类别学习中线性顺序的影响:拉姆斯卡尔等人(2010)的一些研究成果及其对重复训练研究的启示。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Eva Viviani, Michael Ramscar, Elizabeth Wonnacott
{"title":"类别学习中线性顺序的影响:拉姆斯卡尔等人(2010)的一些研究成果及其对重复训练研究的启示。","authors":"Eva Viviani,&nbsp;Michael Ramscar,&nbsp;Elizabeth Wonnacott","doi":"10.1111/cogs.13445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) showed how, consistent with the predictions of error-driven learning models, the order in which stimuli are presented in training can affect category learning. Specifically, learners exposed to artificial language input where objects preceded their labels learned the discriminating features of categories better than learners exposed to input where labels preceded objects. We sought to replicate this finding in two online experiments employing the same tests used originally: A four pictures test (match a label to one of four pictures) and a four labels test (match a picture to one of four labels). In our study, only findings from the four pictures test were consistent with the original result. Additionally, the effect sizes observed were smaller, and participants over-generalized high-frequency category labels more than in the original study. We suggest that although Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) feature-label order predictions were derived from error-driven learning, they failed to consider that this mechanism also predicts that performance in any training paradigm must inevitably be influenced by participant prior experience. We consider our findings in light of these factors, and discuss implications for the generalizability and replication of training studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13445","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Linear Order in Category Learning: Some Replications of Ramscar et al. (2010) and Their Implications for Replicating Training Studies\",\"authors\":\"Eva Viviani,&nbsp;Michael Ramscar,&nbsp;Elizabeth Wonnacott\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.13445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) showed how, consistent with the predictions of error-driven learning models, the order in which stimuli are presented in training can affect category learning. Specifically, learners exposed to artificial language input where objects preceded their labels learned the discriminating features of categories better than learners exposed to input where labels preceded objects. We sought to replicate this finding in two online experiments employing the same tests used originally: A four pictures test (match a label to one of four pictures) and a four labels test (match a picture to one of four labels). In our study, only findings from the four pictures test were consistent with the original result. Additionally, the effect sizes observed were smaller, and participants over-generalized high-frequency category labels more than in the original study. We suggest that although Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) feature-label order predictions were derived from error-driven learning, they failed to consider that this mechanism also predicts that performance in any training paradigm must inevitably be influenced by participant prior experience. We consider our findings in light of these factors, and discuss implications for the generalizability and replication of training studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13445\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13445\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13445","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Ramscar、Yarlett、Dye、Denny 和 Thorpe(2010 年)的研究表明,与错误驱动学习模型的预测一致,训练中刺激物的呈现顺序会影响类别学习。具体来说,学习者在接受人工语言输入时,对象先于标签,比接受输入时标签先于对象的学习者能更好地学习类别的辨别特征。我们试图在两个在线实验中重复这一发现,并采用了最初使用的相同测试:四幅图片测试(将一个标签与四幅图片中的一幅匹配)和四个标签测试(将一幅图片与四个标签中的一个匹配)。在我们的研究中,只有四幅图片测试的结果与最初的结果一致。此外,观察到的效应大小较小,而且与原始研究相比,参与者对高频类别标签的过度概括程度更高。我们认为,虽然 Ramscar、Yarlett、Dye、Denny 和 Thorpe(2010 年)的特征标签顺序预测是由错误驱动学习得出的,但他们没有考虑到这一机制也预测了在任何训练范式中的表现都不可避免地会受到参与者先前经验的影响。我们将根据这些因素来考虑我们的发现,并讨论对训练研究的推广和复制的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Effects of Linear Order in Category Learning: Some Replications of Ramscar et al. (2010) and Their Implications for Replicating Training Studies

The Effects of Linear Order in Category Learning: Some Replications of Ramscar et al. (2010) and Their Implications for Replicating Training Studies

Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) showed how, consistent with the predictions of error-driven learning models, the order in which stimuli are presented in training can affect category learning. Specifically, learners exposed to artificial language input where objects preceded their labels learned the discriminating features of categories better than learners exposed to input where labels preceded objects. We sought to replicate this finding in two online experiments employing the same tests used originally: A four pictures test (match a label to one of four pictures) and a four labels test (match a picture to one of four labels). In our study, only findings from the four pictures test were consistent with the original result. Additionally, the effect sizes observed were smaller, and participants over-generalized high-frequency category labels more than in the original study. We suggest that although Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) feature-label order predictions were derived from error-driven learning, they failed to consider that this mechanism also predicts that performance in any training paradigm must inevitably be influenced by participant prior experience. We consider our findings in light of these factors, and discuss implications for the generalizability and replication of training studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信