Category structure modulates interleaving and blocking advantage in inductive category acquisition

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 186-191

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

^a Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

category learning; interleaving; order effects

Indexed keywords

BLOCKINGS; CATEGORY LEARNING; INTERLEAVINGS; ORDERING EFFECTS; PERFORMANCE;

EID: 85139240038     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. 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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Sequential similarity and comparison effects in category learning. In C. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
3. 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. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53(10), 63–147.
4. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. City. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
5. 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(6), 397-417.
6. Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & cognition, 12(1), 20-30.
7. Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & cognition, 24(5), 608-28.
8. Goldstone, R. L. (2003). Learning to perceive while perceiving to learn. In R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, & C. Olson (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Goldstone, R. L., & Steyvers, M. (2001). The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 116-139.
10. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning Painting Styles: Spacing is Advantageous when it Promotes Discriminative Contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103.
11. Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297-1317.
12. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological science, 19(6), 585-92.
13. 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(2), 498-503.
14. Kurtz, K. H., & Hovland, C. I. (1956). Concept learning with differing sequences of instances. Journal of experimental psychology, 51(4), 239.
15. Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592-613.
16. Mathy, F. & Feldman, J. (2009). A rule-based presentation order facilitates category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1050-1057.
17. Mitchell, C. J., 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), 475-85.
18. 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(2), 124-38.
19. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 115(1), 39-61.
20. 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(3), 254-266.
21. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent Research on Human Learning Challenges Conventional Instructional Strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406-412.
22. 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(2), 416-30.
23. 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(1), 3-11.
24. Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 837-848.
25. Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Kornell, N. (2008). The spacing effect in children’s memory and category induction. Cognition, 109(1), 163-7.
26. 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.