Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization
- PMID: 12219799
Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization
Abstract
J. D. Smith and colleagues (J. P. Minda & J. D. Smith, 2001; J. D. Smith & J. P. Minda, 1998,2000; J. D. Smith, M. J. Murray, & J. P. Minda, 1997) presented evidence that they claimed challenged the predictions of exemplar models and that supported prototype models. In the authors' view, this evidence confounded the issue of the nature of the category representation with the type of response rule (probabilistic vs. deterministic) that was used. Also, their designs did not test whether the prototype models correctly predicted generalization performance. The present work demonstrates that an exemplar model that includes a response-scaling mechanism provides a natural account of all of Smith et al.'s experimental results. Furthermore, the exemplar model predicts classification performance better than the prototype models when novel transfer stimuli are included in the experimental designs.
Similar articles
-
Prototype and exemplar accounts of category learning and attentional allocation: a reassessment.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1160-73. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1160. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003. PMID: 14622053
-
Exemplars, prototypes, and the flexibility of classification models.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Jul;30(4):936-41. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.936. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004. PMID: 15238035 Clinical Trial.
-
Thirty-something categorization results explained: selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Sep;31(5):811-29. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.811. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005. PMID: 16248736
-
Speeded classification in a probabilistic category structure: contrasting exemplar-retrieval, decision-boundary, and prototype models.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Jun;31(3):608-29. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.608. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005. PMID: 15982134 Review.
-
Thirty categorization results in search of a model.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Jan;26(1):3-27. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.1.3. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000. PMID: 10682288 Review.
Cited by
-
Unpacking buyer-seller differences in valuation from experience: A cognitive modeling approach.Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Dec;24(6):1742-1773. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1237-4. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017. PMID: 28265866 Review.
-
Methods of comparing associative models and an application to retrospective revaluation.Behav Processes. 2017 Nov;144:20-32. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Aug 19. Behav Processes. 2017. PMID: 28827119 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Role of Edge-Based and Surface-Based Information in Incidental Category Learning: Evidence From Behavior and Event-Related Potentials.Front Integr Neurosci. 2020 Jul 22;14:36. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2020.00036. eCollection 2020. Front Integr Neurosci. 2020. PMID: 32792919 Free PMC article.
-
Combining error-driven models of associative learning with evidence accumulation models of decision-making.Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Jun;26(3):868-893. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01570-4. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019. PMID: 30719625
-
Does practice in category learning increase rule use or exemplar use-or both?Mem Cognit. 2018 May;46(4):530-543. doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0782-4. Mem Cognit. 2018. PMID: 29313292
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous