Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T18:00:11.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Adaptive clustering models of categorization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Emmanuel M. Pothos
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Andy J. Wills
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access

Summary

Summary

Numerous proposals have been put forward concerning the nature of human category representations, ranging from rules to exemplars to prototypes. However, it is unlikely that a single, fixed form of representation is sufficient to account for the flexibility of human categories. In this chapter, we describe an alternative to these fixed-representation accounts based on the principle of adaptive clustering. The specific model we consider, SUSTAIN, represents categories in terms of feature bundles called clusters which are adaptively recruited in response to task demands. In some cases, SUSTAIN acts like an exemplar model, storing each category instance as a separate memory trace, while in others it appears more like a prototype model, extracting only the central tendency of a number of items. In addition, selective attention in the model allows it to mimic many of the behaviours associated with rule-based systems. We review a variety of evidence in support of the clustering principle, including studies of the relationship between categorization and recognition memory, changes in unsupervised category learning abilities across development, and the influence of category learning on perceptual discrimination. In each case, we show how the nature of human category representations is best accounted for using an adaptive clustering scheme. SUSTAIN is just one example of a system that casts category learning in terms of adaptive clustering, and future directions for the approach are discussed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abidi, S., Hoe, K., & Goh, A. (2001). Analyzing data clusters: a rough sets approach to extract cluster-defining symbolic rules. In Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis (pp. 248–257). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ahn, W. K., & Medin, D. L. (1992). A two-stage model of category construction. Cognitive Science, 16, 81–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfonso-Reese, L. (1996). Dynamics of category learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98 (3), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrieu, C., Freitas, N., Doucet, A., & Jordan, M. (2003). An introduction to mcmc for machine learning. Machine Learning, 50, 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F., Alfonso-Reese, L., Turken, A., & Waldron, E. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple system in category learning. Psychological Review, 105 (5), 442–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F., Queller, S., & Berretty, P. (1999). On the dominance of unidimensional rules in unsupervised categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1178–1199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, M., & Homa, D. L. (2005). Integrating novel dimensions to eliminate category exceptions: when more is less. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 258–271.Google Scholar
Bower, G., & Trabasso, T. (1964). Presolution reversal and dimensional shifts in concept identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 398–399.Google Scholar
Brown, S., & Steyvers, M. (2009). Detecting and predicting changes. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carpenter, G. A., & Grossberg, S. (1988). The art of adaptive pattern recognition by a self-organizing neural network. Computer, 21 (3), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: a fundmental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A (2), 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daw, N., & Courville, A. (2007). The pigeon as particle filter. In J. Platt, D. Koller, T. Singer, & S. Roweis (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 20, pp. 369–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daw, N., & Touretzky, D. (2002). Long-term reward prediction in td models of the dopamine system. Neural Computation, 14, 603–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doucet, A., Godsill, S., & Andrieu, C. (2000). On sequential monte carlo sampling methods for bayesian filtering. Statistics and Computing, 10 (3), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elio, R., & Anderson, J. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12 (1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, M., & Kruschke, J. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127 (2), 107–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fu, W., & Anderson, J. (2006). From recurrent choice to skill learning: a reinforcement-learning model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (2), 184–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gluck, M., & Myers, C. (1993). Hippocampal mediation of stimulus representation: a computational theory. Hippocampus, 3 (4), 491–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R. (1994). Influence of categorization on perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123 (2), 178–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R., & Steyvers, M. (2001). The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 116–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N., Tenenbaum, J., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32 (1), 108–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossberg, S. (1976). Adaptive pattern classification and universal recoding. II: feedback, expectation, olfaction, and illusions. Biological Cybernetics, 23, 187–202.Google ScholarPubMed
Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: from interactive activation to adaptive resonance. Cognitive Science, 11, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureckis, T. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). The effect of the internal structure of categories on perception. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 843). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Gureckis, T., & Love, B. (2002). Who says models can only do what you tell them? Unsupervised category learning data, fits, and predictions. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 399–404). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gureckis, T., & Love, B. (2003). Towards a unified account of supervised and unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 15, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureckis, T., & Love, B. (2004). Common mechanisms in infant and adult category learning. Infancy, 5 (2), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureckis, T., & Love, B. C. (2009). Short term gains, long term pains: how cues about state aid learning in dynamic environments. Cognition, 113, 293–313.CrossRef
