neurogenesis in frontal neocortex of modern humans than Neanderthals

    Pinson A et al. 2022 Human TKTL1 implies greater neurogenesis in frontal neocortex of modern humans than Neanderthals. Science 377 (6611) eabl6422. (doi:10.1126/science.abl6422)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abl6422 2022

  5. [4]

    2022 Neuron numbers link innovativeness with both absolute and relative brain size in birds

    Sol D et al. 2022 Neuron numbers link innovativeness with both absolute and relative brain size in birds. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1381–1389. (doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01815-x)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01815-x 2022

  6. [5]

    2022 The emergent properties of the connected brain

    Thiebaut de Schotten MT, Forkel SJ. 2022 The emergent properties of the connected brain. Science 378, 505–510. (doi:10.1126/science.abq2591)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abq2591 2022

  7. [6]

    2022 The evolution of brain neuron numbers in amniotes

    Kverková K et al. 2022 The evolution of brain neuron numbers in amniotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 119, 1–10. (doi:10.1073/pnas.2121624119)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2121624119 2022

  8. [7]

    2011 Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience

    Gallistel CR, King AP. 2011 Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons

    2011

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    2009 Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior

    Shettleworth SJ. 2009 Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior. Oxford University Press

    2009

  2. [9]

    2024 Cognitive Twists: The Coevolution of Learning and Genes in Human Cognition

    Tramacere A, Mafessoni F. 2024 Cognitive Twists: The Coevolution of Learning and Genes in Human Cognition. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 15, 189–217. (doi:10.1007/s13164-022-00670-w)

    2024 doi

  3. [10]

    2015 What evolves in the evolution of social learning? J

    Leadbeater E. 2015 What evolves in the evolution of social learning? J. Zool. 295, 4–11. (doi:10.1111/jzo.12197)

    2015 doi

  4. [11]

    2021 Two views on the cognitive brain

    Barack DL, Krakauer JW. 2021 Two views on the cognitive brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 359–

    2021

  5. [12]

    2023 The neuroconnectionist research programme

    Doerig A et al. 2023 The neuroconnectionist research programme. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 431–450. (doi:10.1038/s41583-023-00705-w)

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    2012 Coevolution of learning and data-acquisition mechanisms: a model for cognitive evolution

    Lotem A, Halpern JY. 2012 Coevolution of learning and data-acquisition mechanisms: a model for cognitive evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2686–2694. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0213)

    2012

  7. [14]

    2008 A data-acquisition model for learning and cognitive development and its implications for autism

    Lotem A, Halpern JY. 2008 A data-acquisition model for learning and cognitive development and its implications for autism. Comput. Inf. Sci. Tech. Reports, Cornell Univ. Cornell Univ. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/10178

    2008

  8. [15]

    2010 General cognitive principles for learning structure in time and space

    Goldstein MH, Waterfall HR, Lotem A, Halpern JY, Schwade J a., Onnis L, Edelman S. 2010 General cognitive principles for learning structure in time and space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 249–258. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.02.004)

    2010 doi

  9. [16]

    2017 The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in response to cultural innovations

    Lotem A, Halpern JY, Edelman S, Kolodny O. 2017 The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in response to cultural innovations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 7915–7922. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1620742114)

    2017 doi

  10. [17]

    2023 Gene – Culture Coevolution in the Cognitive Domain: in Jamshid J

    Lotem A, Kolodny O, Arbilly M. 2023 Gene – Culture Coevolution in the Cognitive Domain: in Jamshid J. Tehrani, Jeremy Kendal, and Rachel Kendal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Evolution (online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Feb. 2023), (doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198869252.013.66)

    2023

  11. [18]

    2017 Constructive anthropomorphism: a functional evolutionary approach to the study of human-like cognitive mechanisms in animals

    Arbilly M, Lotem A. 2017 Constructive anthropomorphism: a functional evolutionary approach to the study of human-like cognitive mechanisms in animals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20171616. 15

    2017

  12. [19]

    2014 The evolution of continuous learning of the structure of the environment

    Kolodny O, Edelman S, Lotem A. 2014 The evolution of continuous learning of the structure of the environment. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20131091. (doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.1091)

    2014

  13. [20]

    2015 Evolution of protolinguistic abilities as a by-product of learning to forage in structured environments

    Kolodny O, Edelman S, Lotem A. 2015 Evolution of protolinguistic abilities as a by-product of learning to forage in structured environments. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20150353. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0353)

    2015

  14. [21]

    2015 Evolved to adapt: A computational approach to animal innovation and creativity

    Kolodny O, Edelman S, Lotem A. 2015 Evolved to adapt: A computational approach to animal innovation and creativity. Curr. Zool. 61, 350–367. (doi:10.1093/czoolo/61.2.350)

