Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:12:51.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The knowledge and resonance (KRES) model of category learning

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

As this volume reflects, the dozens of models proposed to account for supervised category learning and classification over the last several decades differ from one another in multiple ways. One dimension of variation concerns activation dynamics. Under many sorts of theories, a stimulus is perceived, is compared to category representations, and is then (perhaps probabilistically) assigned to a category (Gluck & Bower, 1988; Kruschke, 1992; Love, Medin, & Gureckis, 2004; Medin & Schaffer, 1978). Much of the research in this framework explores the nature of the similarity processes that are used to compare stimuli to category representations.

Other lines of research have hinted that this sort of unidirectional flow of information from stimulus to category label may be inadequate to explain a number of phenomena. For example, Wisniewski and Medin (1994) found evidence for reinterpretation of ambiguous visual features based on prior conceptual knowledge. Thus, an alternative class of models views categorization as a constraint-satisfaction process, where representations of the stimulus and category representations interact to form an internally consistent representation (Goldstone & Medin, 1994; Rehder & Murphy, 2003). An assumption of interactivity is consistent with the many psychological systems that incorporate complex perceptual constraints at the earliest stages of processing (e.g., Balcetis & Dale, 2007; Friston, 2003; Spratling & Johnson, 2006; Tanenhaus et al., 1995).

A second dimension of variation concerns the nature of category representations.

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

Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcetis, E., & Dale, R. (2007). Conceptual set as a top-down constraint on visual object identification. Perception, 36, 581–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S., McDaniel, M. A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1993). Incorporating prior biases in network models of conceptual rule learning. Memory & Cognition, 21, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, J. E., Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2005). Inference and classification learning of abstract coherent categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 86–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. (2003). Learning and inference in the brain. Neural Networks, 16, 1325–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Medin, D. L. (1994). Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping: an overview. In Holyoak, K. & Barnden, J. (eds.), Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory, Vol. 2: Analogical Connections (pp. 321–362). New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 686–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, H. D. (in preparation). Uneven weights in category learning revealed by tests of partial items.
Harris, H. D., & Rehder, B. (2006). Modeling category learning with exemplars and prior knowledge. In Sun, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1440–1445). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heit, E. (1994). Models of the effects of prior knowledge on category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1264–1282.Google ScholarPubMed
Heit, E., & Bott, L. (2000). Knowledge selection in category learning. In Medin, D. (ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 39, pp. 163–199). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. B., Harris, H. D., & Murphy, G. L. (2008). Prior knowledge enhances the category dimensionality effect. Memory & Cognition, 36, 256–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, A. B., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). Category dimensionality and feature knowledge: when more features are learned as easily as fewer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 301–315.Google ScholarPubMed
Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81, 3088–3092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopfield, J. J. (1984). Neurons with graded responses have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81, 3088–3092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., & Rehder, B. (in press). How prior knowledge affects selective attention during category learning: an eyetracking study. Memory and Cognition.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 355–368.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Wattenmaker, W. D., & Hampson, S. E. (1987). Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 242–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, R. C. (1996). Biologically plausible error-driven learning using local activation differences: the generalized recirculation algorithm. Neural Computation, 8, 895–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Kim, W., Navarro, D. J., & Myung, J. I. (2006). Global model analysis by parameter space partitioning. Psychological Review, 113, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pothos, E. M., & Chater, N. (2002). A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cognitive Science, 26, 303–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehder, B., & Murphy, G. L. (2003). A knowledge-resonance (KRES) model of category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 759–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehder, B., & Ross, B. H. (2001). Abstract coherent categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1261–1275.Google ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. I., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikström, S. (2002). Forgetting curves: implications for connectionist models. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 95–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. D., & Minda, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: the early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1411–1436.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1986). Information processing in dynamical systems: foundations of harmony theory. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 194–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spalding, T. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Effects of background knowledge on category construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 525–538.Google Scholar
Spratling, M. W., & Johnson, M. H. (2006). A feedback model of perceptual learning and categorization. Visual Cognition, 13, 129–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wisniewski, E. J., & Medin, D. L. (1994). On the interaction of theory and data in concept learning. Cognitive Science, 18, 221–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (1998). Category learning by inference and classification. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×