arxiv: 2604.13829 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 💻 cs.OH

Recognition: unknown

Use and usability: concepts of representation in philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and computer science

Andrew Richmond, Ben Baker, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, Odelia Schwartz, Richard D. Lange, Rosa Cao, Xaq Pitkow

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.OH

keywords representationusabilityneural representationsinformationneurosciencephilosophycognitive sciencecomputer science

0 comments

The pith

Representations are understood at three levels based on whether their information is useful, in usable format, and actually used.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews how usefulness factors into conceptions of representation across philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and computer science. It breaks down use into four aspects: carrying information, that information being useful, the format being usable, and the representation being used downstream. These aspects allow organizing perspectives into three levels of increasing engagement with use. A reader would care because this provides a way to navigate inconsistent uses of the term representation in studies of intelligence.

Core claim

Building on four aspects of information and use, existing perspectives on neural representations are organized into three levels: Representations as Information (Level 1); Representations as Usable (Level 2); and Representations as Used (Level 3). The account helps appreciate the diversity of notions of neural representation and clarify the appropriate notion for specific investigations.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy of three levels of representation supported by the four aspects of information, usefulness, usable format, and downstream use.

If this is right

Studies of neural codes can be classified by whether they address mere information presence or actual usability.
Models in AI can be evaluated on which level of representation they implement.
Philosophical arguments about representation can be mapped to these levels to resolve apparent disagreements.
Investigators can choose the level appropriate to their research question to avoid mismatch.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This organization could reveal gaps in current research where certain levels are understudied.
It might suggest new experiments that test the transition from usable to used representations.
Connecting to neighboring problems like the role of representations in learning or decision making could extend the framework.

Load-bearing premise

The four aspects comprehensively capture the relevant dimensions of representation across the disciplines without significant omissions.

What would settle it

Discovery of a conception of representation in one of the fields that fits none of the three levels or requires a fifth aspect of use.

read the original abstract

Representations play a central role in the study of both biological and artificial intelligence, as well as philosophy of mind. Across neuroscience, computer science, and philosophy, a recurring theme is that representations not only carry information but should be ``useful'' for or ``usable'' by an agent in some sense. Here, we review how the ``usefulness'' of representations has been conceptualized and how it figures into different conceptions of representation. We identify and explore four aspects of use and usability: representations generally carry \textit{information}; that information may or may not be \textit{useful} and it may or may not be encoded in a usable \textit{format}; and the representations may or may not be \textit{used downstream}. Building on these four aspects of information and use, we then organize existing perspectives on neural representations into three levels: Representations as Information (Level 1); Representations as Usable (Level 2); and Representations as Used (Level 3). Our account is meant to give readers an appreciation for the diversity of notions of ``neural representation,'' help them navigate the vast and multi-disciplinary literature on the topic, and help them clarify the appropriate notion of representation for their own investigations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a review that organizes existing ideas on representation into three levels based on information and use, which is a clear map but adds no new mechanisms or data.

