You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Modeling language and cognition with deep unsupervised learning: a tutorial overview 
Chapter Title:  Discovering learned representations 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Numerosity estimation is phylogenetically ancient and foundational to human mathematical learning, but its computational bases remain controversial. Here we show that visual numerosity emerges as a statistical property of images in 'deep networks' that learn a hierarchical generative model of the sensory input. Emergent numerosity detectors had response profiles resembling those of monkey parietal neurons and supported numerosity estimation with the same behavioral signature shown by humans and animals.

Literature Review:
In the previous section we illustrated how it is possible to assess the quality of the internal representations learned at each layer of the hierarchy of a deep belief network by performing a discriminative task. However, this information is tied to a given classification task and is therefore limited in scope. Moreover, the supervised classifier operates on the pattern of activity over an entire hidden layer, that is a distributed representation encoding a variety of micro-features representing task-independent statistical regularities of the data. A very simple but informative approach to investigate the role of a particular unit in the network consists of visualizing its connection weights using the original structure of the data (e.g., the 2D image in our visual perception examples). This is particularly intuitive for the first hidden layer, where the weight matrix defines how the visible units contribute to the activation of each hidden unit. We can therefore visualize the "receptive field" of each hidden unit by plotting the strength of its visible-to-hidden connections. The same principle can be applied to the deeper layers of the DBN, by combining their weight matrix with those of the lower layers. A straightforward way is to use a linear combination of the weight matrices, possibly imposing a threshold on the absolute values of the weights in order to select only strong connections. This allows to visualize the receptive field learned at a layer k as a weighted linear combination of the receptive fields learned at level k-1  BIB001 ). The main drawbacks of this technique are that one has to manually choose threshold values and that non-linearities between layers are not considered, with the risk of losing relevant information. Nevertheless, this method can provide good visualization of the learned features even without imposing a threshold on the weights (see Figure 6 ). Using the above method, we analyzed the receptive fields of the hidden units of DBNs trained on images of letters as well on the handwritten digits of the MNIST dataset. In the letter perception task, we found that most of the units of the first hidden layer were tuned to basic geometric features, whereas most of the units of the second hidden layer were tuned to a composition of these features (see examples in Figure 6A ). The greater image resolution and variability of the handwritten digits pose a much more complex visual problem, which induced the emergence of a more structured hierarchy of features in the DBN. As shown in Figure 6B , the first hidden layer learned simple and localized visual features (mostly Gaussian and Gabor filters), resembling those found in the primary visual cortex. The second hidden layer combined these features into edges, lines, and strokes detectors. Finally, the third hidden layer extracted even more complex visual features that resemble parts of digits. Note that the finding of lowlevel visual features (basis functions) in the first hidden layer is common to many problems that involve a large variability in the training images (see, e.g.,  BIB002 . Applying sparsity constraints on the internal representations further improves the quality of the emerging features. For example, a sparse DBN trained on patches of natural images developed complex receptive fields (e.g., T-junctions) in the second hidden layer that were very similar to those found in area V2 of the visual cortex  . Our sparse DBN simulations also resulted in an increase of the complexity of the emergent features. For example, the letter perception network encoded more letter-like features in the second hidden layer ( Figure 6C ) and the handwritten digit perception network learned shape-specific detectors in the third hidden layer ( Figure 6D) . A more sophisticated approach to investigate the features encoded by a hidden unit is to find its preferred input stimuli, as done by neurophysiologists in single-cell recording studies. The basic idea is to probe the network on a variety of input patterns, each time recording the neural response and then looking for possible regularities. This approach can be very effective if we have an idea about which type of patterns are more likely to elicit specific responses (for example, responses to bigrams after training on words; Di Bono and Zorzi, under review). However, if we cannot make assumptions about the nature of the preferred stimuli, this method becomes computationally intractable because it would require testing the network on an exponential number of possible input patterns. Nevertheless, this problem can be solved by formulating it as an optimization problem, where the goal is to find the input pattern that maximizes the activation of a certain hidden unit given the processing constraints imposed by the network  . Formally, if θ denotes the deep network parameters (weights and biases) and h ij (θ, x) is the activation of a given unit i from a given layer j in the network, then h ij is a function of both θ and the input sample x. Assuming that the vector x has a bounded norm and after learning the parameters are fixed, then the problem of maximizing the unit activation is: Although this is a non-convex optimization problem, it has been empirically shown that good local minima can be found  ). This method has been recently used to investigate whether high-level, class-specific feature detectors can emerge in very-large-scale deep unsupervised learning (i.e., using millions of images for training;  . The impressive result was that it is indeed possible to learn highly complex and abstract features at the deepest layers, such as prototypical faces . A different approach can be used if we expect monotonic response of some hidden units to a given property of the data. The individuation of these detectors is based on regressing the property of interest (or even multiple properties) onto the response of each hidden unit. A high absolute value of the normalized regression coefficient indicates sensitivity of the hidden unit to the property of interest; this might also indicate selectivity when combined with small (near-zero) regression coefficients for other properties. Using this method, BIB002 discovered detectors in the second hidden layer of their DBN tuned to visual numerosity but insensitive to other important visual properties like cumulative area. Di Bono and Zorzi (under review) also used this method to investigate word selectivity in their DBN model of visual word recognition. After finding the preferred word for a given hidden unit, its word selectivity was assessed by recording the response to all other training words and performing a regression analysis using the orthographic (i.e., Levenshtein) distance from the preferred word as predictor.