Does response scaling cause the generalized context model to mimic a prototype model?

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1043-1050

  Myung, Jay I ^a   Pitt, Mark A ^a   Navarro, Daniel J ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38149111140     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193089     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. AKAIKE, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Casaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado.
2. ASHBY, F. G., & MADDOX, W. T. (1993). Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 372-400.
3. BALASUBRAMANIAN, V. ( 1997). Statistical inference, Occam's razor and statistical mechanics on the space of probability distributions. Neural Computation, 9, 349-368.
4. GARNER, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
5. GILKS, W. R., RICHARDSON, S., & SPIEGELHALTER, D. J. (1995). Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman & Hall.
6. MCKINLEY, S. C., & NOSOFSKY, R. M. (1995). Investigations of exemplar and decision-bound models in large-size, ill-defined category structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 128-148.
7. MEDIN, D. L., & SCHAFFER, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
8. MINDA, J. P., & SMITH, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 775-799.
9. MINDA, J. P., & SMITH, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. & Cognition, 28, 275-292.
10. MYUNG, J. I., FORSTER, M. R., & BROWNE, M. W. (2000). Special issue on model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 1-2.
11. MYUNG, J. I., NAVARRO, D. J., & PITT, M. A. (2006). Model selection by normalized maximum likelihood. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 167-179.
12. NAVARRO, D. J. (2007). On the interaction between exemplar-based concepts and a response scaling process. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51, 85-98.
13. NAVARRO, D. J., PITT, M. A., & MYUNG, I. J. (2004). Assessing the distinguishability of models and the informativeness of data. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 47-84.
14. NOSOFSKY, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identificationcategorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57.
15. NOSOFSKY, R. M., & ZAKI, S. R. (2002). Exemplar and prototype models revisited: Response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 924-940.
16. OLSSON, H., WENNERHOLM, P., & LYXZEN, U. (2004). Exemplars, prototypes, and the flexibility of classification models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 936-941.
17. PITT, M. A., MYUNG, I. J., & ZHANG, S. (2002). Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review, 109, 472-491.
18. REED, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382-407.
19. RISSANEN, J. (1996). Fisher information and stochastic complexity. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 42, 40-47.
20. RISSANEN, J. (2001). Strong optimality of the normalized ML models as universal codes and information in data. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47, 1712-1717.
21. ROBERTS, F. S. (1979). Measurement theory. New York: AddisonWesley.
22. SCHERVISH, M. J. (1995). Theory of statistics. New York: Springer.
23. SMITH, J. D., & MINDA, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: The early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1411-1436.
24. SMITH, J. D., & MINDA, J. P. (2002). Distinguishing prototype-based and exemplar-based processes in dot-pattern category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 800-811.
25. STEVENS, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680.
26. SU, Y., MYUNG, J. I., & PITT, M. A. (2005). Minimum description length and cognitive modeling. In P. Grunwald, J. I. Myung & M. A. Pitt (Eds.), Advances in minimum description length: Theory and applications (pp. 411-433). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. WAGENMAKERS, E. J., RATCLIFF, R., GOMEZ, P., & IVERSON, G. J. (2004). Assessing model mimicry using the parametric bootstrap. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 28-50.
28. WAGENMAKERS, E. J., & WALDORP, L. (2006). Editors' introduction. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 99-100.
29. ZAKI, S. R., NOSOFSKY, R. M., STANTON, R. D., & COHEN, A. L. (2003). Prototype and exemplar accounts of category learning and attentional allocation: A reassessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1160-1173.