Alignment and category learning.

Recent research shows that similarity comparisons involve an alignment process in which features are placed into correspondence. In 6 studies, the authors showed that alignment is involved in category learning as well. Within a category, aligned matches (feature matches occurring on the same dimension) facilitate learning more than nonaligned matches do (matches on different dimensions), although nonaligned matches still facilitate learning relative to nonmatches. Analogously, feature matches that cross category boundaries hurt learning more if they occur on the same versus a different dimension, and cross-category feature matches on different dimensions hurt learning relative to nonmatching features. Representational assumptions of category learning models must be modified to account for the differences between aligned and nonaligned feature matches.

[1]  Douglas L Medin,et al.  Linear separability and concept learning: Context, relational properties, and concept naturalness , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  R. Shepard,et al.  Learning and memorization of classifications. , 1961 .

[4]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  E. Rosch,et al.  Structural bases of typicality effects. , 1976 .

[6]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Similarity and analogical reasoning: Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1989 .

[8]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  The locus of knowledge effects in concept learning. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  E. Wisniewski,et al.  Prior knowledge and functionally relevant features in concept learning. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  William K. Estes,et al.  Classification and cognition , 1994 .

[11]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Time Course of Comparison , 1994 .

[12]  L. Rips Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

[13]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Category cohesiveness, theories, and cognitive archeology. , 1987 .

[14]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[15]  B. Ross,et al.  Reminding-based category learning , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  D. Gentner,et al.  Splitting the Differences: A Structural Alignment View of Similarity , 1993 .

[17]  J. Kruschke,et al.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. , 1992, Psychological review.

[18]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Theories and concept formation. , 1993 .

[20]  W D Wattenmaker Incidental concept learning, feature frequency, and correlated properties. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  F. Keil Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[22]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Psychological concepts in a parallel system , 1986 .

[23]  L. Brooks Decentralized control of categorization: The role of prior processing episodes. , 1987 .

[24]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[25]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis , 1993 .

[26]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  A two-stage model of category construction ☆ , 1992 .

[27]  B. Ross,et al.  Comparison-based learning: effects of comparing instances during category learning. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. , 1994, Psychological review.

[29]  D L Medin,et al.  Concepts and conceptual structure. , 1989, The American psychologist.

[30]  Woo-Kyoung Ahn,et al.  A Two-Stage Model of Category Construction , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  M. Lassaline,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  Robert L. Goldstone Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[35]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[36]  D. Medin,et al.  Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Similarity Judgments with Semantically Rich Stimuli , 1997 .

[37]  U. Neisser Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[38]  U. Neisser,et al.  Hierarchies in concept attainment. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[39]  D L Medin,et al.  Presentation order and recognition of categorically related examples , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  D. Medin,et al.  Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .