The Psychology of Concepts and Concept Formation

  • Stefan Wrobel


In the preceding chapter, we saw that the design of a representation system requires choices on two different levels. First, there is the level of representation formalism, i.e., the choice of syntax and semantics for the representation. Then, there is the equally important choice of a representation language, i.e., the vocabulary to be made available in the chosen formalism. We also saw that this vocabulary is to be looked at not as a set of syntactical terms, but as a system of concepts.


Concept Formation Concept Structure Inductive Logic Programming Horn Clause Oriented Problem 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Often, the term category is used to refer to the extension, whereas the term concept is used to refer to the intension.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stegmüller [Stegmüller, 1970, p. 19] introduces classificatory concepts as the simplest form of scientific concepts that are superseded by comparative and quantitative concepts.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    We will, however, return to this issue in a later chapter (chapter 6).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Or set of features, as in the Hayes-Roth’ model [Hayes-Roth and Hayes-Roth, 1977].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The concrete implementation of the weighted sum computation varies between the different models.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    As pointed out by Fisher [Fisher, 1987b], probabilistic models acquire the same power if probabilities are associated with sets of features as well.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The probability of retrieving an exemplar is taken to be proportional to the similarity between the entity to be categorized and the exemplar.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    As an important example, the class of description logics or term-subsumption languages (KL-ONE [Brachman and Schmolze, 1985] is a well-known instance) was shown to have members whose expressive power is comparable to function-free Horn-clauses while still being tractable [Donini et al., 1991].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Translated from the German edition by the author; italics added by the author.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    We again refer the reader to chapter 6 for a discussion of the issue of perceptual grounding.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Wrobel
    • 1
  1. 1.GMDSankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations