Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459219›Full record

ArticleComputational brain & behavior2025

Creating Something Different: Similarity, Contrast, and Representativeness in Categorization.

Joseph L Austerweil, Shi Xian Liew, Nolan Conaway, Kenneth J Kurtz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph L Austerweil *Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, 53706 WI USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1316-4691
Shi Xian Liew *School of Psychology, University of South New Wales, Mathews Building, Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia.
Nolan ConawayDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, 53706 WI USA.
Kenneth J KurtzDepartment of Psychology, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 12042 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to generate new concepts and ideas is among the most fascinating aspects of human cognition, but we do not have a strong understanding of the cognitive processes and representations underlying concept generation. Previous work in this domain has focused on how the statistical structure of known categories generalizes to generated categories, overlooking whether (and if so, how) contrast between the known and generated categories is a factor. In this paper, we explore a different factor: contrast from known categories. We propose two novel approaches to modeling category contrast: one focused on exemplar dissimilarity and another based on the representativeness heuristic. Across three behavioral experiments, we find that people generate new categories that contrast from observed categories and distribute exemplars acoss "unoccupied" regions of stimulus space. The model based on the representativeness heuristic captured human category generation better when the known category was well captured by a Gaussian distribution. Conversely, the exemplar-based model captured human-generated categories better when the known category was not Gaussian distributed. Our results suggest contrast is a fundamental principle used in generating exemplars of a new category. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42113-024-00209-5.

Indexed as

CategorizationCategory learningComputational modelingConceptsExemplar modelsGenerationRepresentativeness

Identifiers

PMID42459219
PMCPMC13298683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.