Exemplar-based Accounts of "multiple-system" Phenomena in Perceptual Categorization

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2000 Nov 18

PMID 11082849

Citations 61

Authors

R M Nosofsky

M K Johansen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We demonstrate that a wide variety of recently reported "rule-described" and "prototype-described" phenomena in perceptual classification, which have led to the development of a number of multiple-system models, can be given an alternative interpretation in terms of a single-system exemplar-similarity model. The phenomena include various rule- and prototype-described patterns of generalization, dissociations between categorization and similarity judgments, and dissociations between categorization and old-new recognition. The alternative exemplar-based interpretation relies on the idea that similarity is not an invariant relation but a context-dependent one. Similarity relations among exemplars change systematically because of selective attention to dimensions and because of changes in the level of sensitivity relating judged similarity to distance in psychological space. Adaptive learning principles may help explain the systematic influence of the selective attention process and of modulation in sensitivity settings on judged similarity.

Citing Articles

A neural network model of hippocampal contributions to category learning.

Sucevic J, Schapiro A Elife. 2023; 12.

PMID: 38079351 PMC: 10712951. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.77185.

How do we generalize?.

Taylor J, Cortese A, Barron H, Pan X, Sakagami M, Zeithamova D Neuron Behav Data Anal Theory. 2022; 1.

PMID: 36282996 PMC: 7613724. DOI: 10.51628/001c.27687.

Premise typicality as feature inference decision-making in perceptual categories.

Morgan E, Johansen M Mem Cognit. 2021; 50(4):817-836.

PMID: 34623605 PMC: 9018646. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-021-01240-8.

Generalization and the hippocampus: More than one story?.

Zeithamova D, Bowman C Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2020; 175:107317.

PMID: 33007461 PMC: 7655622. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107317.

Wirebring L, Stillesjo S, Eriksson J, Juslin P, Nyberg L Front Hum Neurosci. 2019; 12:481.

PMID: 30631267 PMC: 6315133. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00481.

References

Erickson M, Kruschke J . Rules and exemplars in category learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998; 127(2):107-40. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.127.2.107. View

Nosofsky R, Palmeri T . An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychol Rev. 1997; 104(2):266-300. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.266. View

Nosofsky R . Typicality in logically defined categories: exemplar-similarity versus rule instantiation. Mem Cognit. 1991; 19(2):131-50. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197110. View

Vandierendonck A . A parallel rule activation and rule synthesis model for generalization in category learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 2(4):442-59. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210982. View

Palmeri T . Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997; 23(2):324-54. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.23.2.324. View

Maddox W, Ashby F . Selective attention and the formation of linear decision boundaries: comment on McKinley and Nosofsky (1996). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(1):301-21; discussion 322-39. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.1.301. View

Heit E . Models of the effects of prior knowledge on category learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994; 20(6):1264-82. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.6.1264. View

Knowlton B, Mangels J, Squire L . A neostriatal habit learning system in humans. Science. 1996; 273(5280):1399-402. DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5280.1399. View

Nosofsky R, Gluck M, Palmeri T, McKinley S, Glauthier P . Comparing models of rule-based classification learning: a replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Mem Cognit. 1994; 22(3):352-69. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200862. View

10.

Goldstone R . The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork. Cognition. 1994; 52(2):125-57. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90065-5. View

11.

Kruschke J . ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychol Rev. 1992; 99(1):22-44. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.22. View

12.

Myung . The Importance of Complexity in Model Selection. J Math Psychol. 2000; 44(1):190-204. DOI: 10.1006/jmps.1999.1283. View

13.

Ashby F, Townsend J . Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychol Rev. 1986; 93(2):154-79. View

14.

Nosofsky R, Palmeri T, McKinley S . Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychol Rev. 1994; 101(1):53-79. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.53. View

15.

Shin H, Nosofsky R . Similarity-scaling studies of dot-pattern classification and recognition. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992; 121(3):278-304. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.121.3.278. View

16.

Nosofsky R, Palmeri T . Learning to classify integral-dimension stimuli. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 3(2):222-6. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212422. View

17.

Squire L, Knowlton B . Learning about categories in the absence of memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995; 92(26):12470-4. PMC: 40379. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.92.26.12470. View

18.

Smith E, Sloman S . Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Mem Cognit. 1994; 22(4):377-86. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200864. View

19.

Knowlton B, Squire L . The learning of categories: parallel brain systems for item memory and category knowledge. Science. 1993; 262(5140):1747-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.8259522. View

20.

Smith L . A model of perceptual classification in children and adults. Psychol Rev. 1989; 96(1):125-44. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.125. View