Rules and resemblance: their changing balance in the category learning of humans (Homo sapiens) and monkeys (Macaca mulatta).
In an early dissociation between intentional and incidental category learning, Kemler Nelson (1984) gave participants a categorization task that could be performed by responding either to a single-dimensional rule or to overall family resemblance. Humans learning intentionally deliberately adopted rule-based strategies; humans learning incidentally adopted family resemblance strategies. The present authors replicated Kemler Nelson's human experiment and found a similar dissociation. They also extended her paradigm so as to evaluate the balance between rules and family resemblance in determining the category decisions of rhesus monkeys. Monkeys heavily favored the family resemblance strategy. Formal models showed that even after many sessions and thousands of trials, they spread attention across all stimulus dimensions rather than focus on a single, criterial dimension that could also produce perfect categorization.
Couchman
Justin J
JJ
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. jjc38@buffalo.edu
Coutinho
Mariana V C
MV
Smith
J David
JD
D000293:Adolescent; D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology; D003210:Concept Formation / Q000502:physiology*; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D008253:Macaca mulatta; D008297:Male; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D055815:Young Adult
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Jun;127(2):107-40
9622910
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Sep;133(3):398-414
15355146
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1996 Jun;3(3-4):319-27
8806033
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1994 Oct;20(4):429-35
7964525
Percept Psychophys. 1999 Aug;61(6):1178-99
10497436
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Jul;34(3):361-74
18665719
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981 Aug;7(4):811-24
6457093
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1983 Feb;9(1):103-12
6220116
Psychol Sci. 2006 Dec;17(12):1059-67
17201788
Child Dev. 1982 Jun;53(3):768-79
7094679
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1990;22(2):127-31
11537555
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 May 1;5(5):204-210
11323265
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Mar;8(1):168-76
11340863
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1996 Oct;22(4):405-19
8865609
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2004 Jun;3(2):101-13
15537987
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Jan;36(1):54-65
20141317
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1979 Feb;5(1):68-77
528931
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1992;24(2):157-64
11538700
Nature. 2000 Oct 5;407(6804):630-3
11034211
J Comp Psychol. 1989 Mar;103(1):32-8
2924530
Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Feb;9(2):83-9
15668101
Mem Cognit. 1987 Jan;15(1):42-54
3821490
Psychol Rev. 1949 Jan;56(1):51-65
18124807
Mem Cognit. 1988 Jan;16(1):79-89
3340001
J Exp Child Psychol. 1983 Dec;36(3):365-79
6663235
Psychol Rev. 1994 Jan;101(1):53-79
8121960
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Mar;5(3):272-6
11850633
J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Sep;54(2):69-84
16812617
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1993 Sep;122(3):331-46
8371088
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):829-35
12613690
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1976 Oct;2(4):285-302
978139
Psychol Sci. 1994 Nov;5(6):375-9
11539143
Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):442-81
9697427