Prototype models of categorization: basic formulation, predictions, and limitations

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511921322.003

3 - Prototype models of categorization: basic formulation, predictions, and limitations

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

John Paul Minda and

J. David Smith

Edited by

Emmanuel M. Pothos and

Andy J. Wills

Show author details

Emmanuel M. Pothos: Affiliation:
Swansea University
Andy J. Wills: Affiliation:
University of Exeter

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The prototype model has had a long history in cognitive psychology, and prototype theory posed an early challenge to the classical view of concepts. Prototype models assume that categories are represented by a summary representation of a category (i.e., a prototype) that might represent information about the most common features, the average feature values, or even the ideal features of a category. Prototype models assume that classification decisions are made on the basis of how similar an object is to a category prototype. This chapter presents a formal description of the model, the motivation and theoretical history of the model, as well as several simulations that illustrate the model's properties. In general, the prototype model is well suited to explain the learning of many visual categories (e.g. dot patterns) and categories with a strong family-resemblance structure.

Prototype models of categorization: basic formulation, predictions, and limitations

Categories are fundamental to cognition, and the ability to learn and use categories is present in all humans and animals. An important theoretical account of categorization is the prototype view (Homa & Cultice, 1984; Homa et al., 1973; Minda & Smith, 2001, 2002; Posner & Keele, 1968; J. D. Smith & Minda, 1998, 2000, 2001; J. D. Smith, Redford, & Haas, 2008). The prototype view assumes that a category of things in the world (objects, animals, shapes, etc.) can be represented in the mind by a prototype.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Formal Approaches in Categorization , pp. 40 - 64

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921322.003 [Opens in a new window]

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

Ashby, F.G., & Maddox, W.T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149–178.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Blair, M., & Homa, D. (2001). Expanding the search for a linear separability constraint on category learning. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1153–1164.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Blair, M., (2004). As easy to memorize as they are to classify: the 5-4 categories and the category advantage. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1293–1301.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B.H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: a comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 216–226.Google Scholar PubMed

Homa, D., Cross, J., Cornell, D., & Shwartz, S. (1973). Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 116–122.CrossRef Google Scholar

Homa, D., & Cultice, J.C. (1984). Role of feedback, category size, and stimulus distortion on the acquisition and utilization of ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 83–94.Google Scholar

Knowlton, B.J., & Squire, L.R. (1993). The learning of categories: parallel brain systems for item memory and category knowledge. Science, 262, 1747–1749.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Love, B.C., & Gureckis, T.M. (2007). Models in search of a brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 90–108.CrossRef Google Scholar

Love, B.C., Medin, D.L., & Gureckis, T.M. (2004). SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.CrossRef Google Scholar

Medin, D.L., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 355–368.Google Scholar

Minda, J.P., & Ross, B.H. (2004). Learning categories by making predictions: an investigation of indirect category learning. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1355–1368.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Minda, J.P., & Smith, J.D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: the effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 775–799.Google Scholar PubMed

Minda, J.P., & Smith, J.D., (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 275–292.Google Scholar PubMed

Myung, I.J. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 190–204.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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, 87–108.Google Scholar PubMed

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. (1992). Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. In Healy, A.F., Kosslyn, S.M., & Shiffrin, R.M. (eds.), From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes (Vol. 1, pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Nosofsky, R.M., & Zaki, S.R. (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 Scholar PubMed

Posner, M.I., & Keele, S.W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pothos, E., & Chater, N. (2002). A simplicity principle in unsupervised human categorization. Cognitive Science, 26, 303–343.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reber, P., Stark, C., & Squire, L. (1998a). Contrasting cortical activity associated with category memory and recognition memory. Learning & Memory, 5, 420–428.Google Scholar PubMed

Reber, P., Stark, C., & Squire, L., (1998b). Cortical areas supporting category learning identified using functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 747– 750.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rehder, B., & Murphy, G.L. (2003). A knowledge-resonance (KRES) model of category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 759–784.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, E.E., & Medin, D.L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, J.D. (2005). Wanted: a new psychology of exemplars. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2003 Festschrift for Lee R. Brooks, 59, 47–53.Google Scholar PubMed

Smith, J.D., & Minda, J.P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: the early epochs of category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1411–1436.Google Scholar

Smith, J. D., (2000). Thirty categorization results in search of a model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 3–27.Google Scholar PubMed

Smith, J. D., (2001). Journey to the center of the category: the dissociation in amnesia between categorization and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 4, 501–516.Google Scholar

Smith, J.D., Murray, J., Morgan, J., & Minda, J.P. (1997). Straight talk about linear separability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 659–680.Google Scholar

Smith, J.D., Redford, J.S., & Haas, S.M. (2008). Prototype abstraction by monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 390–401.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1958/2001). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (1998). Category learning by inference and classification. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 124–148.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeithamova, D., Maddox, W.T., & Schnyer, D.M. (2008). Dissociable prototype learning systems: evidence from brain imaging and behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 13194–13201.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Accessibility standard: Unknown

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