read the letter

This paper reviews concepts of representation across philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and computer science. It focuses on the role of use and usability, breaking it down into four aspects: information carried, usefulness, usable format, and downstream use. From there it sorts views into three levels—representations as information, as usable, and as used. The main thing to know is that this is synthesis, not a new theory or test of any claim. The taxonomy is meant to reduce confusion when people from different fields use the same term differently. The paper does a solid job of making the distinctions explicit and showing how the four aspects lead to the three levels. The structure is straightforward, the intent is stated plainly in the abstract, and it draws from the right range of disciplines without forcing a single definition on everyone. That kind of organizational work can save time for readers who keep hitting mismatched usages. The soft spots are proportionate to what the paper tries to be. It is re-framing rather than derivation, so novelty is limited and it does not resolve any open empirical questions. The boundaries between levels can blur in practice, and some perspectives, such as dynamical or embodied ones, might not fit neatly or could be under-emphasized. Accuracy depends on how faithfully the cited works are summarized, which looks consistent from the framing but would need checking in review. No circular definitions or load-bearing gaps appear in the overall argument. This paper is for researchers who cross between these fields and want a practical way to place different accounts of representation. A reader looking to clarify terminology for their own work or to understand why two papers seem to disagree will get value from it. It deserves a serious referee because a coherent review of this type can improve communication even without breaking new ground. I would recommend sending it out for peer review, with the expectation that referees might ask for more discussion of edge cases or additional examples to sharpen the levels.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews how usefulness and usability figure into conceptions of representation across philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, and computer science. It identifies four aspects—representations carry information; that information may or may not be useful; it may or may not be encoded in a usable format; and representations may or may not be used downstream—and employs these to organize existing perspectives on neural representations into three levels: Representations as Information (Level 1), Representations as Usable (Level 2), and Representations as Used (Level 3). The account is intended to help readers appreciate the diversity of notions and navigate the multidisciplinary literature.

Significance. If the taxonomy holds, the paper supplies a coherent organizational framework for a sprawling interdisciplinary topic without introducing new parameters, axioms, or empirical claims. Its value lies in the explicit linkage of the four aspects to the three levels and the cross-field synthesis, which can assist researchers in selecting defensible notions of representation for their own work. The absence of self-referential derivations or fitted quantities is a strength for a review of this type.

minor comments (2)

A summary table mapping the four aspects to the three levels, with one or two canonical citations per cell, would improve readability and make the organizational claim easier to apply.
The manuscript should explicitly note any disciplinary literatures (e.g., embodied cognition or social epistemology) that fall outside the four-aspect framing, even if only to delimit scope.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript, including the recognition of its value as a cross-disciplinary organizational framework for notions of neural representation. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision and note that no specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in this conceptual review and taxonomy

full rationale

This paper is a review and synthesis that identifies four aspects of representation (information carried, usefulness, usable format, downstream use) drawn from existing multi-disciplinary literature and uses them to organize prior perspectives into three levels. The central contribution is the coherence and utility of this framing rather than any derivation, model, or empirical claim. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains appear; the argument rests on external citations and does not reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. This is the expected non-finding for a self-contained organizational review.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard domain assumptions about the role of representations in intelligence and mind; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Representations carry information that can be evaluated for usefulness and usability.
Stated directly in the abstract as a recurring theme across fields.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 967 out tokens · 41042 ms · 2026-05-10T12:31:53.108873+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references

[1]

Fallon FT, Ryan TJ, Krakauer JW, What Are We T alking about? Clarifying the Fuzzy Concept of Representation in Neuroscience and Beyond; 2023

2023
[2]

Three Aspects of Representation in Neuroscience

Baker B, Lansdell B, Kording KP . Three Aspects of Representation in Neuroscience. T rends in Cognitive Sciences 2022 Nov;26(11):942–958

2022
[3]

Investigating the Concept of Representation in the Neural and Psychological Sciences

Favela LH, Machery E. Investigating the Concept of Representation in the Neural and Psychological Sciences. Frontiers in Psychology 2023 Jun;14:1–13

2023
[4]

Commentary: Investigating the Concept of Representation in the Neural and Psychological Sciences

Richmond A. Commentary: Investigating the Concept of Representation in the Neural and Psychological Sciences. Frontiers in Psychology 2023;14

2023
[5]

Putting Representations to Use

Cao R. Putting Representations to Use. Synthese 2022 Apr;200(2):151

2022
[6]

Deﬂating Mental Representation

Egan F . Deﬂating Mental Representation. The Jean Nicod Lectures, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2025

2025
[7]

The Extended Mind

Clark A, Chalmers D. The Extended Mind. Analysis 1998;58(1):7–19

1998
[8]

The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience

Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. 14. print. ed. Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1993

1993
[9]

Untangling Invariant Object Recognition

DiCarlo JJ, Cox DD. Untangling Invariant Object Recognition. T rends in Cognitive Sciences 2007;11(8):333–341

2007
[10]

Interpreting Encoding and Decoding Models

Kriegeskorte N, Douglas PK. Interpreting Encoding and Decoding Models. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2019 Apr;55:167–179

2019
[11]

arXiv; 2022

Ivanova AA, Schrimpf M, Anzellotti S, Zaslavsky N, Fedorenko E, Isik L, Beyond Linear Regression: Mapping Models in Cognitive Neuroscience Should Align with Research Goals. arXiv; 2022

2022
[12]

Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives

Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P . Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives. IEEE T ransactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 2013;35(8):1798–1828

2013
[13]

A Framework for the Quantitative Evaluation of Disentangled Representations

Eastwood C, Williams CKI. A Framework for the Quantitative Evaluation of Disentangled Representations. ICLR 2018

2018
[14]

T owards a Deﬁnition of Disentangled Represen- tations

Higgins I, Amos D, Pfau D, Racaniere S, Matthey L, Rezende D, et al. T owards a Deﬁnition of Disentangled Represen- tations. arXiv 2018;p. 1–29

2018
[15]

Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principle

Tishby N, Zaslavsky N. Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principle. arXiv 2015

2015
[16]

Emergence of Invariance and Disentanglement in Deep Representations

Achille A, Soatto S. Emergence of Invariance and Disentanglement in Deep Representations. Information Theory and Applications Workshop 2018;19:1–34

2018
[17]

Clarifying the Conceptual Dimensions of Representation in Neuroscience

Pohl S, Walker EY, Barack DL, Lee J, Denison RN, Block N, et al. Clarifying the Conceptual Dimensions of Representation in Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2026 Mar;p. 1–16

2026
[18]

Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future

Barsalou LW. Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future. T opics in Cognitive Science 2010 Oct;2(4):716–724

2010
[19]

The Modal—Amodal Distinction in the Debate on Conceptual Format

Haimovici S. The Modal—Amodal Distinction in the Debate on Conceptual Format. Philosophies 2018 Jun;3(2):7–19

2018
[20]

Grounding Action Representations

Weber AM, Vosgerau G. Grounding Action Representations. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2012 Mar;3(1):53– 69

2012
[21]

Representation Reconsidered

Ramsey W. Representation Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007

2007
[22]

arXiv; 2018

Alain G, Bengio Y, Understanding Intermediate Layers Using Linear Classiﬁer Probes. arXiv; 2018. 26 Baker, Lange, Richmond et al

2018
[23]

Fast Readout of Object Identity from Macaque Inferior T emporal Cortex

Hung CP , Kreiman G, Poggio T, DiCarlo JJ. Fast Readout of Object Identity from Macaque Inferior T emporal Cortex. Science 2005 Nov;310(5749):863–866

2005
[24]

Decoding the Brain: Neural Representation and the Limits of Multivariate Pattern Analysis in Cognitive Neuroscience

Ritchie JB, Kaplan DM, Klein C. Decoding the Brain: Neural Representation and the Limits of Multivariate Pattern Analysis in Cognitive Neuroscience. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2019 Jun;70(2):581–607

2019
[25]

Representational Models: A Common Framework for Understanding Encoding, Pattern- Component, and Representational-Similarity Analysis, vol

Diedrichsen J, Kriegeskorte N. Representational Models: A Common Framework for Understanding Encoding, Pattern- Component, and Representational-Similarity Analysis, vol. 13; 2017

2017
[26]

What Representational Similarity Measures Imply about Decodable Information

Harvey SE, Lipshutz D, Williams AH. What Representational Similarity Measures Imply about Decodable Information. In: UniReps: 2nd Edition of the Workshop on Unifying Representations in Neural Models; 2024

2024
[27]

Peeling the Onion of Brain Representations

Kriegeskorte N, Diedrichsen J. Peeling the Onion of Brain Representations. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2019;42:407–432

2019
[28]

