Paradoxical effects of base rates and representation in category learning

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1365-1379

  Johansen, Mark K ^a,c   Fouquet, Nathalie ^b   Shanks, David R ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; LEARNING STYLE; LEARNING THEORY; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 35748971493     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193608     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. ANDERSON, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. ASHBY, F. G., ALFONSO-REESE, L. A., TURKEN, A. U., & WALDRON, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105, 442-481.
3. BINDER, A., & ESTES, W. K. (1966). Transfer of response in visual recognition situations as a function of frequency values. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 1-26.
4. BOHIL, C. J., MARKMAN, A. B., & MADDOX, W. T. (2005). A feature-salience analogue of the inverse base-rate effect Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 17-28.
5. ERICKSON, M. A., & KRUSCHKE, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107-140.
6. FAGOT, J., KRUSCHKE, J. K., DÉPY, D., & VAUCLAIR, J. (1998). Associative learning in baboons (Papio papio) and humans (Homo sapiens): Species differences in learned attention to visual features. Animal Cognition, 1, 123-133.
7. GLUCK, M. A. (1992). Stimulus sampling and distributed representations in adaptive network theories of learning. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 1, pp. 169-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. GLUCK, M. A., & BOWER, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
9. JUSLIN, P., WENNERHOLM, P., & WINMAN, A. (2001). High-level reasoning and base-rate use: Do we need cue-competition to explain the inverse base-rate effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 849-871.
10. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
11. KALISH, M. L. (2001). An inverse base rate effect with continuously valued stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 29, 587-597.
12. KRUSCHKE, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44.
13. KRUSCHKE, J. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 3-26.
14. KRUSCHKE, J. K. (2001). The inverse base-rate effect is not explained by eliminative inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1385-1400.
15. KRUSCHKE, J. K. (2003). Attentional theory is a viable explanation of the inverse base-rate effect: A reply to Winman, Wennerholm, and Juslin (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1396-1400.
16. KRUSCHKE, J. K., KAPPENMAN, E. S., & HETRICK, W. P. (2005). Eye gaze and individual differences consistent with learned attention in associative blocking and highlighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 830-845.
17. MARKMAN, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 417-421.
18. MEDIN, D. L., & BETTGER, J. G. (1991). Sensitivity to changes in base-rate information. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 311-332.
19. MEDIN, D. L., & EDELSON, S. M. (1988). Problem structure and the use of base-rate information from experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 68-85.
20. MEDIN, D. L., & SCHAFFER, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
21. MYERS, J. L., LOHMEIER, J. H., & WELL, A. D. (1994). Modeling probabilistic categorization data: Exemplar memory and connectionist nets. Psychological Science, 5, 83-89.
22. NELSON, M. W. (1993). The effects of error frequency and accounting knowledge on error diagnosis in analytical review. Accounting Review, 68, 804-824.
23. NOSOFSKY, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 104-114.
24. NOSOFSKY, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
25. SHANKS, D. R. (1992). Connectionist accounts of the inverse base-rate effect in categorization. Connection Science, 4, 3-18.
26. SHANKS, D. R., & DARBY, R. J. (1998). Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 405-415.
27. WICKENS, T. D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. WINMAN, A., WENNERHOLM, P., & JUSLIN, P. (2003). Can attentional theory explain the inverse base-rate effect? Comment on Kruschke (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1390-1395.
29. WINMAN, A., WENNERHOLM, P., JUSLIN, P., & SHANKS, D. R. (2005). Evidence for rule-based processes in the inverse base-rate effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 789-815.