Jump to content

User:ElanJM/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:ElanJM

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElanJM (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 19 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Heading 1

Early Studies

[I am having trouble separating this and Possible Explanations] [Another issue is staying on track. Most of the literature is about how we categorize information The major dispute is against the Classical view and other views like the Prototype view] [I still need to sort out a few things but there are excellent contradictory findings]

Rosch et al. 1973, 1975 used family resemblance to explain the categorization. They address the central tendency as a potential explanation. Also argue against frequency as a possible explanation Rosch argues that many natural categories are continuous and are structured according to the degree to which they are judged to be good examples of that category.

Rosch identifies five types of typicality effects 1. Subject ratings of the typicality of items. 2. Order in which category items are learned 3. Verification times for category membership 4. Probability of item output 5. Expectations generated by category name [1] [2]


Barsalou provides a good overview, criticizes early tests by Rossa, & Mervis et al. Another suggestion is ideals, which are similar in principle, but are not necessarily the central tendency of their category. Rather, they are at the periphery of their categories and tend to be extreme values. One example is zero calories as an ideal for the category of diet. Obviously this value is not central, but is certainly typical of the category of ‘diet’.[3]

Categorization

Findings by Rips, Schoben, and Smith in 1973 were inconsistent with models on memory that posited a hierarchical structure (pg 207).

Hierarchical models include ‘Set inclusion’, or the “IS-A” relation. They suggest a structural hierarchy whereby properties at the subordinate level are present in superordinate levels. As one moves across each level, this is supposed to require more time. For example, it should take longer to verify that ‘a pine is a plant’ than ‘a pine is an evergreen’ because one has to move up more levels to reach the superodinate level of ‘plant’. [4] [5]

[This could be a good place for a diagram]

Obviously typicality effects pose a challenge to this theory.

Rips, Shoben, and Smith (1973) demonstrated that the ease with which people judge category membership depends on the typicality of category members. [6]

Learning

Word Meaning

Language and Arguments

When subjects mention two category members together in a sentence the more typical one is likely to be mentioned first.[7] For example, one is more likely to say 'apples and limes' over 'limes and apples'.

Possible Explanations

[This part is challenging without overlapping with the early studies and going off track]

Classical View Prototype view

Examples

[Again, need to ensure this covers ideas not mentioned in early studies] [I was thinking of putting bullets of examples of common typicality effects] [This might also be a good place for an image]

[8]

Voice

Mullennix et al 2009 Typicality effects have been shown to be present in voice recognition. This can be applied to real-life as it plays a role in earwitness testimony. [9]- Highly typical target voices and highly typical voice foils were confused the most. [10]

Vision

This effect is also seen with visual stimuli, such that it takes less time to identify a picture of a robin as a bird than a picture of a chicken as a bird. [11] [12] [13]

Effects in Specific Populations

Children

The literature shows that by 12 months, children begin to associate object words with prototypical objects. It is not until 18 months that children start to associate words with atypical exemplars, such as, a bird with an ostrich. [14] Studies with 15, 18, and 24 month year olds have shown typicality effects in their preferential looking. By measuring the longest look and total amount of looking, researchers aim to measure the infant’s perception of the typicality of the situation. [15] [16]

[Maybe a section with Mental Disorders or Brain Lesions]

References

  1. ^ Rosch, Eleanor (Jan 1 1976). "Structural bases of typicality effects". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2 (4): 491–502. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.491. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Murphy, Gregory L. (2004). The big book of concepts (1st MIT Press paperback ed. ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 23. ISBN 0262632993. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ Barsalou, Lawrence W (Oct 1985). "Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 11 (4): 629–654. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.4.629. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  4. ^ Murphy, Gregory L. (2004). The big book of concepts (1st MIT Press paperback ed. ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 23. ISBN 0262632993. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ Collins, A (1 April 1969). "Retrieval time from semantic memory". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 8 (2): 240–247. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Rips, L (1). "Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 12 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Kelly, Michael H (Feb 1986). "Prototypicality in a linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure". Journal of Memory and Language. 25 (1): 59–74. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90021-5. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Goldin, Sarah E. (1). "Memory for the ordinary: Typicality effects in chess memory". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory. 4 (6): 605–616. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.605. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Mullennix, J. W. (7). "Typicality effects on memory for voice: Implications for earwitness testimony". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (1): 29–34. doi:10.1002/acp.1635. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ Mullennix, J. W. (7). "Typicality effects on memory for voice: Implications for earwitness testimony". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 25 (1): 29–34. doi:10.1002/acp.1635. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Murphy, Gregory L. (2004). The big book of concepts (1st MIT Press paperback ed. ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p. 23. ISBN 0262632993. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  12. ^ Busey, TA (1999). "Accounts of blending, distinctiveness, and typicality in the false recognition of faces". Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. 25 (5): 1210–35. PMID 10505343. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ Tanaka, JW (2007). "Typicality effects in face and object perception: further evidence for the attractor field model". Perception & psychophysics. 69 (4): 619–27. PMID 17727115. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. ^ Meints, Kerstin (2002). "What is 'on' and 'under' for 15-, 18- and 24- month-olds? Typicality effects in early comprehension of spatial prepositions". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 20 (1): 113–130. doi:10.1348/026151002166352. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ Meints, Kerstin (2002). "What is 'on' and 'under' for 15-, 18- and 24- month-olds? Typicality effects in early comprehension of spatial prepositions". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 20 (1): 113–130. doi:10.1348/026151002166352. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ Jerger, S (2005). "What's in a name? Typicality and relatedness effects in children". Journal of experimental child psychology. 92 (1): 46–75. PMID 15904928. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ElanJM/sandbox&oldid=482659638"