ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2023
Brain-constrained neural modeling explains fast mapping of words to meaning.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is so hard about abstract words, anyways? A neuromechanistic explanation using brain-constrained neural network models.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Article
- A brain-constrained neural model of cognition and language with NEST: transitioning from the Felix framework.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026Article
- Article
- From cortical and white matter structure to meaning: a brain-constrained neural network of semantic grounding in action and perception.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Differences in spatiotemporal dynamics for processing specific semantic categories: An EEG study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Neurobiological mechanisms for language, symbols and concepts: Clues from brain-constrained deep neural networks.Progress in neurobiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although teaching animals a few meaningful signs is usually time-consuming, children acquire words easily after only a few exposures, a phenomenon termed "fast-mapping." Meanwhile, most neural network learning algorithms fail to achieve reliable information storage quickly, raising the question of whether a mechanistic explanation of fast-mapping is possible. Here, we applied brain-constrained neural models mimicking fronto-temporal-occipital regions to simulate key features of semantic associative learning. We compared networks (i) with prior encounters with phonological and conceptual knowledge, as claimed by fast-mapping theory, and (ii) without such prior knowledge. Fast-mapping simulations showed word-specific representations to emerge quickly after 1-10 learning events, whereas direct word learning showed word-meaning mappings only after 40-100 events. Furthermore, hub regions appeared to be essential for fast-mapping, and attention facilitated it, but was not strictly necessary. These findings provide a better understanding of the critical mechanisms underlying the human brain's unique ability to acquire new words rapidly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.