政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/56875

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 112704/143671 (78%)
Visitors : 49748465 Online Users : 780

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/56875

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56875

Title:	分類學習上的類別變異效果 Category-variability effect on category learning
Authors:	吳岳勳 Wu, Yueh Hsun
Contributors:	楊立行 Yang, Lee Xieng 吳岳勳 Wu, Yueh Hsun
Keywords:	類別變異分類學習聽覺分類實驗相似性理論規則為基礎理論 Category variability Category learning Auditory categorization task Similarity-based model Rule-based model
Date:	2012
Issue Date:	2013-02-01 16:53:05 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	在過去的分類學習研究中有個重要的問題始終無法得到確切的解答，Rips(1989)發現人們對於介在兩個不同變異類別正中間、距兩類別相等的目標刺激在分類判斷上傾向將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，即為類別變異效果，後續研究認為人們是否知覺類別變異會影響人們是否在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別的因素，本研究便以兩個層次探討知覺類別變異對於分類決策的影響，首先在實驗一利用了指導語影響受試者對於類別結構的變異知覺，結果發現是否提供類別變異線索並不會使得人們在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別，實驗二和實驗四利用了調整刺激材料的變異程度試圖以不同的變異組合影響人們對於變異程度的知覺，實驗結果顯示在加大了兩類別的變異程度後，人們更容易知覺到變異程度的不同而偏好將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，另外，本研究採用了經由mel scale 轉換的單音聽覺刺激材料進行實驗，並在實驗三中以相似性評分實驗和MDS 分析確認目標刺激的位置如同實驗預期，且變異程度設定與研究假設相同。最後透過視覺刺激材料也得到和聽覺刺激材料相同的結果，整個研究發現若是以調整知覺層次上類別的變異程度在兩類別變異差距較大時，人們便容易知覺類別變異差異，進而引發類別變異效果，但若類別間變異程度差異不大，即使以口語方式提供類別變異線索也無法引發類別變異效果，本研究並整理過去數個相似的研究，以展現類別變異差距的指標統整歧異的結果，發現若在變異程度差距較大時，就容易出現類別變異效果，反之則不會出現，此結果也穩定存在在不同類型刺激材料間。 There has been an important question about the effect of category variability on category learning. The similarity-based and rule-based theory predict how the critical item laid right in the middle between low-variability and high- variability category in two contrary ways. Rips(1989) used the natural category to examine the similarity judgment and classification on the same target. Result showed that people made a total contrast decision, while the target is much similar to low-variability stimulus and classified into high-variability category. The similarity judgment followed the prediction of similarity-based theory, but the classification followed the rule-based theory. Past studies on category-variability effect hasn’t generated consistent result. This study examine how category effect is caused whether the variance difference between categories could be aware. Result show both the cue of category variance is told or not didn’t made people prefer the high-variability category, while the variance difference is increased can caused the category-variability effect, especially when the low-variability category is limited on a smaller variance. It show that whether people are aware of variance difference is an important factor can cause category-variability effect. In addition, it can explain the inconsistent result from past studies with different variability setting in each studies.
Reference:	Anderson, A., Ross, B., & Chin-Parker, S. (2002). A further investigation of category learning by inference. Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 119-128. Ashby, F. G., & Alfonso-Reese, L. A. (1995). Categorization as Probability Density Estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39(2), 216-233. Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 33-53. Ashby, F. G., & Lee, W. W. (1991). Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(2), 150-172. Ashby, F. G., Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. (2002). Observational versus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 30(5), 666-677. Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114(3), 539-576. Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cohen, A., Nosofsky, R., & Zaki, S. (2001). Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1165-1175. Estes, W. K. (1986). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 500-549. Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 234-257. Hsu, A. S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Effects of generative and discriminative learning on use of category variability. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and conceptual development: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500-526. Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 99(1), 22-44. Lockhead, G. R. (1966). Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 95-104. Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A Network Model of Category Learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 111(2), 309-332. Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 53(1), 49-70. Maddox, W. T., Molis, M., & Diehl, R. (2002). Generalizing a neuropsychological model of visual categorization to auditory categorization of vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 64(4), 584-597. Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592-613. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist; American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254-278. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39-57. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101(1), 53-79. Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 548-568. Posner, M. I., Boies, S. J., Eichelman, W. H., & Taylor, R. L. (1969). Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(1, Pt.2), 1-16. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 382-407. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. (pp. 21-59): New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Rips, L. J., & Collins, A. (1993). Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(4), 468-486. Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Category-based predictions: Influence of uncertainty and feature associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 736-753. Sakamoto, Y., Love, B. C., & Jones, M. (2006). Tracking Variability in Learning: Contrasting Statistical and Similarity-Based Accounts. Proceedings of Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ. Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology;Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 54-87. Smith, E. E., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16(1), 1-40. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 377-386. Steinberg, J. C. (1937). Positions of Stimulation in the Cochlea by Pure Tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8(3), 176-180. Stevens, S. S., Volkmann, J., & Newman, E. B. (1937). A scale for the measurement of the psychological magnitude pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8, 185-190. Stewart, N., & Chater, N. (2002). The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(5), 893-907.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學心理學研究所 99752003 101
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099752003
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[心理學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
200301.pdf	1812Kb	Adobe PDF2	903	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback