Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., &Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning.Psychological Review,105, 442–481.
Babey, S. H., Queller, S., &Klein, S. B. (1998). The role of expectancy violating behaviors in the representation of trait knowledge: A summary-plus-exception model of social memory.Social Cognition,16, 287–339.
Bourne, L. E., Healy, A. F., Parker, J. T., &Rickard, T. C. (1998). The strategic basis of performance in binary classification tasks: Strategy choices and strategy transitions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 223–252.
Crawford, L. E., Huttenlocher, J., &Engebretson, P. H. (2000). Category effects on estimates of stimuli: Perception or reconstruction?Psychological Science,11, 280–284.
Erickson, M. A., &Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,127, 107–140.
Gluck, M. A. (1991). Stimulus-generalization and representation in adaptive network models of category learning.Psychological Science,2, 50–55.
Gluck, M. A., &Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 227–247.
Homa, D. (1978). Abstraction of ill-defined form.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 407–416.
Homa, D. (1984). On the nature of categories. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 49–94). San Diego: Academic Press.
Homa, D., Dunbar, S., &Nohre, L. (1991). Instance frequency, categorization, and the modulating effect of experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 444–458.
Homa, D., Rhoads, D., &Chambliss, D. (1979). Evolution of conceptual structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 11–23.
Homa, D., Sterling, S., &Trepel, L. (1981). Limitations of exemplarbased generalization and the abstraction of categorical information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 418–439.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., &Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location.Psychological Review,98, 352–376.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., &Prohaska, V. (1988). Hierarchical organization in ordered domains: Estimating the dates of events.Psychological Review,95, 471–484.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). Alcove: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review,99, 22–44.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psychometrika,29, 1–27.
Lamberts, K. (1995). Categorization under time pressure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 161–180.
Lee, H. M., Chen, K. H., &Jiang, I. F. (1998). A neural network classifier with disjunctive fussy information.Neural Networks,11, 1113–1125.
Maddox, W. T., &Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 49–70.
Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
Medin, D. L., &Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 355–368.
Medin, D. L., &Smith, E. E. (1981). Strategies and classif ication learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 241–253.
Minda, J. P., &Smith, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 775–799.
Newcombe, N., Huttenlocher, J., Sandberg, E., Lie, E. H., &Johnson, S. (1999). What do misestimations and asymmetries in spatial judgement indicate about spatial representation?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 986–996.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 3–27.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Johansen, M. K. (2000). Exemplar-based accounts of “multiple-system” phenomena in perceptual categorization.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 375–402.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based randomwalk model of speeded classification.Psychological Review,104, 266–300.
Nosofsky, R. M., &Palmeri, T. J. (1998). A rule-plus-exception model for classifying objects in continuous-dimension spaces.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 345–369.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., &McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plusexception model of classification learning.Psychological Review,101, 53–79.
Posner, M. I., &Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 353–363.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization.Cognitive Psychology,3, 382–407.
Reed, S. K. (1978). Category vs. item learning: Implications for categorization models.Memory & Cognition,6, 612–621.
Shanks, D. R. (1991). Categorization by a connectionist network.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 433–443.
Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analyses of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function.Psychometrika,27, 125–140, 219–246.
Smith, J. D., &Minda, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1411–1436.
Smith, J. D., Murray, M. J., &Minda, J. P. (1997). Straight talk about linear separability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 659–680.
Wattenmaker, W. D., Dewey, G. I., Murphy, T. D., &Medin, D. L. (1986). Linear separability and concept-learning: Context, relational properties, and concept naturalness.Cognitive Psychology,18, 158–194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blair, M., Homa, D. Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning. Memory & Cognition 29, 1153–1164 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206385
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206385