Skip to main content

A Three-Layer Configural Cue Model of Category Learning Rates

  • Conference paper
Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Neural Computing ((PERSPECT.NEURAL))

  • 159 Accesses

Abstract

The relative difficulty of six different category structures revealed in Shepard, Hovland, and lenkins’ 1961 classic category learning paradigm [18] is predicted using simple channel capacity calculations. This approach is subsequently used to inform the design of a three-layer connectionist network based on Gluck and Bower’s configural cue model of category learning [3]. The extra layer of nodes in this model consists of intermediate or bottleneck nodes which lie between each spatial group of nodes, representing particular cues and cue configurations, and each category label node. The weights in these nodes learn to approximate the correlation between the output of the’ space’ and the target output. The model, using two free parameters, shows a superior fit to the human data than the configural cue model and its variants evaluated by Nosofsky, Gluck, Palmeri, McKinley, and Glauthier [16] in their replication of the Shepard et al. experiment [18]. The reason for this and the applicability of the model to other category learning paradigms is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Estes, W. K. (1994). Classification and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Evaluating an adaptive network model of human learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 166–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gluck, M. A., Glauthier, P. T., & Sutton, R. S. (1992). Adaptation of cue-specific learning rates in network models of human category learning. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. (pp 540–545) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jacobs, R. A. (1997). Nature, nurture, and the development of functional specializations: A computational approach. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J., & Hinton, G. E. (1991). Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation, 3, 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kruschke, J. K. (1993). Human category learning: implications for backpropagation models. Connection Science, 5, 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science, 8, 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (In Press). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin&Review.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Luce, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology. (pp. 103–189). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A Theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nosofsky, R. M., Gluck, M. A., Palmeri, T. J., McKinley, S. C., & Glauthier, P. (1994). Comparing models of rule-based classification leaming: A replication and extension of Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961). Memory and Cognition, 22, 352–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1996). Learning to classify integral-dimension stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shepard, R. N., Hovland, C. J., & Jenkins, H. M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75, 13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag London

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bartos, P., Le Voi, M. (2001). A Three-Layer Configural Cue Model of Category Learning Rates. In: French, R.M., Sougné, J.P. (eds) Connectionist Models of Learning, Development and Evolution. Perspectives in Neural Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0281-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0281-6_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-354-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0281-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics