Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 378–382 | Cite as

Differential forgetting of prototypes and old instances: Simulation by an exemplar-based classification model

  • Douglas L. Hintzman
  • Genevieve Ludlam
Article

Abstract

A common finding in studies of classification learning is that ability to classify the prototype of a category declines much less over a retention interval than does the ability to classify the previously seen exemplars themselves. We demonstrate here that this finding does not necessarily indicate the existence, in memory, of a representation of the prototype. MINERVA, a computer-simulation model that encodes memory traces only of presented exemplars, was tested on an appropriate task. Differential forgetting of prototypes and old instances was shown by a version of the model that assumed that (1) classification is based on the exemplar trace most similar to the test stimulus and (2) individual properties are lost from the traces over time in an all-or-none fashion. It is suggested that, in general, the key to the prediction of differential forgetting may be the concomitance of forgetting and generalization.

Keywords

Test Stimulus Retention Interval Journal ofExperimental Psychology Memory Trace Generalization Gradient 
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.

References

  1. Bahrick, H. P., Clark, S., &Bahrick, P. Generalization gradients as indicants of learning and retention of a recognition task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,75, 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bower, G. H. A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, L. Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Gibson, E. J. A systematic application of the concepts of generalization and differentiation to verbal learning.Psychological Review, 1940,47, 196–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hintzman, D. L.The psychology of learning and memory. San Francisco: Freeman, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. Homa, D., Cross, J., Cornell, D., Goldman, D., &Schwartz, S. Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Posner, M. I., &Keele, S. W. Retention of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,83, 304–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Reed, S. K. Pattern recognition and categorization.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 382–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Robbins, D., Barresi, J., Compton, P., Furst, A., Russo, M., &Smith, M. A. The genesis and use of exemplar vs. prototype knowledge in abstract category learning.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schacter, D. L., Eich, J. E., &Tulving, E. Richard Semon’s theory of memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978,17, 721–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Semon, R. [Mnemic psychology] (B. Duffy, trans.). London: George Allan & Unwin, 1923.Google Scholar
  13. Strange, W., Kenney, T., Kessel, F., &Jenkins, J. Abstraction over time of prototypes from distortions of random dot patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,83, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tversky, A. Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Underwood, B. J. An evaluation of the Gibson theory of verbal learning. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.),Verbal learning and verbal behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas L. Hintzman
    • 1
  • Genevieve Ludlam
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of OregonEugene

Personalised recommendations