Abstract
Two major classes of models have been proposed to explain concept learning: strength models and distance models (Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth, 1977). The present study demonstrates that subjects abstract transformation rules as defined by the Franks and Bransford 11971) distance model. Transformation rules characterize how the patterns of a concept differ from each other. Transformation rules are inconsistent with strength models, which assume that subjects abstract component features and not relational information characterizing the differences among patterns. Whether a strength model or a distance model is more appropriate in other instances of concept learning is probably a function of task demands, stimulus characteristics, and subject characteristics.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
1. Goldman, D., & Homa, D.Prototype abstraction as a function of discriminability and number of instances defining the prototype. Paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association, Hollywood, Florida, May 1974.
References
Chomsky, N.Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
Chomsky, N.Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1965.
Franks, J. J., &Bransford, J. D. Abstraction of visual patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,90, 65–74.
Hayes-Roth, B., &Hayes-Roth, F. Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977,16, 321–338.
Hopcroft, J., &Ullman, J.Formal languages and relation to automata. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.
Neumann, P. G. An attribute frequency model for the abstraction of prototypes.Memory & Cognition, 1974,2, 241–248.
Neumann, P. G. Visual prototype formation with discontinuous representation of dimensions of variability.Memory & Cognition, 1977,5, 187–197.
Posnansky, C. J., &Neumann, P. G. The abstraction of visual prototypes by children.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1976,21, 367–379.
Posner, M., &Keele, S. On the genesis of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,77, 353–363.
Posner, M.. &Keele, S. Retention of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,83, 304–308.
Reber, A. Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 115–119.
Reed, S. Pattern recognition and categorization.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 382–407.
Winer, B. J.Statistical principles m experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lasky, R.E., Kallio, K.D. Transformation rules in concept learning. Memory & Cognition 6, 491–495 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198236
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198236