Decoding the Cognitive Map: Ensemble Hippocampal Sequences and Decision Making

Wikenheiser AM, Redish AD. Decoding the Cognitive Map: Ensemble Hippocampal Sequences and Decision Making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2015 Jun;32:8–15

2015
[29]

Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias

Krakauer JW, Ghazanfar AA, Gomez-Marin A, Maciver MA, Poeppel D. Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias. Neuron Perspective 2017;93(3):480–490

2017
[30]

Contents, Vehicles, and Complex Data Analysis in Neuroscience

Burnston DC. Contents, Vehicles, and Complex Data Analysis in Neuroscience. Synthese An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 2020;199:1617–1639

2020
[31]

Single-T rial Neural Dynamics Are Dominated by Richly Varied Movements

Musall S, Kaufman MT, Juavinett AL, Gluf S, Churchland AK. Single-T rial Neural Dynamics Are Dominated by Richly Varied Movements. Nature Neuroscience 2019 Oct;22(10):1677–1686

2019
[32]

Context-Dependent Computation by Recurrent Dynamics in Prefrontal Cortex

Mante V, Sussillo D, Shenoy KV, Newsome WT. Context-Dependent Computation by Recurrent Dynamics in Prefrontal Cortex. Nature 2013;503(7474):78–84

2013
[33]

What Is a Theory of Neural Representation For? Synthese An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 2025;205(14)

Richmond A. What Is a Theory of Neural Representation For? Synthese An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 2025;205(14)

2025
[34]

Multitask Learning

Caruana R. Multitask Learning. Machine Learning 1997 Jul;28(1):41–75

1997
[35]

Exploiting T ask Relatedness for Multiple T ask Learning

Ben-David S, Schuller R. Exploiting T ask Relatedness for Multiple T ask Learning. In: Goos G, Hartmanis J, Van Leeuwen J, Schölkopf B, Warmuth MK, editors. Learning Theory and Kernel Machines, vol. 2777 Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2003.p. 567–580

2003
[36]

Examples of Gibsonian Aﬀordances in Legged Robotics Research Using an Empirical, Generative Framework

Roberts SF, Koditschek DE, Miracchi LJ. Examples of Gibsonian Aﬀordances in Legged Robotics Research Using an Empirical, Generative Framework. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 2020;14(February)

2020
[37]

The Aﬀordance Competition Hypothesis: A Framework for Embodied Behavior

Cisek P . The Aﬀordance Competition Hypothesis: A Framework for Embodied Behavior. In: Klatzky RL, MacWhinney B, Behrmann M, editors. Embodiment, Ego-Space, and Action, 0 ed. Psychology Press; 2008

2008
[38]

arXiv; 2019

Frankle J, Carbin M, The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, T rainable Neural Networks. arXiv; 2019

2019
[39]

T emporal Structure of Motor Variability Is Dynamically Regulated and Predicts Motor Learning Ability

Wu HG, Miyamoto YR, Castro LNG, Ölveczky BP , Smith MA. T emporal Structure of Motor Variability Is Dynamically Regulated and Predicts Motor Learning Ability. Nature Neuroscience 2014;17(2):312–321

2014
[40]

Neural Spiking for Causal Inference and Learning

Lansdell BJ, Kording KP . Neural Spiking for Causal Inference and Learning. PLOS Computational Biology 2023 Apr;19(4):e1011005

2023
[41]

The Information Bottleneck Method

Tishby N, Pereira FC, Bialek W. The Information Bottleneck Method. Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing 1999;p. 368–377

1999
[42]

Visual Representations: Deﬁning Properties and Deep Approximations

Soatto S, Chiuso A. Visual Representations: Deﬁning Properties and Deep Approximations. ICLR 2016;p. 1–20. Baker, Lange, Richmond et al. 27

2016
[43]

Natural Image Statistics and Neural Representation

Simoncelli EP , Olshausen BA. Natural Image Statistics and Neural Representation. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2001 Mar;24(Volume 24, 2001):1193–1216

