» Articles » PMID: 39242783

Blocked Training Facilitates Learning of Multiple Schemas

Overview
Journal Commun Psychol
Publisher Nature Portfolio
Date 2024 Sep 6
PMID 39242783
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We all possess a mental library of schemas that specify how different types of events unfold. How are these schemas acquired? A key challenge is that learning a new schema can catastrophically interfere with old knowledge. One solution to this dilemma is to use interleaved training to learn a single representation that accommodates all schemas. However, another class of models posits that catastrophic interference can be avoided by splitting off new representations when large prediction errors occur. A key differentiating prediction is that, according to splitting models, catastrophic interference can be prevented even under blocked training curricula. We conducted a series of semi-naturalistic experiments and simulations with Bayesian and neural network models to compare the predictions made by the "splitting" versus "non-splitting" hypotheses of schema learning. We found better performance in blocked compared to interleaved curricula, and explain these results using a Bayesian model that incorporates representational splitting in response to large prediction errors. In a follow-up experiment, we validated the model prediction that inserting blocked training early in learning leads to better learning performance than inserting blocked training later in learning. Our results suggest that different learning environments (i.e., curricula) play an important role in shaping schema composition.

Citing Articles

Neural codes track prior events in a narrative and predict subsequent memory for details.

Collin S, Kempner R, Srivatsan S, Norman K Commun Psychol. 2025; 3(1):26.

PMID: 39956878 PMC: 11830764. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-025-00211-y.


Flexible task abstractions emerge in linear networks with fast and bounded units.

Sandbrink K, Bauer J, Proca A, Saxe A, Summerfield C, Hummos A ArXiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39876939 PMC: 11774440.


The "Naturalistic Free Recall" dataset: four stories, hundreds of participants, and high-fidelity transcriptions.

Raccah O, Chen P, Gureckis T, Poeppel D, Vo V Sci Data. 2024; 11(1):1317.

PMID: 39627263 PMC: 11615391. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-024-04082-6.


Toward the Emergence of Intelligent Control: Episodic Generalization and Optimization.

Giallanza T, Campbell D, Cohen J Open Mind (Camb). 2024; 8():688-722.

PMID: 38828434 PMC: 11142636. DOI: 10.1162/opmi_a_00143.

References
1.
Gershman S, Blei D, Niv Y . Context, learning, and extinction. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(1):197-209. DOI: 10.1037/a0017808. View

2.
McClelland J, McNaughton B, OReilly R . Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychol Rev. 1995; 102(3):419-457. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419. View

3.
Carvalho P, Goldstone R . What you learn is more than what you see: what can sequencing effects tell us about inductive category learning?. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:505. PMC: 4415402. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00505. View

4.
Kurby C, Zacks J . Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008; 12(2):72-9. PMC: 2263140. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004. View

5.
Flesch T, Balaguer J, Dekker R, Nili H, Summerfield C . Comparing continual task learning in minds and machines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115(44):E10313-E10322. PMC: 6217400. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1800755115. View