Feature integration in natural language concepts

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1150-1163

  Hampton, James A ^a   Storms, Gert ^b   Simmons, Claire L ^a   Heussen, Daniel ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGY; BRAIN FUNCTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; NEUROTRANSMISSION; PLANT; PROGENY; SEMANTIC MEMORY;

ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CONCEPT FORMATION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PLANTS; PROBABILITY; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 72449174764     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.37.8.1150     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ahn, W. K., & Dennis, M. J. (2001). Dissociation between categorization and similarity judgment: Differential effect of causal status on feature weights. In U. Hahn & M. Ramscar (Eds.), Similarity and categorization (pp. 87-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
3. Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1-29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0
4. Bloom, P. (1998). Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition, 66, 87-93. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00003-1
5. Bonini, N., Osherson, D. N., Viale, R., & Williamson, T. (1999). On the psychology of vague predicates. Mind & Language, 14, 377-393. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00117
6. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Chaigneau, S. E., Barsalou, L. W., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 601-625. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.601
8. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163-201. doi:10.1037/0096 -3445.132.2.163
9. Dhami, M. K., & Harries, C. (2001). Fast and frugal versus regression models of human judgement. Thinking & Reasoning, 7, 5-27. doi:10.1080/13546780042000019
10. Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429-433. doi:10.1038/415429a
11. Estes, Z. (2004). Confidence and gradedness in semantic categorization: Definitely somewhat artifactual, maybe absolutely natural. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1041-1047.
12. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00071-8
14. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38, 213-244. doi:10.1016/0010- 0277(91)90007-Q
15. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-461. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5371(79)90246-9
16. Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 686-708. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1031
17. Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition, 65, 137-165. doi:10.1016/S0010 -0277(97)00042-45
18. Hampton, J. A., Estes, Z., & Simmons, S. (2007). Metamorphosis: Essence, appearance, and behavior in the categorization of natural kinds. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1785-1800. (Pubitemid 350106141)
19. Hampton, J. A., & Simmons, C. L. (2003, November). Feature independence in natural categories. Poster presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver.
20. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113-127. doi:10.1348/014466600164363
21. Jaswal, V. K. (2006). Preschoolers favor the creator's label when reasoning about an artifact's function. Cognition, 99, B83-B92. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.006
22. Kalish, C. W. (1995). Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories. Memory & Cognition, 23, 335-353.
23. Keil, F. C. (1986). The acquisition of natural kind and artifact terms. In W. Demopoulos & A. Marras (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition: Foundational issues (pp. 133-153). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
24. Keil, F. C. (2003). Categorization, causation, and the limits of understanding. In H. E. Moss & J. A. Hampton (Eds.), Conceptual representation (pp. 663-692). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
25. Kelemen, D., & Carey, S. (2007). The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 212-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Levitis, D. A., Lidicker, W. Z., Jr., & Freund, G. (2009). Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78, 103-110. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.018
27. Malt, B. C., & Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 195-217. doi:10.1016/0749 -596X(92)90011-L
28. Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Artifact categorization: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 85- 123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (Eds.) (2007). Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition, 78, 1-26. doi:10.1016/S0010 -0277(00)00094-99 (Pubitemid 30808787)
31. McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6, 462-472.
32. Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 121-147. doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.51.1.121
33. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179-195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238. doi:10.1037/0033 -295X.85.3.207
35. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316. doi:10.1037/0033 -295X.92.3.289
37. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 700-708. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.700
38. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382-407. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90014-X
39. Rehder, B. (2003). Categorization as causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 27, 709-748. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00068-5
40. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21- 59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Rosch, E. R. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-232. doi:10.1037/0096- 3445.104.3.192
42. Rosch, E. R., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
43. Ruts, W., Storms, G., & Hampton, J. [A.] (2004). Linear separability in superordinate natural language concepts. Memory & Cognition, 32, 83-95. (Pubitemid 38392052)
44. Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W. K. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22, 189-228. doi:10.1016/ S0364-0213(99)80039-80041
45. Sloman, S. A., & Malt, B. C. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. In H. E. Moss & J. A. Hampton (Eds.), Conceptual representation (pp. 563-582). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
46. 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. doi:10.1037/0278 -7393.24.6.1411
47. Strevens, M. (2000). The essentialist aspect of naive theories. Cognition, 74, 149-175. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00071-2
48. Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain & Language, 75, 195-231. doi:10.1006/brin.2000.2353
49. Wattenmaker, W. D. (1995). Knowledge structures and linear separability: Integrating information in object and social categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 274-328. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1007