Category use and category learning.

Abstract

Categorization models based on laboratory research focus on a narrower range of explanatory constructs than appears necessary for explaining the structure of natural categories. This mismatch is caused by the reliance on classification as the basis of laboratory studies. Category representations are formed in the process of interacting with category members. Thus, laboratory studies must explore a range of category uses. The authors review the effects of a variety of category uses on category learning. First, there is an extensive discussion contrasting classification with a predictive inference task that is formally equivalent to classification but leads to a very different pattern of learning. Then, research on the effects of problem solving, communication, and combining inference and classification is reviewed.

Color–function categories that prime infants to use color information in an object individuation task

“…That is, priming occurred only when the exemplars were sufficiently diverse to support the formation of object and event categories. This interpretation is consistent with a long-standing finding in cognitive psychology that the categories infants, children, and adults build are highly influenced by the nature of the exemplars seen (Ashby & Ell, 2001;Ashby & Maddox, 2005;Markman & Ross, 2003;Oakes & Ribar, 2005;Quinn, Eimas, & Rosenkranz, 1993). What is novel about these findings is that they demonstrate that forming object and event categories that include color information -in which color information is linked to object function -can alter infants' sensitivity to color in a subsequent and unrelated task.…”

“…There is evidence from category learning experiments that the categories infants (Quinn et al, 1993) and adults (for reviews see Ashby & Ell, 2001;Ashby & Maddox, 2005;Markman & Ross, 2003) form in experimental settings are highly dependent on the exemplars seen. For example, when category exemplars are made more variable, infants' categorical representations become more inclusive (Quinn et al, 1993).…”

“…In their interactions with objects in the world infants, children, and adults use categories to classify objects, to predict the properties an object might possess, and to learn what distinguishes members of one group from another (e.g., Booth, 2000Booth, , 2006Booth & Waxman, 2002a,b;Calser & Kelemen, 2007;Gelman, Chesnick, & Waxman, 2005;Gelman & Coley, 1990;Markman & Ross, 2003). The outcome of the pound-pour experiments suggest that categorization may have wider ranging effects, at least in infants.…”

Categorization of environmental sounds.

“…Research on categorization of complex objects has much evolved in the past two decades with the study of people's natural categories, which are acquired and modified in the course of learning by interacting with category members in everyday life situations (e.g., Markman & Ross, 2003;Spalding & Murphy, 1996). Furthermore, there is recent neuroscientific evidence that many visual objects are organized categorically in the visual cortex by function rather than by surface feature similarity (Ishai, Underleider, & Haxby, 2000;Thompson-Schill, Aguirre, D'Esposito, & Farah, 1999).…”

Category Representation for Classification and Feature Inference.

“…As an area of research, category representation has been strongly associated with formal mathematical modeling, which has allowed precise comparisons of various hypothesized representations. Although a lot of recent categorization research has focused on the need for models with more elaborate, mixed representations (Ashby, Alfonso-Reese, Turken, & Waldron, 1998;Erickson & Kruschke, 1998;Love, Medin, & Gureckis, 2004;, simple exemplar, prototype, and rule-based representations continue to be considered relevant, particularly in the context of research emphasizing different types of category learning and use (Markman & Ross, 2003;Yamauchi & Markman, 1998). Exemplar models have been widely shown to provide a better account of perceptual category learning than prototype or simple rule models (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978;Medin & Schwanenflugel, 1981;Nosofsky, 1992).…”