    2015 doi

  15. [22]

    2015 Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition

    Kolodny O, Lotem A, Edelman S. 2015 Learning a generative probabilistic grammar of experience: A process-level model of language acquisition. Cogn. Sci. 39, 227–267. (doi:10.1111/cogs.12140)

    2015 doi

  16. [23]

    2021 The brain as a probabilistic transducer: an evolutionarily plausible network architecture for knowledge representation, computation, and behavior

    Halpern JY, Lotem A. 2021 The brain as a probabilistic transducer: an evolutionarily plausible network architecture for knowledge representation, computation, and behavior. arXiv Prepr. arXiv2112.13388 1, 1–55

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2020 Memory engrams: Recalling the past and imagining the future

    Josselyn SA, Tonegawa S. 2020 Memory engrams: Recalling the past and imagining the future. Science 367, eaaw4325

    2020

  18. [26]

    2018 Navigating cognition: spatial codes for human thinking

    Bellmund JLS, Gärdenfors P, Moser EI, Doeller CF. 2018 Navigating cognition: spatial codes for human thinking. Science 362. (6415) eaat6766 (doi:10.1126/science.aat6766)

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2002 Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning

    Pearce JM. 2002 Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Anim. Learn. Behav. 30, 73–95. (doi:10.3758/BF03192911)

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    1999 Speech segmentation and word discovery: A computational perspective

    Brent MR. 1999 Speech segmentation and word discovery: A computational perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 294–301. (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01350-9)

    1999 doi

  21. [29]

    2001 Chunking mechanisms in human learning

    Gobet F, Lane P, Croker S, Cheng P, Jones G, Oliver I, Pine J. 2001 Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 236–243

    2001

  22. [30]

    1984 Towards chunking as a general learning mechanism

    Laird JE, Rosenbloom PS, Newell A. 1984 Towards chunking as a general learning mechanism. In AAAI, August 6, pp. 188–192

    1984

  23. [31]

    1986 Simultaneous configural classical conditioning

    Schlimmer JC, Granger RH. 1986 Simultaneous configural classical conditioning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 8. pp. 141–153

    1986

  24. [32]

    2009 The phosphatase SHP2 regulates the spacing effect for long-term memory induction

    Pagani MR, Oishi K, Gelb BD, Zhong Y. 2009 The phosphatase SHP2 regulates the spacing effect for long-term memory induction. Cell 139, 186–198

    2009

  25. [33]

    1991 Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture

    Real L a. 1991 Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science 253, 980–986

    1991

  26. [34]

    2013 Downy Woodpecker Foraging Behavior : Efficient Sampling in Simple Stochastic Environments

    Lima SL. 2013 Downy Woodpecker Foraging Behavior : Efficient Sampling in Simple Stochastic Environments. Ecology 65, 166-174

    2013

  27. [35]

    2007 Exploration or exploitation: life expectancy changes the value of learning in foraging strategies

    Eliassen S, Jørgensen C, Mangel M, Giske J. 2007 Exploration or exploitation: life expectancy changes the value of learning in foraging strategies. Oikos 116, 513–523

    2007

  28. [36]

    1979 How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Anim

    Bateson P. 1979 How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Anim. Behav. 27, 470–

    1979

  29. [37]

    1995 Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co- evolution

    Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. 1995 Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co- evolution. Anim. Behav. 49, 1185–1209

    1995

  30. [38]

    2020 Reinforcement learning enables resource partitioning in Foraging Bats

    Goldshtein A et al. 2020 Reinforcement learning enables resource partitioning in Foraging Bats. Curr. Biol. 30, 4096-4102.e6. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.07.079) 16

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2007 Natural polymorphism affecting learning and memory in Drosophila

    Mery F, Belay AT, K-C So A, Sokolowski MB, Kawecki TJ, Robinson GE. 2007 Natural polymorphism affecting learning and memory in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 13051– 13055. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0702923104)

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2003 Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy

    Chittka L, Dyer AG, Bock F, Dornhaus A. 2003 Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature 424, 388

    2003

  33. [41]

    2022 Ecology dictates the value of memory for foraging bees

    Pull CD, Petkova I, Watrobska C, Pasquier G, Perez Fernandez M, Leadbeater E. 2022 Ecology dictates the value of memory for foraging bees. Curr. Biol. 32, 4279-4285.e4. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.07.062)

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    1970 On the generality of the laws of learning

    Seligman ME. 1970 On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychol. Rev. 77, 406

    1970

  35. [43]

    1972 Constraints on learning

    Shettleworth SJ. 1972 Constraints on learning. In Advances in the Study of Behavior, 4, 1–68

    1972

  36. [44]

    1966 Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement

    Garcia J, Ervin FR, Koelling RA. 1966 Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement. Psychon. Sci. 5, 121–122