Harnad, S. (ed.) (1987). Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kohonen, T. (1982). Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99 (1), 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logan, J., Lively, S., & Pisoni, D. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: a first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, B. (2005). Environment and goals jointly direct category acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (4), 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, B., & Gureckis, T. (2005). Modeling learning under the influence of culture. In Ahn, W., Goldstone, R., Love, B., Markman, A., & Wolff, P. (eds.), Categorization Inside and Outside the Laboratory: Essays in Honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 229–248). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
Love, B., & Gureckis, T. (2007). Models in search of the brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7 (2), 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, B., & Gureckis, T. (2006). The emergence of multiple learning systems. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Love, B., Medin, D., & Gureckis, T. (2004). SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111 (2), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Markman, A., & Ross, B. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 592–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1050–1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonnell, J., & Gureckis, T. (2009). How perceptual categories influence trial and error learning in humans. In Multidisciplinary Symposium on Reinforcement Learning. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Bettger, J. (1994). Presentation order and recognition of categorically related examples. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D., & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85 (3), 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, R., & Stepp, R. (1983). Learning from observation: conceptual clustering. In Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., & Mitchell, T. (eds.), Machine Learning: an Artificial Intelligence Approach (Vol. I, pp. 331–363). Los Altos, CA: Morgan-Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, P., Dayan, P., Person, C., & Sejnowski, T. (1995). Bee foraging in uncertain environments using predictive hebbian learning. Nature, 377 (6551), 725–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G., & Ross, B. (1994). Predictions from uncertain categorizations. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 148–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 (1), 104–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115 (1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101 (1), 53–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (3), 548–568.Google ScholarPubMed
Pothos, E., & Bailey, T. (2009). Predicting category intuitiveness with the rational model, the simplicity model, and the generalized context model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35 (4), 1062–1080.Google ScholarPubMed
Pothos, E., & Chater, N. (2002). A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cognitive Science, 26, 303–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pothos, E., & Close, J. (2008). One or two dimensions in spontaneous classification: a simplicity approach. Cognition, 107, 581–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pothos, E., Perlman, A., Edwards, D., Gureckis, T., Hines, P., & Chater, N. (2008). Modeling category intuitiveness. In Love, B., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Redish, A., Jensen, S., Johnson, A., & Kurth-Nelson, Z. (2007). Reconciling reinforcement learning models with behavioral extinction and renewal: implications for addition, relapse, and problem gambling. Psychological Review, 114 (3), 784–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehder, B., & Hoffman, A. (2005). Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, Y., Jones, M., & Love, B. (2008). Putting the psychology back into psychological models: mechanistic vs. rational approaches. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1057–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, Y., & Love, B. C. (2004). Schematic influences on category learning and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133 (4), 534–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanborn, A., Griffiths, T., & Navarro, D. (2006). A more rational model of categorization. In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275, 1593–1598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R., Hovland, C., & Jenkins, H. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75 (13), Whole No. 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J., & Minda, J. (2000). Thirty categorization results in search of a model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (1), 3–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Steyvers, M. (1999). Morphing techniques for generating and manipulating face images. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, R., & Barto, A. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vanpaemel, W., Storms, G., & Ons, B. (2005). A varying abstraction model for categorization. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Verde, M., Murphy, G., & Ross, B. (2005). Influence of multiple categories on the prediction of unknown properties. Memory & Cognition, 33 (3), 479–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widrow, B., & Hoff, M. (1960). Adaptive switching circuits. Institute of Radio Engineers, Western Electronic Show and Convention Record, 4, 96–104.Google Scholar
Wills, A. J., Noury, M., Moberly, N. J., & Newport, M. (2006). Formation of category representations. Memory & Cognition, 34, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamauchi, T., Love, B., & Markman, A. (2002). Learning nonlinearly separable categories by inference and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 585–593.Google Scholar
Younger, B. (1985). The segregation of items into categories by ten-month-old infants. Child Development, 56 (6), 1574–1583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Younger, B., & Cohen, L. (1986). Developmental change in infants' perception of correlations among attributes. Child Development, 57 (3), 803–815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×