Putting category learning in order: Category structure and temporal arrangement affect the benefit of interleaved over blocked study

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 481-495

  Carvalho, Paulo F ^a   Goldstone, Robert L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparison; Inductive learning; Interleaving; Perceptual category learning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; PHYSIOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CONCEPT FORMATION; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LEARNING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897083125     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0371-0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andrews, J. K., Livingston, K. R., & Kurtz, K. J. (2010). Category learning in the context of co-presented items. Cognitive Processing, 12, 161-175.
2. Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 392-402. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-012-0272-7.
3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Blair, M. R., Watson, M. R., Walshe, R. C., & Maj, F. (2009). Extremely selective attention: Eye-tracking studies of the dynamic allocation of attention to stimulus features in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1196-1206. doi: 10. 1037/a0016272.
5. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63-147). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10. 1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2.
6. Dwyer, D. M., Mundy, M. E., & Honey, R. C. (2011). The role of stimulus comparison in human perceptual learning: Effects of distractor placement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 300-307. doi: 10. 1037/a0023078.
7. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
8. Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 397-417.
9. Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12, 20-30.
10. Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14, 487-513. doi: 10. 1016/S0885-2014(99)00016-7.
11. Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24, 608-628. doi: 10. 3758/BF03201087.
12. Graham, S. A., Namy, L. L., Gentner, D., & Meagher, K. (2010). The role of comparison in preschoolers' novel object categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 280-290. doi: 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2010. 04. 017.
13. Hammer, R., Bar-Hillel, A., Hertz, T., Weinshall, D., & Hochstein, S. (2008). Comparison processes in category learning: From theory to behavior. Brain Research, 1225, 102-118. doi: 10. 1016/j. brainres. 2008. 04. 079.
14. Hendrickson, A. T., Kachergis, G., Fausey, C. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). Re-learning labeled categories reveals structured representations. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1668-1673). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
15. Higgins, E. J., & Ross, B. H. (2011). Comparisons in category learning: How best to compare for what. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1388-1393). Austin, TX: Cogntive Science Society.
16. Homa, D., & Chambliss, D. (1975). The relative contributions of common and distinctive information on the abstraction from ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 351-359. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 1. 4. 351.
17. Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution of concepts. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 28, 1-86.
18. Jones, M., Love, B. C., & Maddox, W. T. (2006). Recency effects as a window to generalization: Separating decisional and perceptual sequential effects in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 316-332. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 32. 3. 316.
19. Jones, M., & Sieck, W. R. (2003). Learning myopia: An adaptive recency effect in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 626-640. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 29. 4. 626.
20. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1801.
21. Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1537.
22. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the "enemy of induction"? Psychological Science, 19, 585-592. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2008. 02127. x.
23. Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498-503. doi: 10. 1037/a0017807.
24. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797-2822.
25. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 99. 1. 22.
26. Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 239-243. doi: 10. 1037/h0040295.
27. Lee, E. S., MacGregor, J. N., Bavelas, A., & Mirlin, L. (1988). The effects of error transformations on classification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 66-74. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 14. 1. 66.
28. Lipsitt, L. P. (1961). Simultaneous and successive discrimination-learning in children. Child Development, 32, 337-347.
29. Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309-332. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 111. 2. 309.
30. MacCaslin, E. (1954). Successive and simultaneous discrimination as a function of stimulus-similarity. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 308-314.
31. Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 592-613. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 129. 4. 592.
32. Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1050-1057. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 6. 1050.
33. 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, and Cognition, 28, 275-292. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 28. 2. 275.
34. Mitchell, C., Nash, S., & Hall, G. (2008). The intermixed-blocked effect in human perceptual learning is not the consequence of trial spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 237-242.
35. Mundy, M. E., Honey, R. C., & Dwyer, D. M. (2007). Simultaneous presentation of similar stimuli produces perceptual learning in human picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 124-138. doi: 10. 1037/0097-7403. 33. 2. 124.
36. Mundy, M. E., Honey, R. C., & Dwyer, D. M. (2008). Superior discrimination between similar stimuli after simultaneous exposure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 18-25.
37. Namy, L. L., & Gentner, D. (2002). Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 131, 5-15.
38. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-61. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 115. 1. 39.
39. Proctor, R. W. (1980). The influence of intervening tasks on the spacing effect for frequency judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 254-266. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 6. 3. 254.
40. Rieber, M. (1966). Role of stimulus comparison in children's discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 263-270.
41. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406-412. doi: 10. 3102/0013189X10374770.
42. Sandhofer, C. M., & Doumas, L. (2008). Order of presentation effects in learning color categories. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 194-221. doi: 10. 1080/15248370802022639.
43. Sims, C. E., & Colunga, E. (2010). When comparison helps: The role of language, prior knowledge and similarity in categorizing novel objects. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 339-404). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
44. Spalding, T. L., & Ross, B. H. (1994). Comparison-based learning-effects of comparing instances during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1251-1263.
45. Spiering, B. J., & Ashby, F. G. (2008). Initial training with difficult items facilitates information integration, but not rule-based category learning. Psychological Science, 19, 1169-1177.
46. Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2004). Sequence effects in the categorization of tones varying in frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 416-430. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 30. 2. 416.
47. Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 3-11. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 28. 1. 3.
48. Stewart, N., & Chater, N. (2002). The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 893-907.
49. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 837-848.
50. Vlach, H. A., Ankowski, A. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). At the same time or apart in time? The role of presentation timing and retrieval dynamics in generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 246-254. doi: 10. 1037/a0025260.
51. Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition, 109, 163-167. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 07. 013.
52. Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory & Cognition, 39, 750-763. doi: 10. 3758/s13421-010-0063-y.
53. Whitman, J. R., & Garner, W. R. (1963). Concept learning as a function of form of internal structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 195-202.