Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 353–362 | Cite as

The effect of category learning on sensitivity to within-category correlations

  • Seth Chin-ParkerEmail author
  • Brian H. Ross
Article

Abstract

A salient property of many categories is that they are not just sets of independent features but consist of clusters of correlated features. Although there is much evidence that people are sensitive to betweencategories correlations, the evidence about within-category correlations is mixed. Two experiments tested whether the disparities might be due to different learning and test tasks. Subjects learned about categories either by classifying items or by inferring missing features of items. Their knowledge of the correlations was measured with classification, prediction, typicality, and production tests. The inference learners, but not the classification learners, showed sensitivity to the correlations, although different tests were differentially sensitive. These results reconcile some earlier disparities and provide a more complete understanding of people’s sensitivities to within-category correlations.

Keywords

Test Item Confidence Rating Classification Learner Category Label Prediction Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Chin-Parker-MC-2002.zip (8 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Ahn, W.-K. (1999). Effect of causal structure on category construction.Memory & Cognition,27, 1008–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. L., Ross, B. H., &Chin-Parker, S. (2002). A further investigation of category learning by inference.Memory & Cognition,30, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R., &Fincham, J. M. (1996). Categorization and sensitivity to correlation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashby, F. G., &Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billman, D., &Knutson, J. (1996). Unsupervised concept learning and value systematicity: A complex whole aids learning the parts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaplan, A. S., &Murphy, G. L. (1999). The acquisition of category structure in unsupervised learning.Memory & Cognition,27, 699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kersten, A. W., &Billman, D. (1997). Event category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 638–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malt, B. C., &Smith, E. E. (1984). Correlated properties in natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist,44, 1469–1481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., Edelson, S. M., &Freko, D. (1982). Correlated symptoms and simulated medical classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy, G. L., &Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review,92, 289–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murphy, G. L., &Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Feature correlations in conceptual representations. In G. Tiberghien (Ed.),Advances in cognitive science: Vol. 2. Theory and application (pp. 23–45). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross, B. H., &Spalding, T. L. (1994). Concepts and categories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 12. Thinking and problem solving (pp. 119–148). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Thomas, R. D. (1998). Learning correlations in categorization tasks using large, ill-defined categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yamauchi, T., Love, B. C., &Markman, A. B. (2002). Learning nonlinearly separable categories by inference and classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 585–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yamauchi, T., &Markman, A. B. (1998). Category learning by inference and classification.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yamauchi, T., &Markman, A. B. (2000a). Inference using categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 776–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yamauchi, T., &Markman, A. B. (2000b). Learning categories composed of varying instances: The effect of classification, inference, and structural alignment.Memory & Cognition,28, 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beck man In stituteUniversity of IllinoisUrbana

Personalised recommendations