The dimensionality of perceptual category learning: A state-trace analysis

State-trace analysis was used to investigate the effect of concurrent working memory load on perceptual category learning. Initial reanalysis of Zeithamova and Maddox (2006, Experiment 1) revealed an apparently two-dimensional state-trace plot consistent with a dual-system interpretation of category learning. However, three modified replications of the original experiment found evidence of a single resource underlying the learning of both rule-based and information integration category structures. Follow-up analyses of the Zeithamova and Maddox data, restricted to only those participants who had learned the category task and performed the concurrent working memory task adequately, revealed a one-dimensional plot consistent with a single-resource interpretation and the results of the three new experiments. The results highlight the potential of state-trace analysis in furthering our understanding of the mechanisms underlying category learning.

[1]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  G. Loftus.  On interpretation of interactions , 1978 .

[3]  D. Bamber.  State-trace analysis: A method of testing simple theories of causation , 1979 .

[4]  D. Medin,et al.  Linear separability in classification learning. , 1981 .

[5]  D. Schacter,et al.  The Evolution of Multiple Memory Systems , 1987 .

[6]  K. Kirsner,et al.  Discovering functionally independent mental processes: the principle of reversed association. , 1988, Psychological review.

[7]  Richard J. Brown.  Neuropsychology Mental Structure , 1989 .

[8]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[10]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[11]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[12]  Gregory Ashby,et al.  A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. , 1998, Psychological review.

[13]  Robert M. Nosofsky,et al.  Dissociations Between Categorization and Recognition in Amnesic and Normal Individuals: An Exemplar-Based Interpretation , 1998 .

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

[15]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[16]  F. Ashby,et al.  The effects of concurrent task interference on category learning: Evidence for multiple category learning systems , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  F. Gregory Ashby,et al.  Single versus multiple systems of category learning: Reply to Nosofsky and Kruschke (2002) , 2002 .

[18]  John K Kruschke,et al.  Single-system models and interference in category learning: Commentary on Waldron and Ashby (2001) , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[20]  J. Dunn.  The Elusive Dissociation , 2003, Cortex.

[21]  J. Dunn,et al.  Signed difference analysis: Theory and application , 2003 .

[22]  A. Baddeley.  Working memory: looking back and looking forward , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[23]  G. Loftus,et al.  Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. , 2004, Psychological review.

[24]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Assessing model mimicry using the parametric bootstrap , 2004 .

[25]  Paul Whitney,et al.  Components of working memory and somatic markers in decision making , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Erin M. Harley,et al.  Why is it difficult to see in the fog? How stimulus contrast affects visual perception and visual memory , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Dissociating explicit and procedural-learning based systems of perceptual category learning , 2004, Behavioural Processes.

[28]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Cortical and subcortical brain regions involved in rule-based category learning , 2005, Neuroreport.

[29]  Carol A. Seger,et al.  The Roles of the Caudate Nucleus in Human Classification Learning , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Human category learning. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[31]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Delayed feedback disrupts the procedural-learning system but not the hypothesis-testing system in perceptual category learning. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  How many dimensions underlie judgments of learning and recall? Evidence from state-trace methodology. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  Richard Henson,et al.  Forward inference using functional neuroimaging: dissociations versus associations , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Dual-task interference in perceptual category learning , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Carol A. Seger,et al.  Dynamics of frontal, striatal, and hippocampal systems during rule learning. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[36]  D. Lagnado,et al.  Insight and strategy in multiple-cue learning. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  The role of visuospatial and verbal working memory in perceptual category learning , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[38]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Feedback interference and dissociations of classification: Evidence against the multiple-learning-systems hypothesis , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Russell A Poldrack,et al.  Secondary-task effects on classification learning , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[40]  D. Lagnado,et al.  Challenging the role of implicit processes in probabilistic category learning , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Bradley C Love,et al.  Models in search of a brain , 2007, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[42]  J. Dunn.  The dimensionality of the remember-know task: a state-trace analysis. , 2008, Psychological review.

[43]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  Dimensions in data: testing psychological models using state-trace analysis , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[44]  P. J. Reber,et al.  A review of medial temporal lobe and caudate contributions to visual category learning , 2008, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[45]  Marci S. DeCaro,et al.  Individual differences in category learning: Sometimes less working memory capacity is better than more , 2008, Cognition.

[46]  W. Todd Maddox,et al.  Rule-based category learning in patients with Parkinson's disease , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  Marci S. DeCaro,et al.  When and how less is more: reply to Tharp and Pickering , 2009, Cognition.

[48]  A. Pickering,et al.  A note on DeCaro, Thomas, and Beilock (2008): Further data demonstrate complexities in the assessment of information–integration category learning , 2009, Cognition.

[49]  Eddy J. Davelaar,et al.  On the lawfulness of the decision to terminate memory search , 2009, Cognition.

[50]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The design and analysis of state-trace experiments. , 2012, Psychological methods.