Isolated and interrelated concepts

Goldstone, Robert L.

doi:10.3758/bf03201087

Cited by 164 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

201

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst category boundaries introduce some bias in how stimuli are perceived they also improve the accuracy of perceptual judgements (Huttenlocher, Hedges, Lourenco, Crawford & Corrigan, 2007). For stimulus-pair judgements, stimuli are made more distinct by category boundaries (Goldstone, 1996;Huttenlocher et al, 2007;Roberson & Davidoff, 2000), leading, for instance, to a perceptual elongation of tactile distance relative to those that fall within a category set (reported here; also de Vignemont et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Categorical perception of tactile distance

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Categorical perception of tactile distance

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In other words, perhaps interleaving is beneficial because it juxtaposes different categories, which then highlights differences across the categories and supports discrimination learning-an idea that we refer to as the discriminative-contrast hypothesis. As Goldstone (1996) pointed out, "frequent alternation of categories has the advantage of highlighting features that serve to distinguish categories. Conversely, infrequent alternation of categories has the advantage of highlighting information that remains constant across the members within a category" (p. 615).…”

Section: Discriminative-contrast Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this idea, early studies showed that mixing exemplars from different categories resulted in poorer learning than did grouping exemplars of the same category (Kurtz & Hovland, 1956;Whitman & Garner, 1963). More recently, Goldstone (1996) found better performance when categories alternated on 25 % of the trials than when they alternated on 75 % of the trials-that is, less-frequent alternation appeared to produce more learning. (We will discuss these findings and why they may differ from the more recent results in the General Discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kornell and Bjork (Psychological Science 19:585-592, 2008) found that interleaving exemplars of different categories enhanced inductive learning of the concepts based on those exemplars. They hypothesized that the benefit of mixing exemplars from different categories is that doing so highlights differences between the categories. Kang and Pashler (Applied Cognitive Psychology 26:97-103, 2012) obtained results consistent with this discriminative-contrast hypothesis: Interleaving enhanced inductive learning, but temporal spacing, which does not highlight category differences, did not. We further tested the discriminative-contrast hypothesis by examining the effects of interleaving and spacing, as well as their combined effects. In three experiments, using photographs of butterflies and birds as the stimuli, temporal spacing was harmful when it interrupted the juxtaposition of interleaved categories, even when total spacing was held constant, supporting the discriminative-contrast hypothesis. Temporal spacing also had value, however, when it did not interrupt discrimination processing.Keywords Categorization . Induction . Interleaving . Spacing . MetacognitionPeople accumulate a great deal of knowledge via inductive learning. Children, for example, learn concepts such as boat or fruit by being exposed to exemplars of those categories and inducing the commonalities that define the concepts.Later in life, we might learn to distinguish between different species of butterflies or birds, as in the present research. Such inductive learning is critical in making sense of events, objects, and actions-and, more generally, in structuring and understanding our world. In the present research, we examined how exemplars of to-be-learned categories should be sequenced and spaced in order to optimize inductive learning. Kornell and Bjork (2008) investigated the effect of study schedules on inductive learning-specifically, learning artists' painting styles from exemplars of their paintings. Images of six paintings by each of 12 artists were presented for study, with the artist's name displayed below each painting. The paintings by half of the artists were blocked (i.e., all six paintings by a given artist were shown consecutively), whereas the paintings by the other six artists were interleaved (i.e., mixed together). After the learning phase, participants were shown new paintings by each of the 12 artists and were asked to identify which artist had painted each new painting. Kornell and Bjork found that interleaving artists' paintings led to better performance on this inductive task than did blocking-even though participants consistently believed that blocking, rather than interleaving, had been more helpful for learning the artists' styles.

show abstract

“…As Goldstone (1996) has noted, it is possible to distinguish between two sorts of categories. In one sort, categories are independent of one another, each capturing a particular range of stimulus values (e.g.…”

Section: Relative Size Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating stimuli from contrasting categories: Truncation due to boundaries.

Huttenlocher

Hedges

Lourenco

et al. 2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors present and test a formal model that holds that people use information about category boundaries in estimating inexactly represented stimuli. Boundaries restrict stimuli that are category members to fall within a particular range. This model posits that people increase the average accuracy of stimulus estimates by integrating fine-grain values with boundary information, eliminating extreme responses. The authors present 4 experiments in which people estimated sizes of squares from 2 adjacent or partially overlapping stimulus sets. When stimuli from the 2 sets were paired in presentation, people formed relative size categories, truncating their estimates at the boundaries of these categories. Truncation at the boundary of separation between the categories led to exaggeration of differences between stimuli that cross categories. Yet truncated values are shown to be more accurate on average than unadjusted values.

show abstract

Isolated and interrelated concepts

Cited by 164 publications

References 69 publications

Categorical perception of tactile distance

Categorical perception of tactile distance

Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval

Estimating stimuli from contrasting categories: Truncation due to boundaries.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About