An ERP analysis of recognition and categorization decisions in a prototype-distortion task.
BACKGROUND
Theories of categorization make different predictions about the underlying processes used to represent categories. Episodic theories suggest that categories are represented in memory by storing previously encountered exemplars in memory. Prototype theories suggest that categories are represented in the form of a prototype independently of memory. A number of studies that show dissociations between categorization and recognition are often cited as evidence for the prototype account. These dissociations have compared recognition judgements made to one set of items to categorization judgements to a different set of items making a clear interpretation difficult. Instead of using different stimuli for different tests this experiment compares the processes by which participants make decisions about category membership in a prototype-distortion task and with recognition decisions about the same set of stimuli by examining the Event Related Potentials (ERPs) associated with them.


METHODS
Sixty-three participants were asked to make categorization or recognition decisions about stimuli that either formed an artificial category or that were category non-members. We examined the ERP components associated with both kinds of decision for pre-exposed and control participants.


CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to studies using different items we observed no behavioural differences between the two kinds of decision; participants were equally able to distinguish category members from non-members, regardless of whether they were performing a recognition or categorisation judgement. Interestingly, this did not interact with prior-exposure. However, the ERP data demonstrated that the early visual evoked response that discriminated category members from non-members was modulated by which judgement participants performed and whether they had been pre-exposed to category members. We conclude from this that any differences between categorization and recognition reflect differences in the information that participants focus on in the stimuli to make the judgements at test, rather than any differences in encoding or process.
Tunney
Richard J
RJ
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. richard.tunney@nottingham.ac.uk
Fernie
Gordon
G
Astle
Duncan E
DE
D000328:Adult; D002965:Classification; D003071:Cognition; D003657:Decision Making; D004569:Electroencephalography; D005074:Evoked Potentials, Visual; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D055815:Young Adult
Nature. 1998 Apr 9;392(6676):595-8
9560154
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002 Aug;14(2):245-57
12067697
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):800-11
12109770
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jan 20;95(2):747-50
9435264
Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56:149-78
15709932
Brain Cogn. 2006 Apr;60(3):244-52
16426719
Science. 1993 Dec 10;262(5140):1747-9
8259522
Mem Cognit. 2000 Sep;28(6):923-38
11105518
Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Mar;112(3):536-44
11222977
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985 May;62(3):203-8
2581760
Psychophysiology. 1976 May;13(3):277-8
1273235
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2002 Mar;2(1):1-18
12452581
Psychophysiology. 2000 Mar;37(2):190-203
10731769
J Exp Psychol. 1967 Jan;73(1):28-38
6047706
Learn Mem. 1998 Nov-Dec;5(6):420-8
10489259
Brain Cogn. 2006 Apr;60(3):233-43
16406637
J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):574-83
12803968
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jul 3;98(14):8101-6
11438748
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Sep;121(3):278-304
1402702
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Dec 19;92(26):12470-4
8618923
Psychophysiology. 2002 Nov;39(6):791-808
12462507
Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Sep;7(3):375-402
11082849