Model-guided search for optimal natural-science-category training exemplars: A work in progress

24Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Under the guidance of a formal exemplar model of categorization, we conduct comparisons of natural-science classification learning across four conditions in which the nature of the training examples is manipulated. The specific domain of inquiry is rock classification in the geologic sciences; the goal is to use the model to search for optimal training examples for teaching the rock categories. On the positive side, the model makes a number of successful predictions: Most notably, compared with conditions involving focused training on small sets of training examples, generalization to novel transfer items is significantly enhanced in a condition in which learners experience a broad swath of training examples from each category. Nevertheless, systematic departures from the model predictions are also observed. Further analyses lead us to the hypothesis that the high-dimensional feature-space representation derived for the rock stimuli (to which the exemplar model makes reference) systematically underestimates within-category similarities. We suggest that this limitation is likely to arise in numerous situations in which investigators attempt to build detailed feature-space representations for naturalistic categories. A low-parameter extended version of the model that adjusts for this limitation provides dramatically improved accounts of performance across the four conditions. We outline future steps for enhancing the current feature-space representation and continuing our goal of using formal psychological models to guide the search for effective methods of teaching science categories.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nosofsky, R. M., Sanders, C. A., Zhu, X., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Model-guided search for optimal natural-science-category training exemplars: A work in progress. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1508-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free