Rule-based extrapolation in perceptual categorization

Erickson and Kruschke (1998) provided a demonstration that in certain situations people will classify novel stimuli according to an extrapolated rule, even when the most similar training exemplar is an exception to the rule. This result challenged exemplar models. Nosofsky and Johansen (2000) have called this finding into question by offering an exemplar-based explanation for those data based on the perceptual features of the stimuli. Here, we describe the results of a new experiment that yields results similar to those found previouslywithout the questionable perceptual features:Participantswho learn to classify all the training stimuli have patterns of generalization that indicate a combination of rule and exemplar representation. ATRIUM, a hybrid rule and exemplar model (Erickson & Kruschke, 1998), is shown to account for these data much better than ALCOVE, an exemplar model (Kruschke, 1992).Moreover, four alternate exemplar explanations, including one suggested by Nosofsky and Johansen, cannot account for our new findings.

[1]  A. Anastasi.  Individual differences. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[2]  William M. Smith,et al.  A Study of Thinking , 1956 .

[3]  W. Grings,et al.  Verbal control of an autonomic response in a cue reversal situation. , 1973 .

[4]  Mark H. Lee.  From dissertation abstracts international , 1974, COMG.

[5]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

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

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

[8]  R. Nosofsky.  Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986 .

[9]  Sandro Ridella,et al.  Minimizing multimodal functions of continuous variables with the “simulated annealing” algorithmCorrigenda for this article is available here , 1987, TOMS.

[10]  R. Nosofsky.  Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  R. Nosofsky.  Similarity, frequency, and category representations. , 1988 .

[12]  R. Nosofsky.  Further tests of an exemplar-similarity approach to relating identification and categorization , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Rules and exemplars in categorization, identification, and recognition. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. , 1990 .

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Task Decomposition Through Competition in a Modular Connectionist Architecture: The What and Where Vision Tasks , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts , 1991, Neural Computation.

[17]  William L. Goffe,et al.  SIMANN: FORTRAN module to perform Global Optimization of Statistical Functions with Simulated Annealing , 1992 .

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

[19]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Investigations of an Exemplar-Based Connectionist Model of Category Learning , 1992 .

[20]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Incorporating prior biases innetwork models of conceptual rule learning , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[22]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Human Category Learning: Implications for Backpropagation Models , 1993 .

[23]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Three principles for models of category learning , 1993 .

[24]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Comparing modes of rule-based classification learning: A replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[25]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Dimensional Relevance Shifts in Category Learning , 1996, Connect. Sci..

[26]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Learning to classify integral-dimension stimuli , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Modeling Interference Effects In Instructed Category Learning , 1996 .

[28]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Nature, nurture, and the development of functional specializations: A computational approach , 1997 .

[29]  M. Kalish,et al.  Decision boundaries in one-dimensional categorization. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Applying Occam’s razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach , 1997 .

[31]  R D Thomas,et al.  Learning correlations in categorization tasks using large, ill-defined categories. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  J. Kruschke,et al.  Rules and exemplars in category learning. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  T. Palmeri,et al.  Learning categories at different hierarchical levels: A comparison of category learning models , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  Individual Differences in Exemplar-Based Interference During Instructed Category Learning , 2000 .

[35]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Model Comparisons and Model Selections Based on Generalization Criterion Methodology. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[36]  T. Griffiths,et al.  Competing strategies in categorization: expediency and resistance to knowledge restructuring. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  Mark K. Johansen,et al.  Exemplar-based accounts of "multiple-system" phenomena in perceptual categorization. , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  L. Brooks,et al.  Specializing the operation of an explicit rule , 1991 .

[39]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Learning of rules that have high-frequency exceptions: New empirical data and a hybrid connectionist model , 2019, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.