Re-learning labeled categories reveals structured representations

Building Bridges Across Cognitive Sciences Around the World - Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1668-1673

  Hendrickson, Andrew T ^a   Kachergis, George ^a   Fausey, Caitlin M ^a   Goldstone, Robert L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

categories; knowledge change; labels; learning and transfer

Indexed keywords

CATEGORY; HOW PEOPLE LEARN; KNOWLEDGE CHANGE; LABELINGS; LEARN+; LEARNING AND TRANSFER; PERCEPTUAL FEATURE; SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION;

EID: 84897099346     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Day, S., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Analogical transfer from a simulated physical system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
2. Deng, W., & Sloutsky, V.M., (2012). Carrot eaters or moving heads: Inductive inference is better supported by salient features than by category labels. Psychological Science.
3. Gelman, S.A., & Markman, E. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition.
4. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist.
5. Goldstone, R .L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition.
6. Goldstone, R. L., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2009). Categorical Perception. Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science.
7. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P.J. (1990). Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Wiley, New York.
8. Kendler, & D’Amato, (1954). A comparison of reversal shifts and non-reversal shifts in human concept formation behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
9. Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science.
10. Majid, A., Boster, J.S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition.
11. Malt, B.C., Sloman, S.A., & Gennari, S.P. (2003). Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language.
12. Slobin, D.I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadon (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought. MIT Press.
13. Wolff, P., Jeon, G., & Yu, L. (2009). Causal agents in English, Korean and Chinese: The role of internal and external causation. Language and Cognition.