Abstract
Making inferences from behaviour to cognition is problematic due to a many-to-one mapping problem, in which any one behaviour can be generated by multiple possible cognitive processes. Attempts to cross this inferential gap when comparing human intelligence to that of animals or machines can generate great debate. Here, we discuss the challenges of making comparisons using 'success-testing' approaches and call attention to an alternate experimental framework, the 'signature-testing' approach. Signature testing places the search for information-processing errors, biases, and other patterns centre stage, rather than focussing predominantly on problem-solving success. We highlight current research on both biological and artificial intelligence that fits within this framework and is creating proactive research programs that make strong inferences about the similarities and differences between the content of human, animal, and machine minds.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 738-750 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Trends in Cognitive Sciences |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| Early online date | 27 Jun 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2022 |
Keywords
- Animals
- Artificial Intelligence
- Cognition
- Humans
- Intelligence
- Problem Solving
- Signature-testing
- Success-testing
- Many-to-one mapping problem
- Comparative psychology