ZeePedia

Memory:Prototype, Rosch and Colleagues, Experiments of Stephen Read

<< Memory:Benefits of Categorization, Levels of Categories
Memory:Schema Theory, A European Solution, Generalization hierarchies >>
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
Lesson 35
Memory
Representation of knowledge (continued)
Levels of Categories:
i) Superordinate Category: "It is a large category at the top of the hierarchy." e.g. furniture,
tools, vehicles etc.
ii) Basic Level Category: "It is an intermediate category in the middle of the hierarchy." e.g.
table, chair, bed, sofa etc.
iii) Subordinate Category: "It is a small category at the bottom of the hierarchy." e.g. lamp,
screw-driver, truck etc.
Prototype
Experiment
An experiment was conducted by Rosch & Lackoff in 1970's on prototypes. They collected a lot of
evidence for prototypes at the basic level or the subordinate level but not at superordinate level.
Shown picture of a living room chair were:
A piece of furniture (superordinate level)
A chair (basic level)
A living room chair (subordinate level)
Subjects were divided into three groups and were shown a living room chair. One group was
asked you will be shown a piece of furniture. And the second group was asked you will be shown
a chair or not and the third group was asked you will be shown a living room chair or not. They
were assigned different tasks:
Group 1: If you see any furniture press yes.
Group 2: If you see a chair press yes.
Group 3: If you see a living room chair press yes.
Results:
The results showed that subjects were fastest at the basic level category i.e. chair. Chair faster
than furniture or living room.
Subjects identify objects at basic level than make an inference regarding superordinate level
(chair is a piece of furniture), or classify them at subordinate level by looking for distinguishing
features. People look first the category than they decide it is what kind of or level of category.
Conclusion:
It seems that subjects identified objects at the basic level.
What about carpenters?
Experts in an area may be very quick to make subordinate classification.
Experts might be very quick to make subordinate classifications in their area of expertise.
Rosch and Colleagues:
Roch and Colleagues tried to prove that the experts might be very quick to make subordinate
classifications in their area of expertise.
Rosch and colleagues (1976) tested Dog experts and bird experts.
Dog Experts and Bird Experts were taken as subjects.
103
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
Subjects were shown the color pictures of dogs and sparrows.
They gave these instructions to the Subjects;
i) You will be shown an animal, if you see an animal press the button.
ii) You will be shown either a dog or an animal, if you see a dog press the button.
iii) You will be shown a beagle and a sparrow.
Replicated earlier results when dog experts identified birds and bird experts identified dogs. But in
their area of expertise, experts were as fast at the subordinate level as at basic level.
Results:
Dog experts were fastest at the bird condition rather then in the sparrow condition and slow at the
animal level. Bird experts were fastest at the animal condition rather then in the beagle condition.
Experts were as fast at the subordinate level as at the subordinate level.
The distinction between one level and the other level is a matter of experience rather than the
imitation of mind.
Experiments of Stephen Read:
Stephen conducted an experiment by using these faces.
At the top row the faces were named category one and the second row was named the category
2. The last row was called novel faces. After showing the first row and second row subjects were
shown a novel face and were asked if this face belonged to category one or category two.
Categorization rules
They developed some rules prior to the experiment. These rules were;
1. Nearest neighbor rule
Matches an item to the test item is called nearest neighbor rule. Subjects compare the novel face
with both categories and included this face to the above given categories.
2. Average distance rule
Matches test item on the basis of average similarity is called average distance rule. On the
average this face is matched with one category or second category.
3. Prototype rule
Matches prototype with test item is called prototype rule. By averaging all faces subjects make a
prototype and then match novel face with this prototype.
104
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
4. Feature frequency rule
Selects on Most feature matches is called feature frequency rule. The answers were included in
one category according to the frequency.
Results:
58% subjects said that they averaged the features.
Over 50% used prototype.
Over 20% use the feature frequency rule.
Subjects were shown 25 novel faces.
Conclusion:
Prototype strategy was the most frequently used strategy.
Feature frequency rule was the second best.
Average similarity and near neighbor rule were least frequently used.
There might have been other ways of looking at the same problem.
There is also evidence for exemplar and feature frequency rule.
