Model-guided search for optimal natural-science-category training exemplars: A work in progress

Under the guidance of a formal exemplar model of categorization, we conduct comparisons of natural-science classification learning across four conditions in which the nature of the training examples is manipulated. The specific domain of inquiry is rock classification in the geologic sciences; the goal is to use the model to search for optimal training examples for teaching the rock categories. On the positive side, the model makes a number of successful predictions: Most notably, compared with conditions involving focused training on small sets of training examples, generalization to novel transfer items is significantly enhanced in a condition in which learners experience a broad swath of training examples from each category. Nevertheless, systematic departures from the model predictions are also observed. Further analyses lead us to the hypothesis that the high-dimensional feature-space representation derived for the rock stimuli (to which the exemplar model makes reference) systematically underestimates within-category similarities. We suggest that this limitation is likely to arise in numerous situations in which investigators attempt to build detailed feature-space representations for naturalistic categories. A low-parameter extended version of the model that adjusts for this limitation provides dramatically improved accounts of performance across the four conditions. We outline future steps for enhancing the current feature-space representation and continuing our goal of using formal psychological models to guide the search for effective methods of teaching science categories.

[1]  R. Shepard Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space , 1957 .

[2]  Robert Hooke,et al.  `` Direct Search'' Solution of Numerical and Statistical Problems , 1961, JACM.

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

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

[5]  D. Homa Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype , 1973 .

[6]  D. Homa,et al.  Category Breadth and the Abstraction of Prototypical Information. , 1976 .

[7]  A. Tversky,et al.  Additive similarity trees , 1977 .

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

[9]  Roger N. Shepard,et al.  Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. , 1979 .

[10]  R N Shepard,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-Fitting, and Clustering , 1980, Science.

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

[12]  R. Nosofsky Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. , 1984 .

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

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

[15]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

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

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

[18]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  List-strength Effect: Ii. Theoretical Mechanisms , 1990 .

[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]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The Adaptive Nature of Human Categorization. , 1991 .

[21]  R. Nosofsky Similarity Scaling and Cognitive Process Models , 1992 .

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

[23]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization , 1993 .

[24]  Robert L. Goldstone Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  Robert L. Goldstone Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. , 1994 .

[26]  S C McKinley,et al.  Investigations of exemplar and decision bound models in large, ill-defined category structures. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[29]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[31]  Gerrit Storms,et al.  Prototype and Exemplar-Based Information in Natural Language Categories , 2000 .

[32]  Safa R. Zaki,et al.  Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[33]  M. Lee,et al.  Extending the ALCOVE model of category learning to featural stimulus domains , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  Robert M Nosofsky,et al.  A hybrid-similarity exemplar model for predicting distinctiveness effects in perceptual old-new recognition. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  M. Lee,et al.  Avoiding the dangers of averaging across subjects when using multidimensional scaling , 2003 .

[36]  Tom Verguts,et al.  Measures of similarity in models of categorization , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[37]  D. Medin,et al.  SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. , 2004, Psychological review.

[38]  D. Luce,et al.  Detection and Recognition " ' , 2006 .

[39]  Steven Verheyen,et al.  Determining the dimensionality in spatial representations of semantic concepts , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[40]  P. Viviani,et al.  Categorical perception of newly learned faces , 2007 .

[41]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”? , 2008 .

[42]  F Gregory Ashby,et al.  Initial Training With Difficult Items Facilitates Information Integration, but Not Rule-Based Category Learning , 2008, Psychological science.

[43]  R. Bjork,et al.  Learning Concepts and Categories , 2008, Psychological science.

[44]  W. Vanpaemel,et al.  In search of abstraction: The varying abstraction model of categorization , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  W. Vanpaemel,et al.  Exemplars and prototypes in natural language concepts: A typicality-based evaluation , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  P. Kellman,et al.  Adaptive Sequencing in Perceptual Learning , 2010 .

[48]  Adam N Sanborn,et al.  Rational approximations to rational models: alternative algorithms for category learning. , 2010, Psychological review.

[49]  R. Nosofsky Formal Approaches in Categorization: The generalized context model: an exemplar model of classification , 2011 .

[50]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  Formal Approaches in Categorization: Contents , 2011 .

[51]  Jonathan R. Folstein,et al.  How category learning affects object representations: not all morphspaces stretch alike. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  Bridgid Finn,et al.  Metacognitive judgments of repetition and variability effects in natural concept learning: evidence for variability neglect , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[53]  Sean H. K. Kang,et al.  Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast , 2012 .

[54]  A. Wills,et al.  On the adequacy of current empirical evaluations of formal models of categorization. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling , 2003, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[56]  Michael C. Mozer,et al.  Maximizing Students' Retention Via Spaced Review: Practical Guidance From Computational Models Of Memory , 2013, CogSci.

[57]  M. Mozer,et al.  When does fading enhance perceptual category learning? , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[58]  Robert V. Lindsey,et al.  Improving Students’ Long-Term Knowledge Retention Through Personalized Review , 2014, Psychological science.

[59]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[60]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  Optimal Teaching for Limited-Capacity Human Learners , 2014, NIPS.

[61]  F. Gregory Ashby,et al.  Multidimensional Models of Perception and Cognition , 2014 .

[62]  Wojciech Zaremba,et al.  Deep Neural Networks Predict Category Typicality Ratings for Images , 2015, CogSci.

[63]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[64]  F. Mathy,et al.  The Influence of Presentation Order on Category Transfer. , 2016, Experimental psychology.

[65]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[66]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Adapting Deep Network Features to Capture Psychological Representations: An Abridged Report , 2017, IJCAI.

[67]  T. Palmeri,et al.  Modelling individual difference in visual categorization , 2016, Visual cognition.

[68]  Kensuke Okada,et al.  A Bayesian approach to modeling group and individual differences in multidimensional scaling , 2016 .

[69]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Sequence of Study Changes What Information Is Attended to, Encoded, and Remembered During Category Learning , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[70]  Olivia Guest,et al.  What the success of brain imaging implies about the neural code , 2016, bioRxiv.

[71]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  On Learning Natural-Science Categories That Violate the Family-Resemblance Principle , 2017, Psychological science.

[72]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Models that allow us to perceive the world more accurately also allow us to remember past events more accurately via differentiation , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[73]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Modeling human categorization of natural images using deep feature representations , 2017, CogSci.

[74]  D. Baker,et al.  Global analysis of protein folding using massively parallel design, synthesis, and testing , 2017, Science.

[75]  Luke G. Eglington,et al.  Interleaved Presentation Benefits Science Category Learning , 2017 .

[76]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Tests of an Exemplar-Memory Model of Classification Learning in a High-Dimensional Natural-Science Category Domain , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[77]  Robert M Nosofsky,et al.  Toward the development of a feature-space representation for a complex natural category domain , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[78]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  A Formal Psychological Model of Classification Applied to Natural-Science Category Learning , 2018 .

[79]  Craig Sanders,et al.  Using Deep-Learning Representations of Complex Natural Stimuli as Input to Psychological Models of Classification , 2018, CogSci.

[80]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Feature Highlighting Enhances Learning of a Complex Natural-Science Category , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[81]  Bakhtyar Ahmed Mohammed,et al.  using Deep Learning , 2020 .