    1966

  37. [45]

    2014 Experimental evolution of prepared learning

    Dunlap AS, Stephens DW. 2014 Experimental evolution of prepared learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 11750–11755. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1404176111)

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    1966 The behavior of organisms

    Skinner BF. 1966 The behavior of organisms. BF Skinner Foundation

    1966

  39. [47]

    2016 The power of associative learning and the ontogeny of optimal behaviour

    Enquist M, Lind J, Ghirlanda S. 2016 The power of associative learning and the ontogeny of optimal behaviour. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160734. (doi:10.1098/rsos.160734)

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2022 House sparrows use learned information selectively based on whether reward is hidden or visible

    Ben-Oren Y, Truskanov N, Lotem A. 2022 House sparrows use learned information selectively based on whether reward is hidden or visible. Anim. Cogn. 25, 1545–1555. (doi:10.1007/s10071-022-01637-1)

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2011 Rational choice, context dependence, and the value of information in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)

    Freidin E, Kacelnik A. 2011 Rational choice, context dependence, and the value of information in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Science (80-. ). 334, 1000–1002

    2011

  42. [50]

    1939 The effect of random alternation of reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid reactions

    Humphreys LG. 1939 The effect of random alternation of reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 25, 141

    1939

  43. [51]

    2013 The partial-reinforcement extinction effect and the contingent- sampling hypothesis

    Hochman G, Erev I. 2013 The partial-reinforcement extinction effect and the contingent- sampling hypothesis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 1336–42. (doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0432-1)

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    2015 Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning

    Plonsky O, Teodorescu K, Erev I. 2015 Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning. Psychol. Rev. 122, 621–647. (doi:10.1037/a0039413)

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    configural

    Alvarado MC, Rudy JW. 1995 A comparison of “configural” discrimination problems: Implications for understanding the role of the hippocampal formation in learning and memory. Psychobiology 23, 178–184. (doi:10.3758/BF03332020)

    1995 doi

  46. [54]

    1993 The Influence of an Irrelevant Stimulus on Two Discriminations

    Pearce JM, Redhead ES. 1993 The Influence of an Irrelevant Stimulus on Two Discriminations. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 19, 180–190. (doi:10.1037/0097-7403.19.2.180)

    1993 doi

  47. [55]

    2015 Neural substrate for higher-order learning in an insect: mushroom bodies are necessary for configural discriminations

    Devaud J-M, Papouin T, Carcaud J, Sandoz J-C, Grünewald B, Giurfa M. 2015 Neural substrate for higher-order learning in an insect: mushroom bodies are necessary for configural discriminations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, E5854–E5862

    2015

  48. [56]

    1972 Negative patterning in classical conditioning: Summation of response tendencies to isolable and configurai components

    Whitlow JW, Wagner AR. 1972 Negative patterning in classical conditioning: Summation of response tendencies to isolable and configurai components. Psychon. Sci. 27, 299–301. (doi:10.3758/BF03328970)

    1972 doi

  49. [57]

    2011 Elemental and non-elemental olfactory learning in Drosophila

    Young JM, Wessnitzer J, Armstrong JD, Webb B. 2011 Elemental and non-elemental olfactory learning in Drosophila. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 96, 339–352

    2011

  50. [58]

    unique stimulus

    Rescorla RA. 1973 Evidence for" unique stimulus" account of configural conditioning. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 85, 331

    1973

  51. [59]

    2023 Rapid expansion and visual specialisation of learning and memory centres 17 in the brains of Heliconiini butterflies

    Couto A et al. 2023 Rapid expansion and visual specialisation of learning and memory centres 17 in the brains of Heliconiini butterflies. Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 4024 (doi:10.1038/s41467-023- 39618-8)

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    1992 Some properties of configural learning: An investigation of the Transverse-Patterning Problem

    Alvarado MC, Rudy JW. 1992 Some properties of configural learning: An investigation of the Transverse-Patterning Problem. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 18, 145–153. (doi:10.1037/0097-7403.18.2.145)

    1992 doi

  53. [61]

    2018 More than the sum of Its parts: A role for the hippocampus in configural reinforcement learning

    Duncan K, Doll BB, Daw ND, Shohamy D. 2018 More than the sum of Its parts: A role for the hippocampus in configural reinforcement learning. Neuron 98, 645-657.e6. (doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.042)

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    1994 Representation development in associative systems

    McLaren IPL. 1994 Representation development in associative systems. In Causal mechanisms of behavioural development, pp. 377–402. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. (doi:doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565120.018)

    1994 doi

  55. [63]

    2017 A Simple Computational Model of the Bee Mushroom Body Can Explain Seemingly Complex Forms of Olfactory Learning and Memory