2001
[44]

Eﬃcient Representation as a Design Principle for Neural Coding and Computation

Bialek W, de Ruyter van Stevenick RR, Tishby N. Eﬃcient Representation as a Design Principle for Neural Coding and Computation. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 2007;p. 659–663

2007
[45]

Sparse Coding with an Incomplete Basis Set: A Strategy Employed by V1? Vision Research 1997;37(23):3311–3325

a Olshausen B, Field DJ. Sparse Coding with an Incomplete Basis Set: A Strategy Employed by V1? Vision Research 1997;37(23):3311–3325

1997
[46]

Possible Principles Underlying the T ransformations of Sensory Messages

Barlow HB. Possible Principles Underlying the T ransformations of Sensory Messages. Sensory Communication 1961;p. 216–234

1961
[47]

Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems

Dayan P , Abbott LF . Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems. Se- jnowski TJ, Poggio T, editors, London: MIT Press; 2001

2001
[48]

T oward a Uniﬁed Theory of Eﬃcient, Predictive, and Sparse Coding

Chalk M, Marre O, Tkačik G. T oward a Uniﬁed Theory of Eﬃcient, Predictive, and Sparse Coding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018;115(1):186–191

2018
[49]

The Foundations of Statistics

Savage LJ. The Foundations of Statistics. Courier Corporation; 1972

1972
[50]

Decision Theory: What "Should" the Nervous System Do? Science 2008;606(2007)

Körding KP . Decision Theory: What "Should" the Nervous System Do? Science 2008;606(2007)

2008
[51]

Probabilistic Interpretation of Population Codes

Zemel RS, Dayan P , Pouget A. Probabilistic Interpretation of Population Codes. Neural Computation 1998;10(2):403– 430

1998
[52]

Statistically Optimal Perception and Learning: From Behavior to Neural Repre- sentations

Fiser J, Berkes P , Orbán G, Lengyel M. Statistically Optimal Perception and Learning: From Behavior to Neural Repre- sentations. T rends in cognitive sciences 2010 Mar;14(3):119–30

2010
[53]

Probabilistic Brains: Knowns and Unknowns

Pouget A, Beck JM, Ma WJ, Latham PE. Probabilistic Brains: Knowns and Unknowns. Nature Neuroscience 2013;16(9):1170–1178

2013
[54]

Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind

Fodor JA. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. The MIT Press; 1987

1987
[55]

Knowledge & the Flow of Information

Dretske FI. Knowledge & the Flow of Information. 4. print ed. A Bradford Book, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Pr; 1986

1986
[56]

Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism

Millikan RG. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. MIT Press; 1987

1987
[57]

Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology

Sosa E. Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge University Press; 1991

1991
[58]

Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge

Zagzebski LT. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press; 1996

1996
[59]

towards Reconstruction in Epistemology

Susan H, William D, Evidence and Inquiry. towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1993

1993
[60]

How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition? Neuron 2012;73(3):415–434

DiCarlo JJ, Zoccolan D, Rust NC. How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition? Neuron 2012;73(3):415–434

2012
[61]

Explicit Information for Category-Orthogonal Object Properties Increases along the Ventral Stream

Hong H, Y amins DLK, Majaj NJ, DiCarlo JJ. Explicit Information for Category-Orthogonal Object Properties Increases along the Ventral Stream. Nature Neuroscience 2016;19(4)

2016
[62]

Memory Capacity of Linear vs

Poirazi P , Mel B. Memory Capacity of Linear vs. Nonlinear Models of Dendritic Integration. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 12 MIT Press; 1999

1999
[63]

Normalization as a Canonical Neural Computation

Carandini M, Heeger DJ. Normalization as a Canonical Neural Computation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2012;13:51–62

2012
[64]

