This article presents a theory of categorization that accounts for the effects of causal knowledge that relates the features of categories. According to causal-model theory, people explicitly represent the probabilistic causal mechanisms that link category features and classify objects by evaluating whether they were likely to have been generated by those mechanisms. In 3 experiments, participants were taught causal knowledge that related the features of a novel category. Causal-model theory provided a good quantitative account of the effect of this knowledge on the importance of both individual features and interfeature correlations to classification. By enabling precise model fits and interpretable parameter estimates, causal-model theory helps place the theory-based approach to conceptual representation on equal footing with the well-known similarity-based approaches. For the last several decades, research on the topic of categorization has focused on the problem of learning new categories via examples of category members, that is, from empirical observations. The result has been a host of categorization models that are based on representational ideas such as central prototypes, stored exemplars, and variabilized rules, and on processing principles such as similarity, that have considerable explanatory power and experimental support. More recently, the influence of the prior “theoretical ” knowledge that learners often contribute to their representations of categories has also been a topic of study (Carey,

conducted. Forty years of research has assumed that category learning often involves learning to selectively attend to only those stimulus dimensions useful for classification. We confirmed that participants learned to allocate their attention optimally. We also found that learners tend to fixate all stimulus dimensions early in learning. This result obtained despite evidence that participants were also testing one-dimensional rules during this period. Finally, the restriction of eye movements to only relevant dimensions tended to occur only after errors were largely (or completely) eliminated. We interpret these findings as consistent with multiple-systems theories of learning which maximize information input in order to maximize the number of learning modules involved, and which focus solely on relevant information only after one module has solved the learning problem.

Theories of categorization have typically focused on the internal structure of categories. This paper is concerned with the external structure of categories. In particular , it is suggested that many categories specify the relational role that is played by category members. To support this claim, the paper distinguishes between traditional feature-based categories, relational categories (which specify a relational structure) and role-governed categories (which specify that an item plays a particular role within a relational structure). After discussing the relationship among these types of categories, the implications of this view for the study of category learning and category use are discussed.

Several theories have been proposed regarding how causal relations among features of objects affect how those objects are classified. The assumptions of these theories were tested in 3 experiments that manipulated the causal knowledge associated with novel categories. There were 3 results. The 1st was a multiple cause effect in which a feature’s importance increases with its number of causes. The 2nd was a coherence effect in which good category members are those whose features jointly corroborate the category’s causal knowledge. These 2 effects can be accounted for by assuming that good category members are those likely to be generated by a category’s causal laws. The 3rd result was a primary cause effect, in which primary causes are more important to category membership. This effect can also be explained by a generative account with an additional assumption: that categories often are perceived to have hidden generative causes.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Classification “rules” in expert and everyday discourse are usually deficient by formal standards, lacking explicit decision procedures and precise terms. The authors argue that a central function of such weak rules is to focus on perceptual learning rather than to provide definitions. In 5 experiments, transfer following learning of family resemblance categories was influenced more by familiar-appearing features than by novel-appearing features equally acceptable under the rule. This occurred both when rules were induced and when rules were given at the beginning of instruction. To model this and other phenomena in categorization, features must be represented on 2 levels: informational and instantiated. These 2 feature levels are crucial to provide broad generalization while reflecting the known peculiarities of a complex world.

One central function of categories is to allow people to infer the presence of features that cannot be directly observed.

A study of the combined influence of prior knowledge and stimulus dimensionality on category learning was conducted. Subjects learned category structures with the same number of necessary dimensions but with more or fewer additional, redundant dimensions and with either knowledge-related or knowledge-unrelated features. Minimal-learning models predict that all subjects, regardless of condition, either should learn the same number of dimensions or should respond more slowly to each dimension. Despite similar learning rates and response times, subjects learned more features in the high-dimensional than in the low-dimensional condition. Furthermore, prior knowledge interacted with dimensionality, increasing what was learned, especially in the highdimensional case. A second experiment confirmed that the participants did, in fact, learn more features during the training phase, rather than simply inferring them at test. These effects can be explained by direct associations

Abstract not found

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: