| Abstract: | McGonigle and Jones take exception to Dodwell's explanation of anomalous transfer (AT) as the outcome of relational discriminations among a set of stimulus patterns which vary along a single dimension of orientational salience, from 'horizontal' to 'vertical'. In particular they do not think that the continuum is generated by units with Hubel-and-Wiesel type retinal receptive fields. Instead, they invoke Garner's notions about stimulus structure to explain Dodwell's results, as well as their own finding of two situations where AT fails to occur. It seems that McGonigle and Jones missed the point of the relational discrimination explanation of AT. In fact, it is shown that AT is not predicted by this model for the conditions in which they failed to obtain it. The relational model makes definite predictions about conditions under which AT will occur; as this is not true of their invocation of Garner's ideas, the former is to be preferred. Whether or not outputs are coded by Hubel-and Wiesel type units is not particularly relevant to the main point, that AT is a result of relational learning. In fact, the model is an instance of how structure, in Garner's sense, can be generated. |
