Sequential similarity and comparison effects in category learning

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 2977-2982

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

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

category learning; order effects; perceptual learning; spacing

Indexed keywords

CATEGORY LEARNING; CONDITION; ORDERING EFFECTS; PERCEPTUAL LEARNING; PERFORMANCE; SPACING;

EID: 84906356454     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Dwyer, D., Hodder, K., & Honey, R. (2004). Perceptual learning in humans: roles of preexposure schedule, feedback, and discrimination assay. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 57(3), 245-259.
2. Gibson, E. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Apleton-Century-Crofts.
3. Goldstone, R. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 608-628.
4. Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., & Shiffrin, R. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78(1), 27-43.
5. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (in press). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
6. Keyser, A. (1997). Heads. New York: Abbeville Press.
7. Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317.
8. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: is spacing the "enemy of induction"? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585-592.
9. Lavis, Y., & Mitchell, C. (2006). Effects of preexposure on stimulus discrimination: an investigation of the mechanisms responsible for human perceptual learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(12), 2083-2101.
10. Mitchell, C., Kadib, R., Nash, S., Lavis, Y., & Hall, G. (2008). Analysis of the role of associative inhibition in perceptual learning by means of the same-different task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34(4), 475-485.
11. 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(1), 237-242.
12. Mundy, M., Honey, R., & Dwyer, D. (2007). Simultaneous presentation of similar stimuli produces perceptual learning in human picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33(2), 124-138.
13. Mundy, M., Honey, R., & Dwyer, D. (2009). Superior discrimination between similar stimuli after simultaneous exposure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 18-25.
14. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent Research on Human Learning Challenges Conventional Instructional Strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406-412. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10374770
15. Steyvers, M. (1999). Morphing techniques for manipulating face images. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 359-369.
16. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The Effects of Interleaved Practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837-848. doi: 10.1002/acp.1598
17. Vlach, H., Sandhofer, C., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition, 109(1), 163-167.