ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
Model-guided search for optimal natural-science-category training exemplars: A work in progress.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food, mammals, & countries: Stimuli, their pairwise similarities, and MDS dimension values for modeling judgment, categorization, and memory in three real-world domains.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- High coherence among training exemplars promotes broad generalization of face families.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Article
- What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? modeling numerical judgments of realistic stimuli.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Jackdaws form categorical prototypes based on experience with category exemplars.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- Coherent category training enhances generalization in prototype-based categories.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2023Article
- Investigating interactions between types of order in categorization.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Learning hierarchically organized science categories: simultaneous instruction at the high and subtype levels.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Under the guidance of a formal exemplar model of categorization, we conduct comparisons of natural-science classification learning across four conditions in which the nature of the training examples is manipulated. The specific domain of inquiry is rock classification in the geologic sciences; the goal is to use the model to search for optimal training examples for teaching the rock categories. On the positive side, the model makes a number of successful predictions: Most notably, compared with conditions involving focused training on small sets of training examples, generalization to novel transfer items is significantly enhanced in a condition in which learners experience a broad swath of training examples from each category. Nevertheless, systematic departures from the model predictions are also observed. Further analyses lead us to the hypothesis that the high-dimensional feature-space representation derived for the rock stimuli (to which the exemplar model makes reference) systematically underestimates within-category similarities. We suggest that this limitation is likely to arise in numerous situations in which investigators attempt to build detailed feature-space representations for naturalistic categories. A low-parameter extended version of the model that adjusts for this limitation provides dramatically improved accounts of performance across the four conditions. We outline future steps for enhancing the current feature-space representation and continuing our goal of using formal psychological models to guide the search for effective methods of teaching science categories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29987765What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.