A formal ideal-based account of typicality

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1006-1014

  Voorspoels, Wouter ^a   Vanpaemel, Wolf ^a   Storms, Gert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Bayesian model evaluation; Computational model; Exemplar; Ideal; Prototype; Representation; Typicality

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053124904     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0122-9     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2006). From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 402-421.
2. Atran, S. (1999). Itzay Maya folkbiological taxonomy. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 119-204). Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
4. Brooks, L. R. (1978). Non-analytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 169-211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
5. Burnett, R. C., Medin, D. L., Ross, N. O., & Blok, S. (2005). Ideal is typical. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 3-10.
6. Burnham, K., & Anderson, D. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical, information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.
7. Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, & S. B. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 105-155). New York: Seminar Press.
8. Davis, T., & Love, C. B. (2010). Memory for category information is idealized through contrast with competing options. Psychological Science, 21, 234-242.
9. De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M., Voorspoels, W., et al. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 1030-1048.
10. Dry, M., & Storms, G. (2009). Similar but not the same: A comparison of the utility of directly rated and feature-based similarity measures for generating spatial models of conceptual data. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 889-900.
11. Feldman, J. (2000). Bias toward regular form in mental shape spaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1-14.
12. Goldstone, R. L., Steyvers, M., & Rogosky, B. J. (2003). Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures. Memory & Cognition, 31, 169-180.
13. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-461.
14. Heit, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural language categories. Memory, 4, 413-451.
15. Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 500-526.
17. Kruskal, J. (1964). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
18. Lee, M. D. (2004). A Bayesian analysis of retention functions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 310-321.
19. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2005). Bayesian statistical inference in psychology: Comment on Trafimow (2003). Psychological Review, 112, 662-668.
20. Lunn, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2000). WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure and extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10, 325-337.
21. Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Medin, D. L. (2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 28, 41-50.
22. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
23. Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2010). Prototype models of categorization: Basic formulation, predictions, and limitations. In E. Pothos & A. Wills (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 40-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Myung, I. J. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychololgy, 44, 190-204.
25. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (1997). Applying Occam's razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 79-95.
26. Nosofsky, R. N. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 115, 39-57.
27. Nosofsky, R. N. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700-708.
28. Nosofsky, R. N. (1991). Typicality in logically defined categories: Exemplar-similarity versus rule instantiation. Memory & Cognition, 19, 131-150.
29. Nosofsky, R. N. (1992). Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. In A. F. Healy & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Essays in honor of William K. Estes: Vol. 1. From learning theory to connectionist theory; Vol. 2. From learning processes to cognitive processes (pp. 149-167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. N. (2001). Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categories. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 197-235.
31. Pitt, M. A., Kim, W., & Myung, I. J. (2003). Flexibility versus generalizability in model selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 29-44.
32. Posner, M., & Keele, S. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353-363.
33. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 104, 192-233.
34. Smith, J. D., & Minda, J. P. (2000). Thirty categorization results in search of a model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 3-27.
35. Smits, T., Storms, G., Rosseel, Y., & De Boeck, P. (2002). Fruits and vegetables categorized: An application of the generalized context model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 836-844.
36. Vandierendonck, A. (1988). Typically gradient in well-defined artificial categories. Acta Psychologica, 69, 61-81.
37. Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2010). Abstraction and model evaluation in category learning. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 421-437.
38. Voorspoels, W., Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2008a). Exemplars and prototypes in natural language concepts: A typicality based evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 630-637.
39. Voorspoels, W., Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2008b). Modeling typicality: Extending the prototype view. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 757-763). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.
40. Wagenmakers, E. J., & Farrel, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192-196.
41. Weiskopf, D. A. (2009). The plurality of concepts. Synthese, 169, 145-173.
42. Younger, B. A., & Cohen, L. B. (1983). Infant perception of correlations among attributes. Child Development, 54, 858-867.