<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
   xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
   xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
   xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"

>
<channel rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/about">
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:25:23 BST</pubDate>


	<title>CiteULike: briordan category-learning</title>
	<description>CiteULike: briordan category-learning</description>


	<link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/tag/category-learning</link>
	<dc:publisher>CiteULike.org</dc:publisher>
	<dc:language>en-gb</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright &#169; 2004-2008 citeulike.org</dc:rights>
	<items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2962811"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2882719"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1116956"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824290"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824034"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2806313"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2802158"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2631432"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2646707"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1869054"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2300508"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2271031"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818074"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818070"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817986"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817949"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1717720"/>

	</rdf:Seq>
	</items>
	</channel>


<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2962811">
    <title>Neural coding of categories: information efficiency and optimal population codes</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2962811</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 25, No. 1. (2008), pp. 169-187.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Abstract&#160;&#160;This paper deals with the analytical study of coding a discrete set of categories by a large assembly of neurons. We consider population coding schemes, which can also be seen as instances of exemplar models proposed in the literature to account for phenomena in the psychophysics of categorization. We quantify the coding efficiency by the mutual information between the set of categories and the neural code, and we characterize the properties of the most efficient codes, considering different regimes corresponding essentially to different signal-to-noise ratio. One main outcome is to find that, in a high signal-to-noise ratio limit, the Fisher information at the population level should be the greatest between categories, which is achieved by having many cells with the stimulus-discriminating parts (steepest slope) of their tuning curves placed in the transition regions between categories in stimulus space. We show that these properties are in good agreement with both psychophysical data and with the neurophysiology of the inferotemporal cortex in the monkey, a cortex area known to be specifically involved in classification tasks.</description>
    <dc:title>Neural coding of categories: information efficiency and optimal population codes</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Laurent Bonnasse-Gahot</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Jean-Pierre Nadal</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1007/s10827-007-0071-5</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 25, No. 1. (2008), pp. 169-187.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-07-04T07:25:17-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Computational Neuroscience</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>25</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>169</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>187</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>models</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2882719">
    <title>Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the &#34;Enemy of Induction&#34;?</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2882719</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Psychological Science, Vol. 19, No. 6. (2008), pp. 585-592.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;ABSTRACT- Inductive learning-that is, learning a new concept or category by observing exemplars-happens constantly, for example, when a baby learns a new word or a doctor classifies x-rays. What influence does the spacing of exemplars have on induction? Compared with massing, spacing enhances long-term recall, but we expected spacing to hamper induction by making the commonalities that define a concept or category less apparent. We asked participants to study multiple paintings by different artists, with a given artist's paintings presented consecutively (massed) or interleaved with other artists' paintings (spaced). We then tested induction by asking participants to indicate which studied artist (Experiments 1a and 1b) or whether any studied artist (Experiment 2) painted each of a series of new paintings. Surprisingly, induction profited from spacing, even though massing apparently created a sense of fluent learning: Participants rated massing as more effective than spacing, even after their own test performance had demonstrated the opposite.</description>
    <dc:title>Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the &#34;Enemy of Induction&#34;?</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Nate Kornell</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Robert Bjork</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Psychological Science, Vol. 19, No. 6. (2008), pp. 585-592.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-06-11T13:24:59-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Psychological Science</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>6</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>585</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>592</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>cross-situational</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1116956">
    <title>The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1116956</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognition, Vol. 85, No. 3. (October 2002), pp. 223-250.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Four experiments investigated whether 9-month-old infants could use the presence of labels to help them establish a representation of two distinct objects in a complex object individuation task. We found that the presence of two distinct labels facilitated object individuation, but the presence of one label for both objects, two distinct tones, two distinct sounds, or two distinct emotional expressions did not. These findings suggest that language may play an important role in the acquisition of sortal/object kind concepts in infancy: words may serve as &#34;essence placeholders&#34;. Implications for the relationship between language and conceptual development are discussed.</description>
    <dc:title>The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Fei Xu</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00109-9</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognition, Vol. 85, No. 3. (October 2002), pp. 223-250.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-02-21T20:34:58-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2002</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognition</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>85</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>223</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>250</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>word-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824290">
    <title>Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824290</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 133, No. 2. (2004), pp. 166-188.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Vladimir Sloutsky</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Anna Fisher</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 133, No. 2. (2004), pp. 166-188.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-05-23T02:31:37-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2004</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>133</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>166</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>188</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>statistical-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824034">
    <title>What’s Behind Different Kinds of Kinds: Effects of Statistical Density on Learning and Representation of Categories</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2824034</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 137, No. 1. (2008), pp. 52-72.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>What’s Behind Different Kinds of Kinds: Effects of Statistical Density on Learning and Representation of Categories</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Heidi Kloos</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Vladimir Sloutsky</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 137, No. 1. (2008), pp. 52-72.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-05-22T21:15:13-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>137</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>52</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>word-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2806313">
    <title>Attentional Learning and Flexible Induction: How Mundane Mechanisms Give Rise to Smart Behaviors</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2806313</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Child Development, Vol. 79, No. 3. (2008), pp. 639-651.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Young children often exhibit flexible behaviors relying on different kinds of information in different situations. This flexibility has been traditionally attributed to conceptual knowledge. Reported research demonstrates that flexibility can be acquired implicitly and it does not require conceptual knowledge. In Experiment 1, 4- to 5-year-olds successfully learned different context-predictor contingencies and subsequently flexibly relied on different predictors in different contexts. Experiments 2A and 2B indicated that flexible generalization stems from implicit attentional learning rather than from rule discovery, and Experiment 3 pointed to very limited strategic control over generalization behaviors in 4- to 5-year-olds. These findings indicate that mundane mechanisms grounded in associative and attentional learning may give rise to smart flexible behaviors.</description>
    <dc:title>Attentional Learning and Flexible Induction: How Mundane Mechanisms Give Rise to Smart Behaviors</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Vladimir Sloutsky</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Anna Fisher</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01148.x</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Child Development, Vol. 79, No. 3. (2008), pp. 639-651.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-05-17T03:40:38-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Child Development</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>79</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>639</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>651</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>word-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2802158">
    <title>Prior knowledge and exemplar frequency</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2802158</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;(submitted)&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>Prior knowledge and exemplar frequency</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Harlan Harris</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Gregory Murphy</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Bob Rehder</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>(submitted)</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-05-15T17:19:55-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:category>bayesian</prism:category>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>models</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2631432">
    <title>Generalization and similarity in exemplar models of categorization: Insights from machine learning</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2631432</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Psychonomic Bulletin &#38; Review, Vol. 15, No. 2. (April 2008), pp. 256-271.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>Generalization and similarity in exemplar models of categorization: Insights from machine learning</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Jakel</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Scholkopf</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Bernhard</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Wichmann</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>A Felix</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.256</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Psychonomic Bulletin &#38; Review, Vol. 15, No. 2. (April 2008), pp. 256-271.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-04-05T05:38:09-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Psychonomic Bulletin &#38; Review</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>1069-9384</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>15</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>256</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>271</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:publisher>Psychonomic Society Publications</prism:publisher>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>machine-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2646707">
    <title>Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2646707</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;(1997)&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories</dc:title>

    <dc:source>(1997)</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-04-09T17:54:48-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1997</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publisher>MIT Press</prism:publisher>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1869054">
    <title>Object naming and later lexical development: From baby bottle to beer bottle</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1869054</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Despite arguments for the relative ease of learning common noun meanings, semantic development continues well past the early years of language acquisition even for names of concrete objects. We studied evolution of the use of common nouns during later lexical development. Children aged 5-14 years and adults named common household objects and their naming patterns were compared. Children showed a gradual convergence to the adult categories through addition of new words to the vocabulary as well as extended reorganizations of existing categories. Different theories of early lexical development make competing proposals about the differences in featural knowledge that result in discrepancies from adult word use. To evaluate these theories with respect to later lexical development, we used features collected from adults and children to predict the naming patterns of the different age groups. Consistent with [Mervis, C. B. (1987). Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorisation (pp. 201-233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press], children gradually learned to attend to the adult feature sets and to assign the features the appropriate weights. A sorting task showed that, furthermore, evolution of general conceptual knowledge as well as word-specific knowledge contributes to the convergence. We discuss implications for developing a theory of later lexical development.</description>
    <dc:title>Object naming and later lexical development: From baby bottle to beer bottle</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Eef Ameel</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Barbara Malt</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Gert Storms</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.006</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-11-05T15:31:37-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>In Press, Corrected Proof</prism:volume>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-development</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2300508">
    <title>The cause of infant categorization</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2300508</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognition, Vol. 106, No. 2. (February 2008), pp. 984-993.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We asked whether infants are sensitive to causal relations between objects and outcomes and whether this sensitivity supports categorization. Fourteen- and 18-month-old infants were familiarized with objects from a novel category. For some, the objects caused an electronic toy to activate. For others, the objects were present during activation of the toy, but did not cause the event. For the remaining infants, the events were never activated. Infants were asked to select another category member from a pair of previously unseen objects (one from the familiar, and one from a novel, category). Infants were more likely to select the category match in the causal than the non-causal and no outcome conditions, suggesting that they capitalize on causal information in forming object categories.</description>
    <dc:title>The cause of infant categorization</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Amy Booth</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.012</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognition, Vol. 106, No. 2. (February 2008), pp. 984-993.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-01-29T02:24:38-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognition</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>106</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>984</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>993</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-development</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2271031">
    <title>Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/2271031</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognition, Vol. 106, No. 2. (February 2008), pp. 665-681.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An extensive body of research claims that labels facilitate categorisation, highlight the commonalities between objects and act as invitations to form categories for young infants before their first birthday. While this may indeed be a reasonable claim, we argue that it is not justified by the experiments described in the research. We report on a series of experiments that demonstrate that labels can play a causal role in category formation during infancy. Ten-month-old infants were taught to group computer-displayed, novel cartoon drawings into two categories under tightly controlled experimental conditions. Infants were given the opportunity to learn the two categories under four conditions: Without any labels, with two labels that correlated with category membership, with two labels assigned randomly to objects, and with one label assigned to all objects. Category formation was assessed identically in all conditions using a novelty preference procedure conducted in the absence of any labels. The labelling condition had a decisive impact on the way infants formed categories: When two labels correlated with the visual category information, infants learned two categories, just as if there had been no labels presented. However, uncorrelated labels completely disrupted the formation of any categories. Finally, consistent use of a single label across objects led infants to learn one broad category that included all the objects. These findings demonstrate that even before infants start to produce their first words, the labels they hear can override the manner in which they categorise objects.</description>
    <dc:title>Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Kim Plunkett</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Jon-Fan Hu</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Leslie Cohen</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.003</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognition, Vol. 106, No. 2. (February 2008), pp. 665-681.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2008-01-22T02:06:27-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2008</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognition</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>106</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>665</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>681</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>cross-situational</prism:category>
    <prism:category>statistical-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>word-learning</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818074">