Different rules are applicable in different situations. We all have a tendency to apply these four
rules. People selectively use these rules in different situations.
Findings
Prototype most frequent
Feature frequency second best
Some people did use exemplar
Exemplars
Exemplar is not our tendency to match an object with every single item, with every single object in
the category. We only match it with a typical item in the category.
Experiments
Nosofsky (1991) replicated his experiment on read experiment. And he found many students use
exemplars in classification. He found that many subjects were using exemplar not the prototype.
JD Smith and JP Minda (1998) conducted experiment and they came up with a new idea that is
prototype for early learning. When children see goat first time and he says bowh bowh child
thinks it is dog. So in early learning the children compare the goat with dog. Probably we use
something like prototype in our early learning. We may need more integration rather
argumentation.
105
Table of Contents:
  1. INTRODUCTION:Historical Background
  2. THE INFORMATION PROCESSING APPROACH
  3. COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY:Brains of Dead People, The Neuron
  4. COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY (CONTINUED):The Eye, The visual pathway
  5. COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (CONTINUED):Hubel & Wiesel, Sensory Memory
  6. VISUAL SENSORY MEMORY EXPERIMENTS (CONTINUED):Psychological Time
  7. ATTENTION:Single-mindedness, In Shadowing Paradigm, Attention and meaning
  8. ATTENTION (continued):Implications, Treisman’s Model, Norman’s Model
  9. ATTENTION (continued):Capacity Models, Arousal, Multimode Theory
  10. ATTENTION:Subsidiary Task, Capacity Theory, Reaction Time & Accuracy, Implications
  11. RECAP OF LAST LESSONS:AUTOMATICITY, Automatic Processing
  12. AUTOMATICITY (continued):Experiment, Implications, Task interference
  13. AUTOMATICITY (continued):Predicting flight performance, Thought suppression
  14. PATTERN RECOGNITION:Template Matching Models, Human flexibility
  15. PATTERN RECOGNITION:Implications, Phonemes, Voicing, Place of articulation
  16. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Adaptation paradigm
  17. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Gestalt Theory of Perception
  18. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Queen Elizabeth’s vase, Palmer (1977)
  19. OBJECT PERCEPTION (continued):Segmentation, Recognition of object
  20. ATTENTION & PATTERN RECOGNITION:Word Superiority Effect
  21. PATTERN RECOGNITION (CONTINUED):Neural Networks, Patterns of connections
  22. PATTERN RECOGNITION (CONTINUED):Effects of Sentence Context
  23. MEMORY:Short Term Working Memory, Atkinson & Shiffrin Model
  24. MEMORY:Rate of forgetting, Size of memory set
  25. Memory:Activation in a network, Magic number 7, Chunking
  26. Memory:Chunking, Individual differences in chunking
  27. MEMORY:THE NATURE OF FORGETTING, Release from PI, Central Executive
  28. Memory:Atkinson & Shiffrin Model, Long Term Memory, Different kinds of LTM
  29. Memory:Spread of Activation, Associative Priming, Implications, More Priming
  30. Memory:Interference, The Critical Assumption, Limited capacity
  31. Memory:Interference, Historical Memories, Recall versus Recognition
  32. Memory:Are forgotten memories lost forever?
  33. Memory:Recognition of lost memories, Representation of knowledge
  34. Memory:Benefits of Categorization, Levels of Categories
  35. Memory:Prototype, Rosch and Colleagues, Experiments of Stephen Read
  36. Memory:Schema Theory, A European Solution, Generalization hierarchies
  37. Memory:Superset Schemas, Part hierarchy, Slots Have More Schemas
  38. MEMORY:Representation of knowledge (continued), Memory for stories
  39. Memory:Representation of knowledge, PQ4R Method, Elaboration
  40. Memory:Study Methods, Analyze Story Structure, Use Multiple Modalities
  41. Memory:Mental Imagery, More evidence, Kosslyn yet again, Image Comparison
  42. Mental Imagery:Eidetic Imagery, Eidetic Psychotherapy, Hot and cold imagery
  43. Language and thought:Productivity & Regularity, Linguistic Intuition
  44. Cognitive development:Assimilation, Accommodation, Stage Theory
  45. Cognitive Development:Gender Identity, Learning Mathematics, Sensory Memory