This study examined putative benefits of testing and production for learning new languages. Undergraduates (
Nonverbal task learning
Nonverbal task learning is defined here as a variant of interactive task learning in which an agent learns the definition of a new task without any verbal information such as task instructions. Instead, the agent must 1) learn the task definition using only a single solved example problem as its training input, and then 2) generalize this definition in order to successfully parse new problems. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework for nonverbal task learning, and we compare and contrast this type of learning with existing learning paradigms in AI. We also discuss nonverbal task learning in the context of nonverbal human intelligence tests, which are standardized tests designed to be given without any verbal instructions so that they can be used by people with language difficulties.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1730044
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10209946
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 609-622
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract N = 156) were exposed to Turkish spoken dialogues under varying learning conditions (retrieval practice, comprehension, verbal repetition) in a computer‐assisted language learning session. Participants completed pre‐ and posttests of number‐ and case‐marking comprehension, a vocabulary test, and an explicit awareness questionnaire. Controlling for nonverbal ability and pretest scores, the retrieval‐practice group performed highest overall. For number/case marking, the comprehension and retrieval‐practice groups outperformed the verbal‐repetition group, suggesting benefits of either recognition‐ or recall‐based testing. For vocabulary, the verbal‐repetition and retrieval‐practice groups outperformed the comprehension group, indicating benefits of overt production. Case marking was easier to learn than number marking, suggesting advantages for learning word‐final inflections. Explicit awareness correlated with comprehension accuracy, yet some participants demonstrated above‐chance comprehension without showing awareness. Findings indicate the value of incorporating both practice tests and overt production in language pedagogy. -
null (Ed.)Abstract Categorical induction abilities are robust in typically developing (TD) preschoolers, while children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) frequently perform inconsistently on tasks asking for the transference of traits from a known category member to a new example based on shared category membership. Here, TD five-year-olds and six-year-olds with ASD participated in a categorical induction task; the TD children performed significantly better and more consistently than the children with ASD. Concurrent verbal and nonverbal tests were not significant correlates; however, the TD children's shape bias performance at two years of age was significantly positively predictive of categorical induction performance at age five. The shape bias, the tendency to extend a novel label to other objects of the same shape during word learning, appears linked with categorical induction ability in TD children, suggesting a common underlying skill and consistent developmental trajectory. Word learning and categorical induction appear uncoupled in children with ASD.more » « less
-
Recent reinforcement learning (RL) approaches have shown strong performance in complex domains such as Atari games, but are often highly sample inefficient. A common approach to reduce interaction time with the environment is to use reward shaping, which involves carefully designing reward functions that provide the agent intermediate rewards for progress towards the goal. However, designing appropriate shaping rewards is known to be difficult as well as time-consuming. In this work, we address this problem by using natural language instructions to perform reward shaping. We propose the LanguagE-Action Reward Network (LEARN), a framework that maps free-form natural language instructions to intermediate rewards based on actions taken by the agent. These intermediate language-based rewards can seamlessly be integrated into any standard reinforcement learning algorithm. We experiment with Montezuma’s Revenge from the Atari Learning Environment, a popular benchmark in RL. Our experiments on a diverse set of 15 tasks demonstrate that, for the same number of interactions with the environment, language-based rewards lead to successful completion of the task 60 % more often on average, compared to learning without language.more » « less
-
Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus (TUSZ) [1] has been in distribution since April 2017. It is a subset of the TUH EEG Corpus (TUEG) [2] and the most frequently requested corpus from our 3,000+ subscribers. It was recently featured as the challenge task in the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. A summary of the development of the corpus is shown below in Table 1. The TUSZ Corpus is a fully annotated corpus, which means every seizure event that occurs within its files has been annotated. The data is selected from TUEG using a screening process that identifies files most likely to contain seizures [1]. Approximately 7% of the TUEG data contains a seizure event, so it is important we triage TUEG for high yield data. One hour of EEG data requires approximately one hour of human labor to complete annotation using the pipeline described below, so it is important from a financial standpoint that we accurately triage data. A summary of the labels being used to annotate the data is shown in Table 2. Certain standards are put into place to optimize the annotation process while not sacrificing consistency. Due to the nature of EEG recordings, some records start off with a segment of calibration. This portion of the EEG is instantly recognizable and transitions from what resembles lead artifact to a flat line on all the channels. For the sake of seizure annotation, the calibration is ignored, and no time is wasted on it. During the identification of seizure events, a hard “3 second rule” is used to determine whether two events should be combined into a single larger event. This greatly reduces the time that it takes to annotate a file with multiple events occurring in succession. In addition to the required minimum 3 second gap between seizures, part of our standard dictates that no seizure less than 3 seconds be annotated. Although there is no universally accepted definition for how long a seizure must be, we find that it is difficult to discern with confidence between burst suppression or other morphologically similar impressions when the event is only a couple seconds long. This is due to several reasons, the most notable being the lack of evolution which is oftentimes crucial for the determination of a seizure. After the EEG files have been triaged, a team of annotators at NEDC is provided with the files to begin data annotation. An example of an annotation is shown in Figure 1. A summary of the workflow