PROBABILISTIC MODELS OF LEARNING AND MEMORY Working memory & episodic memory MÁTÉ LENGYEL Computational and Biological Learning Lab Department of Engineering University of Cambridge MULTIPLE INTERACTING MEMORY SYSTEMS Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 2 MULTIPLE INTERACTING MEMORY SYSTEMS ✓ ✓ ✓ Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 2 MULTIPLE INTERACTING MEMORY SYSTEMS ✓ ✓ ✓ Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 2 MULTIPLE INTERACTING MEMORY SYSTEMS ✓ ✓ ✓ Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 2 LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 60 CHASE AND SIMON 24 60 CHASE AND SIMON 16 24 LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON 16 24 16 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 TRIALS FIG. 1. Learning curves of the master ( M ), class A player (A), and beginner (B) for the middle-game and random middle-game positions. The brackets are standard errors on five positions. of their poorer ilrst-trial performance, had much more room for im- I 2 3 4 5 b 7 provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning TRIALS curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. InFIG. the1. end-gameLearning curvespositions, of the Mmaster placed ( Man ), classaverage A player of about (A), eightand beginnerpieces correctly(B) for theon middle-gametrial 1, while and Arandom and Bmiddle-game placed about positions. seven The and brackets four, re-are spectively.standard errors In onthese five positions.positions, M required two or three trials to recon- struct the positions perfectly;I 2 A, about3 4 three5 bor four;7 and B, between fourof their and poorerseven ilrst-trialtrials. Thus,performance, in bothTRIALS middle- had muchand moreend-game room positionsfor im- provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning fromFIG. actual1. Learning games, curves ability of tothe retain master information ( M ), class Afrom player a 5-set(A), viewand beginnerof the curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. board(B) for was the closelymiddle-game related andto randomplaying middle-gamestrength. positions. The brackets are standardInIn thethe errors end-gamerandom, on five unstructuredpositions.positions, M placedpositions an thereaverage was of noabout relation eight piecesat all betweencorrectly memoryon trialProbabilistic of1, whilethe models positionA of learningand andB and placed memoryplaying — about Workingstrength. seven memory Moreover, and episodic four, memorythere- CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 spectively.of their poorerIn these ilrst-trial positions, performance, M required had two much or threemore trialsroom to forrecon- im- provementstruct the positionsthan did perfectly;M; this differenceA, about threedisappears or four; when and the B, learningbetween curvefour andreaches seven the trials. level Thus,of M’s infirst-trial both middle-performance. and end-game positions fromIn theactual end-game games, positions,ability to retainM placed information an average from of aabout 5-set eightview piecesof the boardcorrectly was on closely trial related1, while toA playing and B strength.placed about seven and four, re- spectively.In the random,In these unstructuredpositions, M positionsrequired theretwo orwas three no trialsrelation to recon-at all betweenstruct the memorypositions of perfectly;the position A, aboutand playingthree orstrength. four; andMoreover, B, between the four and seven trials. Thus, in both middle- and end-game positions from actual games, ability to retain information from a 5-set view of the board was closely related to playing strength. In the random, unstructured positions there was no relation at all between memory of the position and playing strength. Moreover, the LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON 24 16 Chase & Simon, 1973 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 TRIALS FIG. 1. Learning curves of the master ( M ), class A player (A), and beginner (B) for the middle-game and random middle-game positions. The brackets are standard errors on five positions. Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 of their poorer ilrst-trial performance, had much more room for im- provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. In the end-game positions, M placed an average of about eight pieces correctly on trial 1, while A and B placed about seven and four, re- spectively. In these positions, M required two or three trials to recon- struct the positions perfectly; A, about three or four; and B, between four and seven trials. Thus, in both middle- and end-game positions from actual games, ability to retain information from a 5-set view of the board was closely related to playing strength. In the random, unstructured positions there was no relation at all between memory of the position and playing strength. Moreover, the LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON • short-term memory is capacity limited 24 16 Chase & Simon, 1973 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 TRIALS FIG. 1. Learning curves of the master ( M ), class A player (A), and beginner (B) for the middle-game and random middle-game positions. The brackets are standard errors on five positions. Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 of their poorer ilrst-trial performance, had much more room for im- provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. In the end-game positions, M placed an average of about eight pieces correctly on trial 1, while A and B placed about seven and four, re- spectively. In these positions, M required two or three trials to recon- struct the positions perfectly; A, about three or four; and B, between four and seven trials. Thus, in both middle- and end-game positions from actual games, ability to retain information from a 5-set view of the board was closely related to playing strength. In the random, unstructured positions there was no relation at all between memory of the position and playing strength. Moreover, the LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON • short-term memory is capacity limited 24 ‣ capacity traditionally defined by number of items (or chunks) 16 ‣ information content does not influence capacity Chase & Simon, 1973 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 TRIALS FIG. 1. Learning curves of the master ( M ), class A player (A), and beginner (B) for the middle-game and random middle-game positions. The brackets are standard errors on five positions. Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 of their poorer ilrst-trial performance, had much more room for im- provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. In the end-game positions, M placed an average of about eight pieces correctly on trial 1, while A and B placed about seven and four, re- spectively. In these positions, M required two or three trials to recon- struct the positions perfectly; A, about three or four; and B, between four and seven trials. Thus, in both middle- and end-game positions from actual games, ability to retain information from a 5-set view of the board was closely related to playing strength. In the random, unstructured positions there was no relation at all between memory of the position and playing strength. Moreover, the LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON • short-term memory is capacity limited 24 ‣ capacity traditionally defined by number of items (or chunks) 16 ‣ information content does not influence capacity Miller, 1956 Miller, Chase & Simon, 1973 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 TRIALS FIG. 1. Learning curves of the master ( M ), class A player (A), and beginner (B) for the middle-game and random middle-game positions. The brackets are standard errors on five positions. Probabilistic models of learning and memory — Working memory and episodic memory CEU, Budapest, 22-26 June 2009 http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~m.lengyel 3 of their poorer ilrst-trial performance, had much more room for im- provement than did M; this difference disappears when the learning curve reaches the level of M’s first-trial performance. In the end-game positions, M placed an average of about eight pieces correctly on trial 1, while A and B placed about seven and four, re- spectively. In these positions, M required two or three trials to recon- struct the positions perfectly; A, about three or four; and B, between four and seven trials. Thus, in both middle- and end-game positions from actual games, ability to retain information from a 5-set view of the board was closely related to playing strength. In the random, unstructured positions there was no relation at all between memory of the position and playing strength. Moreover, the LONG TERM MEMORY → SHORT-TERM MEMORY 60 CHASE AND SIMON • short-term memory is capacity limited 24 ‣ capacity traditionally defined by number of items (or chunks) 16 ‣ information content does not influence capacity Miller, 1956 Miller, • knowledge held in long-term memory affects apparent short-term memory capacity Chase & Simon, 1973 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 ‣ role of long-term memory is TRIALS to define chunks FIG.