Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-vcmr7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-09T06:58:22.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The generalized context model: an exemplar model of classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Robert M. Nosofsky
Edited by
Emmanuel M. Pothos  and
Andy J. Wills
Emmanuel M. Pothos
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Andy J. Wills
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access

Summary

Model description

Conceptual overview

According to the generalized context model (GCM) (Nosofsky, 1986), people represent categories by storing individual exemplars (or examples) in memory, and classify objects based on their similarity to these stored exemplars. For example, the model assumes that people represent the category of ‘birds’ by storing in memory the vast collection of different sparrows, robins, eagles, ostriches (and so forth) that they have experienced. If an object is sufficiently similar to some of these bird exemplars, then the person would tend to classify the object as a ‘bird’. This exemplar view of categorization contrasts dramatically with major alternative approaches that assume that people form abstract summary representations of categories, such as rules or idealized prototypes.

The standard version of the GCM adopts a multidimensional scaling (MDS) approach to modelling similarity relations among exemplars (Shepard, 1958, 1987). In this approach, exemplars are represented as points in a multidimensional psychological space. Similarity between exemplars is a decreasing function of their distance in the space. In many applications, a first step in the modelling is to conduct similarity-scaling studies to derive MDS solutions for the exemplars and to discover their locations in the multidimensional similarity space (Nosofsky, 1992b).

A crucial assumption in the modelling, however, is that similarity is not an invariant relation, but a highly context-dependent one. To take an example from Medin and Schaffer (1978), humans and mannequins may be judged as highly similar in a context that emphasizes structural appearance, but would be judged as highly dissimilar in a context that emphasizes vitality.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Formal Approaches in Categorization , pp. 18 - 39
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J.R. (1990). The Adaptive Character of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Ashby, F.G., & Alfonso-Reese, L. (1995). Categorization as probability density estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F.G., & Maddox, W.T. (1993). Relations between exemplar, prototype, and decision bound models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 372–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, J.R., Dewey, G.I., & Medin, D.L. (1984). Evaluation of exemplar- based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 638–648.Google ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J.D., & Wish, M. (1974). Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Krantz, D.H., Atkinson, R.C., Luce, R.D., & Suppes, P. (eds.), Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.L., Nosofsky, R.M., & Zaki, S.R. (2001). Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1165–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schryver, M., Vandist, K., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). How many exemplars are used? Explorations with the Rex Leopold I model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ennis, D.M. (1988). Confusable and discriminable stimuli: comment on Nosofsky (1986) and Shepard (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, W.R. (1974). The Processing of Information and Structure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jakel, F., Scholkopf, B., & Wichman, F.A. (2008). Generalization and similarity in exemplar models of categorization: insights from machine learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 256–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, J.K. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamberts, K. (2000). Information accumulation theory of categorization response times. Psychological Review, 107, 227–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.D. (2008). Three case studies in the Bayesian analysis of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R.D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In Luce, R.D., Bush, R.R., & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (pp. 103–189). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McKinley, S.C., & Nosofsky, R.M. (1995). Investigations of exemplar and decision bound models in large, ill-defined category structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 128–148.Google ScholarPubMed
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 104–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1985). Overall similarity and the identification of separable-dimension stimuli: a choice model analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 87–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700–708.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1989). Further tests of an exemplar-similarity approach to relating identification and categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1990). Relations between exemplar-similarity and likelihood models of classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34, 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1991a). Relation between the rational model and the context model of categorization. Psychological Science, 2, 416–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1991b). Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 3–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1992a). Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. In Healy, A. F. & Kossyln, S.M. (eds.), Essays in Honor of William K. Estes, Vol. 1: From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1992b). Similarity scaling and cognitive process models. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 22–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (2000). Exemplar representation without generalization: comment on Smith and Minda's (2000) ‘Thirty categorization results in search of a model’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1735–1743.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M., & Palmeri, T.J. (1997). An exemplar-based random-walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R.M., & Stanton, R.D. (2005). Speeded classification in a probabilistic category structure: contrasting exemplar-retrieval, decision-boundary, and prototype models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 608–629.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., (2006). Speeded old-new recognition of multidimensional perceptual stimuli: modeling performance at the individual-participant and individual-item levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 314–334.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R.M., & Zaki, S.R. (1998). Dissociations between categorization and recognition in amnesic and normal individuals: an exemplar-based interpretation. Psychological Science, 9, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., (2002). Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 924–940.Google ScholarPubMed
Palmeri, T.J. (1997). Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 324–354.Google ScholarPubMed
Palmeri, T.J., & Flanery, M.A. (2002). Memory systems and perceptual categorization. In Ross, B.H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (pp. 141–189). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pothos, E.M., & Bailey, T.M. (2009). Predicting category intuitiveness with the rational model, the simplicity model, and the Generalized Context Model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1062–1080.Google ScholarPubMed
Rehder, B., & Hoffman, A.B. (2005). Thirty-something categorization results explained: selective attention, eyetracking, and models of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 811–829.Google ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R.N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: a stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1958). Stimulus and response generalization: tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 54–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R.N., Hovland, C.I., & Jenkins, H.M. (1961). Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75 (13), Whole No. 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, H.J., & Nosofsky, R.M. (1992). Similarity-scaling studies of dot-pattern classification and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 278–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanton, R.D., Nosofsky, R.M., & Zaki, S. R. (2002). Comparisons between exemplar similarity and mixed prototype models using a linearly separable category structure. Memory & Cognition, 30, 934–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, N., & Brown, G.D.A. (2005). Similarity and dissimilarity as evidence in perceptual categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanpaemel, W. (2009). BayesGCM: software for Bayesian inference with the Generalized Context Model. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1111–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2008). In search of abstraction: the varying abstraction model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 732–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viken, R.J., Treat, T.A., Nosofsky, R.M., McFall, R.M., & Palmeri, T.J. (2002). Modeling individual differences in perceptual and attentional processes related to bulimic symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 598–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaki, S.R., & Nosofsky, R.M. (2004). False prototype enhancement effects in dot pattern categorization. Memory & Cognition, 32, 390–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaki, S.R. (2007). A high-distortion enhancement effect in the prototype learning paradigm: dramatic effects of category learning during test. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2088–2096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaki, S.R., Nosofsky, R.M., Stanton, R.D., & Cohen, A.L. (2003). Prototype and exemplar accounts of category learning and attentional allocation: a reassessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1160–1173.Google ScholarPubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×