Can attentional theory explain the inverse base rate effect? Comment on Kruschke (2001).

In J. K. Kruschke's (2001; see record 2001-18940-005) study, it is argued that attentional theory is the sole satisfactory explanation of the inverse base rate effect and that eliminative inference (P. Juslin, P. Wennerholm, & A. Winman, 2001; see record 2001-07828-016) plays no role in the phenomenon. In this comment, the authors demonstrate that, in contrast to the central tenets of attentional theory, (a) rapid attention shifts as implemented in ADIT decelerate learning in the inverse base-rate task and (b) the claim that the inverse base-rate effect is directly caused by an attentional asymmetry is refuted by data. It is proposed that a complete account of the inverse base-rate effect needs to integrate attention effects with inference rules that are flexibly used for both induction and elimination.

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

[2]  D. Medin,et al.  Sensitivity to changes in base-rate information , 1991 .

[3]  M L Kalish,et al.  The role of attention shifts in the categorization of continuous dimensioned stimuli , 2000, Psychological research.

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

[5]  J. Kruschke,et al.  A model of probabilistic category learning. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  J. Kruschke.  Base rates in category learning. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Thomas J. Palmeri,et al.  An Exemplar-Based Random Walk Model of Speeded Classification , 1997 .

[8]  K. Lamberts.  Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization. , 2000, Psychological review.

[9]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Thirty categorization results in search of a model. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  J. Kruschke,et al.  The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  D. Medin,et al.  Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[13]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

[14]  John K. Kruschke,et al.  Associative learning in baboons (Papio papio) and humans (Homo sapiens): species differences in learned attention to visual features , 1998, Animal Cognition.

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

[16]  David R. Shanks.  Connectionist Accounts of the Inverse Base-rate Effect in Categorization , 1992 .

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

[18]  P Juslin,et al.  High-level reasoning and base-rate use: do we need cue-competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.