Features of graded category structure: Generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 133, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 244-255

  Dry, Matthew J ^a   Storms, Gert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Features; Graded category structure; Representation; Semantic concepts

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SEMANTICS;

COGNITION; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SEMANTICS;

EID: 77649181187     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ameel E., Storms G. From prototypes to caricatures: Geometric models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language 2006, 55:402-421.
2. Ashcraft M.H. Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and a discussion. Memory and Cognition 1978, 6:227-232.
3. Barsalou L.W. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 1983, 11(3):211-227.
4. Battig W.F., Montague W.E. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Conneticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs 1969, 80:1-46.
5. Ceulemans E., Storms G. Detecting intra and inter categorical structure in semantic concepts using HICLAS. Acta Psychologica 2010, 133(3):296-304.
6. Cree G.S., McNorgon C., McRae K. Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32:643-658.
7. De Deyne S., Verheyen S., Ameel E., Vanpaemel W., Dry M.J., Voorspoels W., et al. Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods 2008, 40(4):1030-1048.
8. Dry M.J., Storms G. Similar, but not the same: A comparison of the utility of pairwise and feature-based similarity measures for generating spatial models of conceptual data. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41:889-900.
9. Garrad P., Lambon Ralph M.A., Hodges J.R., Patterson K. Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analysis of the semantic attributes of living and non-living concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2001, 18(2):125-174.
10. Gati I., Tversky A. Weighting common and distinctive features in perceptual and conceptual judgements. Cognitive Psychology 1984, 16:341-370.
11. Hampton J.A. Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1979, 18(4):441-461.
12. Hampton J.A. Prototype models of concept representation. Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis 1993, Academic Press, London, UK. I. van Mechelen, J.A. Hampton, R.S. Michalski, P. Theuns (Eds.).
13. Heit E., Barsalou L.W. The instantiation principle in natural categories. Memory 1996, 4(4):413-451.
14. Komatsu L.K. Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin 1992, 112:500-526.
15. Kruskal J.B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 1964, 29:1-27.
16. Kruskal J.B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika 1964, 29:115-129.
17. Loken B., Ward J. Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 1990, 17:111-126.
18. Malt B.C., Smith E.E. The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory and Cognition 1982, 10:69-75.
19. Malt B.C., Smith E.E. Correlated properties in natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1984, 23(2):250-269.
20. Maridaki-Kassotaki K. Are rating-based procedures reliable for derivation of typicality judgments from children?. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 1997, 29:376-385.
21. Markman A.B., Gentner D. Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:517-535.
22. Medin D.L., Schaffer M.M. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 1978, 85:207-238.
23. Murphy G.L. The big book of concepts 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
24. Myung I.J., Pitt M.A. Applying Occams razor in modelling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1997, 4(1):79-95.
25. Navarro D., Perfors A. Similarity, feature discovery, and the size principle. Acta Psychologica 2010, 133(3):256-268.
26. Navarro D.J., Lee M.D. Common and distinctive features in stimulus similarity: A modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2004, 11(6):961-974.
27. Nosofsky R.M. Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Learning Memory and Cognition 1984, 10:104-114.
28. Nosofsky R.M. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology - General 1986, 115:39-57.
29. Nosofsky R.M. Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology 1991, 23:94-140.
30. Pitt M.A., Myung I.J. When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6(10):421-425.
31. Rosch E., Mervis C.B. Family resemblances - Studies in internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 1975, 7(4):573-605.
32. Ruts W., De Deyne S., Ameel E., VanPaemel W., Verbeemen T., Storms G. Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers 2004, 36(3):506-515.
33. Saunders D., Tax S., Ward J., Court K., Loken B. The family resemblance approach to understanding categorization of products: Measurement problems, alternative solutions, and their assessment. Advances in Consumer Research 1991, 18:84-88.
34. Shepard R.N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika 1962, 27:125-140.
35. Shepard R.N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika 1962, 27:219-246.
36. Smith E.E., Medin D.L. Categories and concepts 1981, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
37. Smith E.E., Shoben E.J., Rips L.J. Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review 1974, 81(3):214-241.
38. Smits T., Storms G., Rosseel Y., De Boeck P. Fruits and vegetables categorized: An application of the generalized context model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9(4):836-844.
39. Steyvers M. Combining semantic feature norms and text data with topic models. Acta Psychologica 2010, 133(3):234-243.
40. Storms G., De Boeck P., Ruts W. Prototype and exemplar-based information in natural language categories. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 42(1):51-73.
41. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 1977, 84(4):327-352.
42. Vanpaemel, W., Storms, G., & Ons, B. (2005). A varying abstraction model for categorization. Paper presented at the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
43. Vanpaemel, W., Pattyn, S., & Storms, G. (2006). Yet another look at thirty categorization results. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
44. Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., Dry, M. J., Storms, G., & Verguts, T. (submitted for publication). Geometric and featural representations in semantic concepts.
45. Verbeemen T., Vanoverberghe V., Storms G., Ruts W. The role of contrast categories in natural language concepts. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 44(4):618-643.
46. Verbeemen T., Vanpaemel W., Pattyn S., Storms G., Verguts T. Beyond exemplars and prototypes as memory representations of natural concepts: A clustering approach. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:537-554.
47. Verheyen S., Ameel E., Storms G. Determining the dimensionality in spatial representations of semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods 2007, 39(3):427-438.
48. Zeigenfuse M., Lee M.D. Finding the features that represent stimuli. Acta Psychologica 2010, 133(3):283-295.