Linked Life Data

11131824

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11131824

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
2000-12-22
pubmed:abstractText
Many theories of learning and memory (e.g., connectionist, associative, rational, exemplar based) produce psychological magnitude terms as output (i.e., numbers representing the momentary level of some subjective property). Many theories assume that these numbers may be translated into choice probabilities via the ratio rule, also known as the choice axiom (Luce, 1959) or the constant-ratio rule (Clarke, 1957). We present two categorization experiments employing artificial, visual, prototype-structured stimuli constructed from 12 symbols positioned on a grid. The ratio rule is shown to be incorrect for these experiments, given the assumption that the magnitude terms for each category are univariate functions of the number of category-appropriate symbols contained in the presented stimulus. A connectionist winner-take-all model of categorical decision (Wills & McLaren, 1997) is shown to account for our data given the same assumption. The central feature underlying the success of this model is the assumption that categorical decisions are based on a Thurstonian choice process (Thurstone, 1927, Case V) whose noise distribution is not double exponential in form.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0272-4987
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
53
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
983-1011
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2000
pubmed:articleTitle
Tests of the ratio rule in categorization.
pubmed:affiliation
Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K. a.j.wills@exeter.ac.uk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't