Connectionist and Dynamic Systems Approaches to Development: On the Cusp of a New Grand Theory or Still Too Distributed?

Sunday, June 19 through Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Conference Presentations
Pre-Conference Readings
Home
Conference Schedule
Invited Participants
Registration
Travel Information
Hotel Accomodations
Conference Travel Awards
Pre-Conference Readings
Other Area Events

Core Readings (click on button to see article)
Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6(4), 378-391.
Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2003). Connectionist models of development. Developmental Science, 6, 413-429.
Spencer, J. P., & Schöner, G. (2003). Bridging the representational gap in the dynamical systems approach to development. Developmental Science, 6, 392-412.
Munakata, Y. (1998). Infant perseveration and implications for object permanence theories: A PDP model of the AB task. Developmental Science, 1, 161-184.
Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A dynamic field theory of infant perseverative reaching errors. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1-86.
Shultz, T. R., Mareschal, D., & Schmidt, W. C. (1994). Modeling cognitive development on balance scale phenomena. Machine Learning, 16, 57-86.
Raijmakers, M.E.J.,van Koten, S., & Molenaar, P.C.M. (1996) On the validity of simulating development by means of PDP networks: applications of catastrophe analysis and an experimental test of rule-like network performance. Cognitive Science, 20 , 101-136.
Additional Readings (click on button to see article)
Elman, J. (2003). Development: It's about time. Developmental Science, 6(4), 430-433.
Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2003). Different is good: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory are complementary emergentist approaches to development. Developmental Science, 6, 434-439.
Cowan, N. (2003). Comparisons of developmental modeling frameworks and levels of analysis in cognition: connectionist and dynamic systems theories deserve attention, but don't yet explain attention. Developmental Science, 6(4), 440-447.
Munakata, Y., Morton, J. B., and Stedron, J. M. (2003). The role of prefrontal cortex in perseveration: Developmental and computational explorations. In P. Quinlan (Ed.), Connectionist Models of Development, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Leech, R., Mareschal, D. & Cooper, R. (2003) A connectionist account of analogical development. In R. Altman & D. Kirsh (Eds.) Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 710-715). London: LEA.
Tabor, W. (2002). The value of symbolic computation. Ecological Psychology, 14(1/2), 21-51.
Schutte, A. R., Spencer, J. P., & Schöner, G. (2003). Testing the dynamic field theory: Working memory for locations becomes more spatially precise over development. Child Development, 74(5), 1393-1417.
Newell, K. M., Mayer-Kress, G., & Liu, Y-T. (2001). Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychological Review, 108, 57-82.
Fischer, K. W., & Rose, S. P. (1999). Rulers, models, and nonlinear dynamics: Measurement and method in developmental research. In G. Savelsbergh, H. van der Maas, & P. van Geert (Eds.), Nonlinear developmental processes (pp. 197-212). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
SPONSORS