2008
DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.3.630
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exemplars and prototypes in natural language concepts: A typicality-based evaluation

Abstract: Are natural language categories represented by instances of the category or by a summary representation? We used an exemplar model and a prototype model, both derived within the framework of the generalized context model (Nosofsky, 1984, 1986), to predict typicality ratings for 12 superordinate natural language concepts. The models were fitted to typicality ratings averaged across participants and to the typicality judgments of individual participants. Both analyses yielded results in favor of the exemplar mod… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
38
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, the failure of exemplar models to explain novel conjunctions has been previously identified (e.g., Groom et al, 2005;Hampton, 1997;Rips, 1995). Likewise, prototypical processing, whereby a representation is formed through an abstract summary of all the members of a given category (e.g., Brewer et al, 1981;Voorspoels et al, 2008), also seems unlikely, again because in order to achieve this perceivers must have access to prototypes (i.e. stereotypes) in LTM that match the target's group membership.…”
Section: Models Of Category Conjunctionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Indeed, the failure of exemplar models to explain novel conjunctions has been previously identified (e.g., Groom et al, 2005;Hampton, 1997;Rips, 1995). Likewise, prototypical processing, whereby a representation is formed through an abstract summary of all the members of a given category (e.g., Brewer et al, 1981;Voorspoels et al, 2008), also seems unlikely, again because in order to achieve this perceivers must have access to prototypes (i.e. stereotypes) in LTM that match the target's group membership.…”
Section: Models Of Category Conjunctionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That is, representations formed by exemplars may be retrieved if conjunctions are still relatively novel. When numerous exemplars are available, making a conjunction familiar, representations are formed by an abstract summation of all the members of a given category (e.g., Brewer et al, 1981;Voorspoels, Vanpaemel, & Storms, 2008). This results in the formation of a prototype, and therefore prototypical representations apply when an encountered conjunction is familiar.…”
Section: Defining Novel Conjunctionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Vanpaemel and Storms (2010) review 30 studies, all by Nosofsky and his collaborators, only three of which provide evidence for prototype representations. Studies comparing exemplar and prototype representations in natural language categories are few and far between, but also support the same conclusion: exemplar representations are found to be superior to prototype representations in their account of category dependent judgments such as typicality (Storms, De Boeck, & Ruts, 2000;Voorspoels et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Depending on the model -a prototype or an exemplar model -typicality is translated as the distance (i.e., the inverse of similarity) towards the average point of a category, (i.e., the prototype), or the summed distance of the instance towards all other instances. Spatial models have already been proven to be quite successful in the representation of basic semantic concepts and more specifically in accounts of typicality (e.g., Verheyen, Ameel, & Storms, 2007;Voorspoels et al, 2008).…”
Section: Spatial Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%