Results 1  10
of
14
Striatal Contributions to Category Learning: Quantitative modeling of simple linear and complex nonlinear rule learning in patients with Parkinson's disease
, 2001
"... The contribution of the striatum to category learning was examined by having patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and matched controls solve categorization problems in which the optimal rule was linear or nonlinear using the perceptual categorization task. Traditional accuracybased analyse ..."
Abstract

Cited by 57 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The contribution of the striatum to category learning was examined by having patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and matched controls solve categorization problems in which the optimal rule was linear or nonlinear using the perceptual categorization task. Traditional accuracybased analyses, as well as quantitative modelbased analyses were performed. Unlike accuracybased analyses, the modelbased analyses allow one to quantify and separate the effects of categorization rule learning from variability in the trialbytrial application of the participant's rule. When the categorization rule was linear, PD patients showed no accuracy, categorization rule learning, or rule application variability deficits. Categorization accuracy for the PD patients was associated with their performance on a test believed to be sensitive to frontal lobe functioning. In contrast, when the categorization rule was nonlinear, the PD patients showed accuracy, categorization rule learning, and rule application variability deficits. Furthermore, categorization accuracy was not associated with performance on the test of frontal lobe functioning. Implications for neuropsychological theories of categorization learning are discussed. (JINS, 2001, 7, 710 727.) Keywords: Categorization, Parkinson's disease, Striatum, Memory, Learning
On the Relation Between Baserate and CostBenefit Learning in Simulated Medical Diagnosis
, 2001
"... Observers completed a series of simulated medical diagnosis tasks that differed in category discriminability and baserate/costbenefit ratio. Point, accuracy, and decision criterion estimates were closer to optimal (a) for category d' = 2.2 than for category d' = 1.0 or 3.2, (b) when base ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Observers completed a series of simulated medical diagnosis tasks that differed in category discriminability and baserate/costbenefit ratio. Point, accuracy, and decision criterion estimates were closer to optimal (a) for category d' = 2.2 than for category d' = 1.0 or 3.2, (b) when baserates, as opposed to costbenefits were manipulated, and (c) when the cost of an incorrect response resulted in no point loss (nonnegative cost) as opposed to a point loss (negative cost). These results support the "flatmaxima" (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1982) and COmpetition Between Reward and Accuracy (COBRA; Maddox & Bohil, 1998a) hypotheses. A hybrid model that instantiated simultaneously both hypotheses was applied to the data. The model parameters indicated that (a) the rewardmaximizing decision criterion quickly approached the optimal criterion, (b) the importance placed on accuracy maximization early in learning was larger when the cost of an incorrect response was negative as opposed to nonnegative, and (c) by the end of training the importance placed on accuracy was equal for negative and nonnegative costs.
Category discriminability, baserate, and payoff effects in perceptual organization
 Perception & Psychophysics
, 2001
"... (i.e., d ¢ level), base rates, and payoffs was examined. Baserate and payoff manipulations across two category discriminabilities allowed a test of the hypothesis that the steepness of the objective reward function affects performance (i.e., the flatmaxima hypothesis), as well as the hypothesis th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(i.e., d ¢ level), base rates, and payoffs was examined. Baserate and payoff manipulations across two category discriminabilities allowed a test of the hypothesis that the steepness of the objective reward function affects performance (i.e., the flatmaxima hypothesis), as well as the hypothesis that observers combine baserate and payoff information independently. Performance was (1) closer to optimal for the steeper objective reward function, in line with the flatmaxima hypothesis, (2) closer to optimal in baserate conditions than in payoff conditions, and (3) in partial support of the hypothesis that baserate and payoff knowledge is combined independently. Implications for current theories of baserate and payoff learning are discussed.
Feedback effects on cost–benefit learning in perceptual categorization
 Memory & Cognition
, 2001
"... Two experiments were conducted in which the effects of different feedback displays on decision criterion learning were examined in a perceptual categorization task with unequal cost–benefits. In Experiment 1, immediate versus delayed feedback was combined factorially with objective versus optimal cl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Two experiments were conducted in which the effects of different feedback displays on decision criterion learning were examined in a perceptual categorization task with unequal cost–benefits. In Experiment 1, immediate versus delayed feedback was combined factorially with objective versus optimal classifier feedback. Immediate versus delayed feedback had no effect. Performance improved significantly over blocks with optimal classifier feedback and remained relatively stable with objective feedback. Experiment 2 used a withinsubjects design that allowed a test of modelbased instantiations of the flatmaxima (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1982) and competition between reward and accuracy (Maddox & Bohil, 1998a) hypotheses in isolation and of a hybrid model that incorporated assumptions from both hypotheses. The modelbased analyses indicated that the flatmaxima model provided a good description of early learning but that the assumptions of the hybrid model were necessary to account for later learning. An examination of the hybrid model parameters indicated that the emphasis placed on accuracy maximization generally declined with experience for optimal classifier feedback but remained high, and fairly constant for objective classifier feedback. Implications for cost–benefit training are discussed.
On the generality of optimal versus objective classifier feedback effects on decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization
 Memory & Cognition
"... Biased category payoff matrices engender separate reward and accuracymaximizing decision criteria. Although instructed to maximize reward, observers use suboptimal decision criteria that place greater emphasis on accuracy than is optimal. This study compared objective classifier feedback (the obj ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Biased category payoff matrices engender separate reward and accuracymaximizing decision criteria. Although instructed to maximize reward, observers use suboptimal decision criteria that place greater emphasis on accuracy than is optimal. This study compared objective classifier feedback (the objectively correct response) with optimal classifier feedback (the optimal classifier’s response) at two levels of category discriminability when zero or negative costs accompanied incorrect responses for two payoff matrix multiplication factors. Performance was superior for optimal classifier feedback relative to objective classifier feedback for both zero and negative cost conditions, especially when category discriminability was low, but the magnitude of the optimal classifier advantage was approximately equal for zero and negative cost conditions. The optimal classifier feedback performance advantage did not interact with the payoff matrix multiplication factor. Modelbased analyses suggested that the weight placed on
A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Effects of Simultaneous BaseRate and Payoff . . .
, 2003
"... ..."
A test of the optimal classifier's independence . . .
 PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
, 2003
"... this article are based on the decision boundmodel in Equation 5. Specifically, each model includes one "noise" parameter that represents the sum of perceptual and criterial noise (Ashby, 1992a; Maddox& Ashby, 1993). Each model assumes that the observer has accurate knowledge of the cat ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
this article are based on the decision boundmodel in Equation 5. