1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 分類學習上的類別變異效果
Category-variability effect on category learning
作者 吳岳勳
Wu, Yueh Hsun
貢獻者 楊立行
Yang, Lee Xieng
吳岳勳
Wu, Yueh Hsun
關鍵詞 類別變異
分類學習
聽覺分類實驗
相似性理論
規則為基礎理論
Category variability
Category learning
Auditory categorization task
Similarity-based model
Rule-based model
日期 2012
上傳時間 1-Feb-2013 16:53:05 (UTC+8)
摘要 在過去的分類學習研究中有個重要的問題始終無法得到確切的解答，Rips(1989)發現人們對於介在兩個不同變異類別正中間、距兩類別相等的目標刺激在分類判斷上傾向將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，即為類別變異效果，後續研究認為人們是否知覺類別變異會影響人們是否在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別的因素，本研究便以兩個層次探討知覺類別變異對於分類決策的影響，首先在實驗一利用了指導語影響受試者對於類別結構的變異知覺，結果發現是否提供類別變異線索並不會使得人們在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別，實驗二和實驗四利用了調整刺激材料的變異程度試圖以不同的變異組合影響人們對於變異程度的知覺，實驗結果顯示在加大了兩類別的變異程度後，人們更容易知覺到變異程度的不同而偏好將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，另外，本研究採用了經由mel scale 轉換的單音聽覺刺激材料進行實驗，並在實驗三中以相似性評分實驗和MDS 分析確認目標刺激的位置如同實驗預期，且變異程度設定與研究假設相同。最後透過視覺刺激材料也得到和聽覺刺激材料相同的結果，整個研究發現若是以調整知覺層次上類別的變異程度在兩類別變異差距較大時，人們便容易知覺類別變異差異，進而引發類別變異效果，但若類別間變異程度差異不大，即使以口語方式提供類別變異線索也無法引發類別變異效果，本研究並整理過去數個相似的研究，以展現類別變異差距的指標統整歧異的結果，發現若在變異程度差距較大時，就容易出現類別變異效果，反之
則不會出現，此結果也穩定存在在不同類型刺激材料間。
There has been an important question about the effect of category variability on category learning. The similarity-based and rule-based theory predict how the critical item laid right in the middle between low-variability and high- variability category in two contrary ways. Rips(1989) used the natural category to examine the similarity judgment and classification on the same target. Result showed that people made a total contrast decision, while the target is much similar to low-variability stimulus and classified into high-variability category. The similarity judgment followed the prediction of similarity-based theory, but the classification followed the rule-based theory. Past studies on category-variability effect hasn’t generated consistent result. This study examine how category effect is caused whether the variance difference between categories could be aware. Result show both the cue of category variance is told or not didn’t made people prefer the high-variability category, while the variance difference is increased can caused the category-variability effect, especially when the low-variability category is limited on a smaller variance. It show that whether people are aware of variance difference is an important factor can cause category-variability effect. In addition, it can explain the inconsistent result from past studies with different variability setting in each studies.
參考文獻 Anderson, A., Ross, B., & Chin-Parker, S. (2002). A further investigation of category learning by inference. Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 119-128.
Ashby, F. G., & Alfonso-Reese, L. A. (1995). Categorization as Probability Density Estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39(2), 216-233.
Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 33-53.
Ashby, F. G., & Lee, W. W. (1991). Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(2), 150-172.
Ashby, F. G., Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. (2002). Observational versus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 30(5), 666-677.
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114(3), 539-576.
Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, A., Nosofsky, R., & Zaki, S. (2001). Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1165-1175.
Estes, W. K. (1986). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 500-549.
Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 234-257.
Hsu, A. S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Effects of generative and discriminative learning on use of category variability. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and conceptual development: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500-526.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 99(1), 22-44.
Lockhead, G. R. (1966). Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 95-104.
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A Network Model of Category Learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 111(2), 309-332.
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 53(1), 49-70.
Maddox, W. T., Molis, M., & Diehl, R. (2002). Generalizing a neuropsychological model of visual categorization to auditory categorization of vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 64(4), 584-597.
Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592-613.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist; American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254-278.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39-57.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101(1), 53-79.
Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 548-568.
Posner, M. I., Boies, S. J., Eichelman, W. H., & Taylor, R. L. (1969). Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(1, Pt.2), 1-16.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 382-407.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. (pp. 21-59): New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Rips, L. J., & Collins, A. (1993). Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(4), 468-486.
Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Category-based predictions: Influence of uncertainty and feature associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 736-753.
Sakamoto, Y., Love, B. C., & Jones, M. (2006). Tracking Variability in Learning: Contrasting Statistical and Similarity-Based Accounts. Proceedings of Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology;Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 54-87.
Smith, E. E., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16(1), 1-40.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 377-386.
Steinberg, J. C. (1937). Positions of Stimulation in the Cochlea by Pure Tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8(3), 176-180.
Stevens, S. S., Volkmann, J., & Newman, E. B. (1937). A scale for the measurement of the psychological magnitude pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8, 185-190.
Stewart, N., & Chater, N. (2002). The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(5), 893-907.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學研究所
99752003
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099752003
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 楊立行zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yang, Lee Xiengen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳岳勳zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wu, Yueh Hsunen_US
dc.creator (作者) 吳岳勳zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wu, Yueh Hsunen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Feb-2013 16:53:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Feb-2013 16:53:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Feb-2013 16:53:05 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0099752003en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56875-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 心理學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99752003zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在過去的分類學習研究中有個重要的問題始終無法得到確切的解答，Rips(1989)發現人們對於介在兩個不同變異類別正中間、距兩類別相等的目標刺激在分類判斷上傾向將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，即為類別變異效果，後續研究認為人們是否知覺類別變異會影響人們是否在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別的因素，本研究便以兩個層次探討知覺類別變異對於分類決策的影響，首先在實驗一利用了指導語影響受試者對於類別結構的變異知覺，結果發現是否提供類別變異線索並不會使得人們在分類判斷上偏好高變異類別，實驗二和實驗四利用了調整刺激材料的變異程度試圖以不同的變異組合影響人們對於變異程度的知覺，實驗結果顯示在加大了兩類別的變異程度後，人們更容易知覺到變異程度的不同而偏好將目標刺激分類至高變異類別，另外，本研究採用了經由mel scale 轉換的單音聽覺刺激材料進行實驗，並在實驗三中以相似性評分實驗和MDS 分析確認目標刺激的位置如同實驗預期，且變異程度設定與研究假設相同。最後透過視覺刺激材料也得到和聽覺刺激材料相同的結果，整個研究發現若是以調整知覺層次上類別的變異程度在兩類別變異差距較大時，人們便容易知覺類別變異差異，進而引發類別變異效果，但若類別間變異程度差異不大，即使以口語方式提供類別變異線索也無法引發類別變異效果，本研究並整理過去數個相似的研究，以展現類別變異差距的指標統整歧異的結果，發現若在變異程度差距較大時，就容易出現類別變異效果，反之
則不會出現，此結果也穩定存在在不同類型刺激材料間。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) There has been an important question about the effect of category variability on category learning. The similarity-based and rule-based theory predict how the critical item laid right in the middle between low-variability and high- variability category in two contrary ways. Rips(1989) used the natural category to examine the similarity judgment and classification on the same target. Result showed that people made a total contrast decision, while the target is much similar to low-variability stimulus and classified into high-variability category. The similarity judgment followed the prediction of similarity-based theory, but the classification followed the rule-based theory. Past studies on category-variability effect hasn’t generated consistent result. This study examine how category effect is caused whether the variance difference between categories could be aware. Result show both the cue of category variance is told or not didn’t made people prefer the high-variability category, while the variance difference is increased can caused the category-variability effect, especially when the low-variability category is limited on a smaller variance. It show that whether people are aware of variance difference is an important factor can cause category-variability effect. In addition, it can explain the inconsistent result from past studies with different variability setting in each studies.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 表目錄 6
圖目錄 7
中文摘要 1
英文摘要 2
分類學習上的類別變異效果 3
相似性為基礎的理論與規則為基礎的理論 4
類別變異在目標刺激分類判斷上扮演的腳色 14
不同分類策略的運用 19
實驗一 23
實驗參與者 23
刺激材料 23
實驗程序 24
實驗結果 25
討論 27
實驗二 29
實驗參與者 29
刺激材料 29
實驗程序 30
實驗結果 31
討論 33
實驗三 37
實驗參與者 37
刺激材料 37
實驗程序 37
分析方式 38
實驗結果 38
討論 38
實驗四 43
實驗參與者 43
刺激材料 43
實驗程序 44
實驗結果 45
討論 47
實驗五 49
實驗參與者 49
刺激材料 49
實驗程序 50
實驗結果 50
討論 51
綜合討論 54
刺激材料的選用 54
不同類別變異的設定 55
不同實驗派典下的情境線索與不同分類策略 59
相似性理論的改進 60
未來研究方向 63
結論 64
參考文獻 66
附錄一 實驗一提供類別變異線索指導語 70
附錄二 實驗一未提供類別變異線索指導語 71
附錄三 實驗二與實驗四之指導語 72
附錄四 實驗三指導語 73
附錄五 實驗五指導語 74
附錄六 實驗二與實驗四問卷式回憶測驗問卷 75
附錄七 實驗五問卷式回憶測驗問卷 75
附錄八 所有實驗測試階段分析 76		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099752003en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 類別變異zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 分類學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 聽覺分類實驗zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 相似性理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 規則為基礎理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Category variabilityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Category learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Auditory categorization tasken_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Similarity-based modelen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Rule-based modelen_US
dc.title (題名) 分類學習上的類別變異效果zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Category-variability effect on category learningen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Anderson, A., Ross, B., & Chin-Parker, S. (2002). A further investigation of category learning by inference. Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 119-128.
Ashby, F. G., & Alfonso-Reese, L. A. (1995). Categorization as Probability Density Estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39(2), 216-233.
Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 33-53.
Ashby, F. G., & Lee, W. W. (1991). Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(2), 150-172.
Ashby, F. G., Maddox, W. T., & Bohil, C. (2002). Observational versus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 30(5), 666-677.
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114(3), 539-576.
Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, A., Nosofsky, R., & Zaki, S. (2001). Category variability, exemplar similarity, and perceptual classification. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1165-1175.
Estes, W. K. (1986). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 500-549.
Fried, L. S., & Holyoak, K. J. (1984). Induction of category distributions: A framework for classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(2), 234-257.
Hsu, A. S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2010). Effects of generative and discriminative learning on use of category variability. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and conceptual development: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500-526.
Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 99(1), 22-44.
Lockhead, G. R. (1966). Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 95-104.
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A Network Model of Category Learning. Psychological Review;Psychological Review, 111(2), 309-332.
Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1993). Comparing decision bound and exemplar models of categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 53(1), 49-70.
Maddox, W. T., Molis, M., & Diehl, R. (2002). Generalizing a neuropsychological model of visual categorization to auditory categorization of vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 64(4), 584-597.
Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592-613.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist; American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254-278.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39-57.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101(1), 53-79.
Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 548-568.
Posner, M. I., Boies, S. J., Eichelman, W. H., & Taylor, R. L. (1969). Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(1, Pt.2), 1-16.
Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 382-407.
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. (pp. 21-59): New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Rips, L. J., & Collins, A. (1993). Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(4), 468-486.
Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1996). Category-based predictions: Influence of uncertainty and feature associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 736-753.
Sakamoto, Y., Love, B. C., & Jones, M. (2006). Tracking Variability in Learning: Contrasting Statistical and Similarity-Based Accounts. Proceedings of Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology;Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 54-87.
Smith, E. E., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16(1), 1-40.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 377-386.
Steinberg, J. C. (1937). Positions of Stimulation in the Cochlea by Pure Tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8(3), 176-180.
Stevens, S. S., Volkmann, J., & Newman, E. B. (1937). A scale for the measurement of the psychological magnitude pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8, 185-190.
Stewart, N., & Chater, N. (2002). The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(5), 893-907.		zh_TW