    Peng F, Chittka L. 2017 A Simple Computational Model of the Bee Mushroom Body Can Explain Seemingly Complex Forms of Olfactory Learning and Memory. Curr. Biol. 27, 224–230. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.054)

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2001 The cleaner fish market

    Bshary R. 2001 The cleaner fish market. In: Noe R, van Hooff JARAM, Hammerstein P, editors. Economics in Nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press, p. 146–172

    2001

  57. [65]

    2019 Biological market effects predict cleaner fish strategic sophistication

    Triki Z, Wismer S, Rey O, Ann Binning S, Levorato E, Bshary R. 2019 Biological market effects predict cleaner fish strategic sophistication. Behav. Ecol. 30, 1548–1557

    2019

  58. [66]

    2012 Adult cleaner wrasse outperform capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees and orang-utans in a complex foraging task derived from cleaner–client reef fish cooperation

    Salwiczek LH et al. 2012 Adult cleaner wrasse outperform capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees and orang-utans in a complex foraging task derived from cleaner–client reef fish cooperation. PLoS One 7, e49068

    2012

  59. [67]

    2020 Reinforcement learning theory reveals the cognitive requirements for solving the cleaner fish market task

    Quiñones AE, Leimar O, Lotem A, Bshary R. 2020 Reinforcement learning theory reveals the cognitive requirements for solving the cleaner fish market task. Am. Nat. 195, 664–677. (doi:10.1086/707519)

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    1987 Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science

    Shepard RN. 1987 Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science (80-. ). 237, 1317–1323

    1987

  61. [69]

    2017 The neural basis of reversal learning: An updated perspective

    Izquierdo A, Brigman JL, Radke AK, Rudebeck PH, Holmes A. 2017 The neural basis of reversal learning: An updated perspective. Neuroscience 345, 12–26

    2017

  62. [70]

    2022 Inhibitory control, exploration behaviour and manipulated ecological context are associated with foraging flexibility in the great tit

    Coomes JR, Davidson GL, Reichert MS, Kulahci IG, Troisi CA, Quinn JL. 2022 Inhibitory control, exploration behaviour and manipulated ecological context are associated with foraging flexibility in the great tit. J. Anim. Ecol. 91, 320–333. (doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13600)

    2022

  63. [71]

    2021 Task-dependent reversal learning dynamics challenge the reversal paradigm of measuring cognitive flexibility

    Aljadeff N, Lotem A. 2021 Task-dependent reversal learning dynamics challenge the reversal paradigm of measuring cognitive flexibility. Anim. Behav. 179, 183–197. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.07.002)

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    2011 Neuronal basis of sequential foraging decisions in a patchy environment

    Hayden BY, Pearson JM, Platt ML. 2011 Neuronal basis of sequential foraging decisions in a patchy environment. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 933–939. (doi:10.1038/nn.2856)

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    2017 Memory for stimulus sequences: A divide between humans and other animals? R

    Ghirlanda S, Lind J, Enquist M. 2017 Memory for stimulus sequences: A divide between humans and other animals? R. Soc. Open Sci. 4 (6), p.161011. (doi:10.1098/rsos.161011)

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2023 Sequence representation as an early step in the evolution of language

    Jon-And A, Jonsson M, Lind J, Ghirlanda S, Enquist M. 2023 Sequence representation as an early step in the evolution of language. PLoS Comput. Biol. 19, 1–19. (doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011702)

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2019 A tradeoff in the neural code across regions and species

    Pryluk R, Kfir Y, Gelbard-Sagiv H, Fried I, Paz R. 2019 A tradeoff in the neural code across regions and species. Cell 176, 597-609.e18. (doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.032)

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    2018 Assessing the scalability of biologically-motivated deep learning algorithms and architectures

    Bartunov S, Santoro A, Richards B, Marris L, Hinton GE, Lillicrap, T. 2018 Assessing the scalability of biologically-motivated deep learning algorithms and architectures. Advances in 18 neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  69. [77]

    2020 Backpropagation and the brain

    Lillicrap TP, Santoro A, Marris L, Akerman CJ, Hinton G. 2020 Backpropagation and the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21, 335-346

    2020

  70. [78]

    McGrath SW, Russin J, Pavlick E, Feiman R. 2024. How Can Deep Neural Networks Inform Theory in Psychological Science? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33, 325-333

    2024

  71. [79]

    Pavlick E. 2023. Symbols and grounding in large language models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 381, 20220041

    2023

  72. [80]

    Kaplan G, Oren M, Reif Y, Schwartz R. 2024. From Tokens to Words: On the Inner Lexicon of LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05864

    2024 arXiv

  73. [371]

    (doi:10.1038/s41583-021-00448-6)

    doi

  74. [486]

    (doi:10.1016/0003-3472(79)90184-2)

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.