Conjectures Regarding the Nonlinear Geometry of Visual Neurons

Golden JR, Vilankar KP , Wu MCK, Field DJ. Conjectures Regarding the Nonlinear Geometry of Visual Neurons. Vision Research 2016 Mar;120:74–92. 28 Baker, Lange, Richmond et al

2016
[65]

Are Dendrites Conceptually Useful? Neuroscience 2022

Larkum ME. Are Dendrites Conceptually Useful? Neuroscience 2022

2022
[66]

Soft Matching Distance: A Metric on Neural Representations That Captures Single-Neuron T uning

Khosla M, Williams AH. Soft Matching Distance: A Metric on Neural Representations That Captures Single-Neuron T uning. In: Proceedings of UniReps: The First Workshop on Unifying Representations in Neural Models PMLR; 2024. p. 326–341

2024
[67]

Life-Long Disentangled Representation Learning with Cross-Domain Latent Homologies

Achille A, Eccles T, Matthey L, Burgess CP , Watters N, Lerchner A, et al. Life-Long Disentangled Representation Learning with Cross-Domain Latent Homologies. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2018;2018- Decem(Mdl):9873–9883

2018
[68]

A Sober Look at the Unsupervised Learning of Disen- tangled Representations and Their Evaluation

Locatello F, Bauer S, Lucic M, Rätsch G, Gelly S, Schölkopf B, et al. A Sober Look at the Unsupervised Learning of Disen- tangled Representations and Their Evaluation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 2020 Jan;21(1):209:8629– 209:8690

2020
[69]

Are Disentangled Representations Helpful for Abstract Visual Reasoning? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2019;32(NeurIPS)

van Steenkiste S, Locatello F, Schmidhuber J, Bachem O. Are Disentangled Representations Helpful for Abstract Visual Reasoning? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2019;32(NeurIPS)

2019
[70]

The Role of Disentanglement in Generalization

Montero ML, Ludwig CJ, Costa RP , Malhotra G, Bowers J. The Role of Disentanglement in Generalization. ICLR 2021

2021
[71]

arXiv; 2024

Lippl S, Stachenfeld K, When Does Compositional Structure Yield Compositional Generalization? A Kernel Theory. arXiv; 2024

2024
[72]

arXiv; 2023

Hyvarinen A, Khemakhem I, Morioka H, Nonlinear Independent Component Analysis for Principled Disentanglement in Unsupervised Deep Learning. arXiv; 2023

2023
[73]

T oward Causal Representation Learning

Scholkopf B, Locatello F, Bauer S, Ke NR, Kalchbrenner N, Goyal A, et al. T oward Causal Representation Learning. Proceedings of the IEEE 2021;109(5):612–634

2021
[74]

Learning Optimal Representations with the Decodable Information Bottle- neck

Dubois Y, Kiela D, Vedantam R, Schwab DJ. Learning Optimal Representations with the Decodable Information Bottle- neck. arXiv 2020

2020
[75]

Harvard University Press; 1975

Fodor J, The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press; 1975

1975
[76]

The Language of Thought Hypothesis

Aydede M. The Language of Thought Hypothesis. In: Zalta E, editor. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2010

2010
[77]

The Best Game in T own: The Re-emergence of the Language of Thought Hypothesis across the Cognitive Sciences

Quilty-Dunn J, Porot N, Mandelbaum E. The Best Game in T own: The Re-emergence of the Language of Thought Hypothesis across the Cognitive Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2022 Dec;p. 1–55

2022
[78]

The Medium and the Message in Mental Imagery: A Theory

Kosslyn SM. The Medium and the Message in Mental Imagery: A Theory. Psychological Review 1981;88(1):46–66

1981
[79]

Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects

Shepard RN, Metzler J. Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects. Science 1971;171(972):701–703

1971
[80]

Iconic Representation: Maps, Pictures, and Perception

Burge T. Iconic Representation: Maps, Pictures, and Perception. In: Wuppuluri S, Doria FA, editors. The Map and the T erritory Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.p. 79–100

2018

Showing first 80 references.