for our annotation process is shown in Figure 2. Several passes are performed over the data to ensure the annotations are accurate. Each file undergoes three passes to ensure that no seizures were missed or misidentified. The first pass of TUSZ involves identifying which files contain seizures and annotating them using our annotation tool. The time it takes to fully annotate a file can vary drastically depending on the specific characteristics of each file; however, on average a file containing multiple seizures takes 7 minutes to fully annotate. This includes the time that it takes to read the patient report as well as traverse through the entire file. Once an event has been identified, the start and stop time for the seizure is stored in our annotation tool. This is done on a channel by channel basis resulting in an accurate representation of the seizure spreading across different parts of the brain. Files that do not contain any seizures take approximately 3 minutes to complete. Even though there is no annotation being made, the file is still carefully examined to make sure that nothing was overlooked. In addition to solely scrolling through a file from start to finish, a file is often examined through different lenses. Depending on the situation, low pass filters are used, as well as increasing the amplitude of certain channels. These techniques are never used in isolation and are meant to further increase our confidence that nothing was missed. Once each file in a given set has been looked at once, the annotators start the review process. The reviewer checks a file and comments any changes that they recommend. This takes about 3 minutes per seizure containing file, which is significantly less time than the first pass. After each file has been commented on, the third pass commences. This step takes about 5 minutes per seizure file and requires the reviewer to accept or reject the changes that the second reviewer suggested. Since tangible changes are made to the annotation using the annotation tool, this step takes a bit longer than the previous one. Assuming 18% of the files contain seizures, a set of 1,000 files takes roughly 127 work hours to annotate. Before an annotator contributes to the data interpretation pipeline, they are trained for several weeks on previous datasets. A new annotator is able to be trained using data that resembles what they would see under normal circumstances. An additional benefit of using released data to train is that it serves as a means of constantly checking our work. If a trainee stumbles across an event that was not previously annotated, it is promptly added, and the data release is updated. It takes about three months to train an annotator to a point where their annotations can be trusted. Even though we carefully screen potential annotators during the hiring process, only about 25% of the annotators we hire survive more than one year doing this work. To ensure that the annotators are consistent in their annotations, the team conducts an interrater agreement evaluation periodically to ensure that there is a consensus within the team. The annotation standards are discussed in Ochal et al. [4]. An extended discussion of interrater agreement can be found in Shah et al. [5]. The most recent release of TUSZ, v1.5.2, represents our efforts to review the quality of the annotations for two upcoming challenges we hosted: an internal deep learning challenge at IBM [6] and the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. One of the biggest changes that was made to the annotations was the imposition of a stricter standard for determining the start and stop time of a seizure. Although evolution is still included in the annotations, the start times were altered to start when the spike-wave pattern becomes distinct as opposed to merely when the signal starts to shift from background. This cuts down on background that was mislabeled as a seizure. For seizure end times, all post ictal slowing that was included was removed. The recent release of v1.5.2 did not include any additional data files. Two EEG files had been added because, originally, they were corrupted in v1.5.1 but were able to be retrieved and added for the latest release. The progression from v1.5.0 to v1.5.1 and later to v1.5.2, included the re-annotation of all of the EEG files in order to develop a confident dataset regarding seizure identification. Starting with v1.4.0, we have also developed a blind evaluation set that is withheld for use in competitions. The annotation team is currently working on the next release for TUSZ, v1.6.0, which is expected to occur in August 2020. It will include new data from 2016 to mid-2019. This release will contain 2,296 files from 2016 as well as several thousand files representing the remaining data through mid-2019. In addition to files that were obtained with our standard triaging process, a part of this release consists of EEG files that do not have associated patient reports. Since actual seizure events are in short supply, we are mining a large chunk of data for which we have EEG recordings but no reports. Some of this data contains interesting seizure events collected during long-term EEG sessions or data collected from patients with a history of frequent seizures. It is being mined to increase the number of files in the corpus that have at least one seizure event. We expect v1.6.0 to be released before IEEE SPMB 2020. The TUAR Corpus is an open-source database that is currently available for use by any registered member of our consortium. To register and receive access, please follow the instructions provided at this web page: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/html/downloads.shtml. The data is located here: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/downloads/tuh_eeg_artifact/v2.0.0/.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This paper presents a novel approach to robot task learning from language-based instructions, which focuses on increasing the complexity of task representations that can be taught through verbal instruction. The major proposed contribution is the development of a framework for directly mapping a complex verbal instruction to an executable task representation, from a single training experience. The method can handle the following types of complexities: 1) instructions that use conjunctions to convey complex execution constraints (such as alternative paths of execution, sequential or nonordering constraints, as well as hierarchical representations) and 2) instructions that use prepositions and multiple adjectives to specify action/object parameters relevant for the task. Specific algorithms have been developed for handling conjunctions, adjectives and prepositions as well as for translating the parsed instructions into parameterized executable task representations. The paper describes validation experiments with a PR2 humanoid robot learning new tasks from verbal instruction, as well as an additional range of utterances that can be parsed into executable controllers by the proposed system.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
