Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10191879

Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology.

Abstract

Working memory limits are best defined in terms of the complexity of the relations that can be processed in parallel. Complexity is defined as the number of related dimensions or sources of variation. A binary relation has one argument and one source of variation; its argument can be instantiated in only one way at a time. A binary relation has two arguments, two sources of variation, and two instantiations, and so on. Dimensionality is related to the number of chunks, because both attributes on dimensions and chunks are independent units of information of arbitrary size. Studies of working memory limits suggest that there is a soft limit corresponding to the parallel processing of one quaternary relation. More complex concepts are processed by "segmentation" or "conceptual chunking." In segmentation, tasks are broken into components that do not exceed processing capacity and can be processed serially. In conceptual chunking, representations are "collapsed" to reduce their dimensionality and hence their processing load, but at the cost of making some relational information inaccessible. Neural net models of relational representations show that relations with more arguments have a higher computational cost that coincides with experimental findings on higher processing loads in humans. Relational complexity is related to processing load in reasoning and sentence comprehension and can distinguish between the capacities of higher species. The complexity of relations processed by children increases with age. Implications for neural net models and theories of cognition and cognitive development are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G S Halford, W H Wilson, S Phillips. 1998. Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology.. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x98001769

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Remitted depression studies as tests of the cognitive vulnerability hypotheses of depression onset: a critique and conceptual analysis.

Investigations of cognitive patterns among individuals who have recovered from a depressive episode (i.e., remitted depressives) have figured importantly in evaluations of the validity of the vulnerability hypotheses of the cognitive theories of depression. However, we suggest that remitted depression studies as typically conducted and interpreted are inadequate tests of the cognitive vulnerability hypotheses of depression onset for four reasons: (1) remitted depression studies are based on the erroneous assumption that cognitive vulnerability should be an immutable trait; (2) remitted depression studies use a logically "backward" participant selection strategy in which participants are selected on the basis of the "dependent" variable (depression) and then compared on the "independent" variable (cognitive vulnerability), which is likely to result in heterogeneity of cognitive vulnerability among both the remitted depressed as well as the nondepressed groups given the causal relations specified in the cognitive theories of depression; (3) many remitted depression studies have ignored the possible activating role of stress in the cognitive vulnerability-stress theories, particularly Beck's theory, and thus, may attempt to assess cognitive vulnerability at a time when it is not operative (i.e., priming hypothesis); and (4) remitted depression studies inappropriately use postmorbid participants to test causal hypotheses, and therefore, are ambiguous about whether negative cognitive styles observed in remitted depressed persons are vulnerabilities as opposed to consequences of depression (i.e., scar hypothesis). As a remedy, we advocate the use of a theory-guided behavioral high-risk strategy to more adequately test the cognitive vulnerability hypotheses of depression onset.

Cognition↗