Cargando…

Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks

Typical disjunctive artificial classification tasks require participants to sort stimuli according to rules such as “x likes cars only when black and coupe OR white and SUV.” For categories like this, increasing the salience of the diagnostic dimensions has two simultaneous effects: increasing the d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathy, Fabien, Haladjian, Harry H., Laurent, Eric, Goldstone, Robert L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403979
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026
_version_ 1782258705829462016
author Mathy, Fabien
Haladjian, Harry H.
Laurent, Eric
Goldstone, Robert L.
author_facet Mathy, Fabien
Haladjian, Harry H.
Laurent, Eric
Goldstone, Robert L.
author_sort Mathy, Fabien
collection PubMed
description Typical disjunctive artificial classification tasks require participants to sort stimuli according to rules such as “x likes cars only when black and coupe OR white and SUV.” For categories like this, increasing the salience of the diagnostic dimensions has two simultaneous effects: increasing the distance between members of the same category and increasing the distance between members of opposite categories. Potentially, these two effects respectively hinder and facilitate classification learning, leading to competing predictions for learning. Increasing saliency may lead to members of the same category to be considered less similar, while the members of separate categories might be considered more dissimilar. This implies a similarity-dissimilarity competition between two basic classification processes. When focusing on sub-category similarity, one would expect more difficult classification when members of the same category become less similar (disregarding the increase of between-category dissimilarity); however, the between-category dissimilarity increase predicts a less difficult classification. Our categorization study suggests that participants rely more on using dissimilarities between opposite categories than finding similarities between sub-categories. We connect our results to rule- and exemplar-based classification models. The pattern of influences of within- and between-category similarities are challenging for simple single-process categorization systems based on rules or exemplars. Instead, our results suggest that either these processes should be integrated in a hybrid model, or that category learning operates by forming clusters within each category.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3567436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35674362013-02-12 Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks Mathy, Fabien Haladjian, Harry H. Laurent, Eric Goldstone, Robert L. Front Psychol Psychology Typical disjunctive artificial classification tasks require participants to sort stimuli according to rules such as “x likes cars only when black and coupe OR white and SUV.” For categories like this, increasing the salience of the diagnostic dimensions has two simultaneous effects: increasing the distance between members of the same category and increasing the distance between members of opposite categories. Potentially, these two effects respectively hinder and facilitate classification learning, leading to competing predictions for learning. Increasing saliency may lead to members of the same category to be considered less similar, while the members of separate categories might be considered more dissimilar. This implies a similarity-dissimilarity competition between two basic classification processes. When focusing on sub-category similarity, one would expect more difficult classification when members of the same category become less similar (disregarding the increase of between-category dissimilarity); however, the between-category dissimilarity increase predicts a less difficult classification. Our categorization study suggests that participants rely more on using dissimilarities between opposite categories than finding similarities between sub-categories. We connect our results to rule- and exemplar-based classification models. The pattern of influences of within- and between-category similarities are challenging for simple single-process categorization systems based on rules or exemplars. Instead, our results suggest that either these processes should be integrated in a hybrid model, or that category learning operates by forming clusters within each category. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3567436/ /pubmed/23403979 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026 Text en Copyright © 2013 Mathy, Haladjian, Laurent and Goldstone. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
spellingShingle Psychology
Mathy, Fabien
Haladjian, Harry H.
Laurent, Eric
Goldstone, Robert L.
Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title_full Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title_fullStr Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title_full_unstemmed Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title_short Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
title_sort similarity-dissimilarity competition in disjunctive classification tasks
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403979
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026
work_keys_str_mv AT mathyfabien similaritydissimilaritycompetitionindisjunctiveclassificationtasks
AT haladjianharryh similaritydissimilaritycompetitionindisjunctiveclassificationtasks
AT laurenteric similaritydissimilaritycompetitionindisjunctiveclassificationtasks
AT goldstonerobertl similaritydissimilaritycompetitionindisjunctiveclassificationtasks