Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning

Formal models of categorization make different predictions about the theoretical importance of linear separability. Prior research, most of which has failed to find support for a linear separability constraint on category learning, has been conducted using tasks that involve learning two categories with a small number of members. The present experiment used four categories with three or nine patterns per category that were either linearly separable or not linearly separable. With overall category structure equivalent across category types, the linearly separable categories were found to be easier to learn than the not linearly separable categories. An analysis of individual participants’ data showed that there were more participants operating under a linear separability constraint when learning large categories than when learning small ones. Formal modeling showed that an exemplar model could not account for many of these data. These results are taken to support the existence of multiple processes in categorization.

[1]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[2]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. , 1962 .

[3]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[4]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Pattern recognition and categorization , 1972 .

[6]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Category vs. item learning: Implications for categorization models , 1978, Memory & cognition.

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

[8]  Donald Homa,et al.  Abstraction of ill-defined form. , 1978 .

[9]  Daniel F. Chambliss,et al.  Evolution of conceptual structure , 1979 .

[10]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Strategies and classification learning , 1981 .

[11]  D. Homa,et al.  Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. , 1981 .

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

[13]  D. Homa.  On the Nature of Categories , 1984 .

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

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

[16]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Hierarchical organization in ordered domains: Estimating the dates of events , 1988 .

[17]  G. Bower,et al.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. , 1988 .

[18]  M. Gluck.  Stimulus Generalization and Representation in Adaptive Network Models of Category Learning , 1991 .

[19]  R. Nosofsky.  Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  David R. Shanks,et al.  CATEGORIZATION BY A CONNECTIONIST NETWORK , 1991 .

[21]  Liva Nohre,et al.  Instance Frequency, Categorization, and the Modulating Effect of Experience , 1991 .

[22]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

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

[24]  W T Maddox,et al.  Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[26]  Koen Lamberts,et al.  Categorization under time pressure. , 1995 .

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

[28]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

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

[30]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  A rule-plus-exception model for classifying objects in continuous-dimension spaces , 1998 .

[31]  Hahn-Ming Lee,et al.  A neural network classifier with disjunctive fuzzy information , 1998, Neural Networks.

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

[33]  S. Klein,et al.  The Role of Expectancy Violating Behaviors in the Representation of Trait Knowledge: A Summary-Plus-Exception Model of Social Memory , 1998 .

[34]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Prototypes in the Mist: The Early Epochs of Category Learning , 1998 .

[35]  J. D. Smith,et al.  "Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning": Correction to Smith and Minda (1998). , 1999 .

[36]  L. E. Bourne,et al.  The strategic basis of performance in binary classification tasks : Strategy choices and strategy transitions , 1999 .

[37]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  What do misestimations and asymmetries in spatial judgement indicate about spatial representation , 1999 .

[38]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  Category Effects on Estimates of Stimuli: Perception or Reconstruction? , 2000, Psychological science.

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

[40]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Prototypes in category learning: the effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.