    <title>Similarity and rules: distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable?</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818074</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognition, Vol. 65, No. 2-3. (January 1998), pp. 197-230.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The distinction between rule-based and similarity-based processes in cognition is of fundamental importance for cognitive science, and has been the focus of a large body of empirical research. However, intuitive uses of the distinction are subject to theoretical difficulties and their relation to empirical evidence is not clear. We propose a `core' distinction between rule- and similarity-based processes, in terms of the way representations of stored information are `matched' with the representation of a novel item. This explication captures the intuitively clear-cut cases of processes of each type, and resolves apparent problems with the rule/similarity distinction. Moreover, it provides a clear target for assessing the psychological and AI literatures. We show that many lines of psychological evidence are less conclusive than sometimes assumed, but suggest that converging lines of evidence may be persuasive. We then argue that the AI literature suggests that approaches which combine rules and similarity are an important new focus for empirical work.</description>
    <dc:title>Similarity and rules: distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable?</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Ulrike Hahn</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Nick Chater</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00044-9</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognition, Vol. 65, No. 2-3. (January 1998), pp. 197-230.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-10-25T01:22:50-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1998</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognition</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>65</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2-3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>197</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>230</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>models</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818070">
    <title>Similarity as an explanatory construct</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1818070</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognition, Vol. 65, No. 2-3. (January 1998), pp. 87-101.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Theories can be found throughout cognitive science that give an explanatory role to similarity. Such theories can be contrasted with those that model thought using abstract rules. We lay out four possible explanatory roles for similarity. We then review the computational pros and cons of similarity- and rule-based models and outline the empirical work that speaks to the psychological plausibility of the two frameworks. We conclude that an adequate model of human thought must take advantage of both the flexibility of similarity-based inference and the compositionality and certainty associated with rule-based inference.</description>
    <dc:title>Similarity as an explanatory construct</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Steven Sloman</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Lance Rips</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00048-6</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognition, Vol. 65, No. 2-3. (January 1998), pp. 87-101.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-10-25T01:21:16-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1998</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognition</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>65</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2-3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>87</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>101</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>models</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817986">
    <title>Evidence for Knowledge-Based Category Discrimination in Infancy</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817986</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Child Development, Vol. 73, No. 4. (2002), pp. 1016-1033.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two studies examined whether infants' category discrimination in an object-examination task was based solely on an ad hoc analysis of perceptual similarities among the experimental stimuli. In Experiment 1A, 11-month-olds examined four different exemplars of one superordinate category (animals or furniture) twice, followed by a new exemplar of the familiar category and an exemplar of the contrasting category. Group A (N = 39) explored natural-looking toy replicas with low between-category similarity, whereas group B (N = 40) explored artificial-looking toy models with high between-category similarity. Experiment 1B (N = 40) tested a group of 10-month-olds with the same design. Experiment 1C (N = 20) reversed the order of test trials. For Experiment 2 (N = 20), the same artificial-looking toy animals as in Experiment 1 (group B) were used for familiarization), but no category change was introduced at the end of the session. Infants' responses varied systematically only with the presence of a category change, and not with the degree of between-category similarity. This supports the hypothesis that performance was knowledge based.</description>
    <dc:title>Evidence for Knowledge-Based Category Discrimination in Infancy</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Sabina Pauen</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00454</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Child Development, Vol. 73, No. 4. (2002), pp. 1016-1033.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-10-25T00:52:11-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2002</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Child Development</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>4</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>1016</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>1033</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-development</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817949">
    <title>The Big Book of Concepts</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1817949</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;(2002)&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>The Big Book of Concepts</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Gregory Murphy</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>(2002)</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-10-25T00:42:39-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2002</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publisher>MIT Press</prism:publisher>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantic-organization</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1717720">
    <title>Systems of correlations in rule and category learning: use of structured input in learning syntactic categories</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/briordan/article/1717720</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 4, pp. 127-155.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
    <dc:title>Systems of correlations in rule and category learning: use of structured input in learning syntactic categories</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>D Billman</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 4, pp. 127-155.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2007-10-02T01:16:59-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationName>Language and Cognitive Processes</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
    <prism:startingPage>127</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>155</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>artificial-grammars</prism:category>
    <prism:category>category-learning</prism:category>
</item>



</rdf:RDF>

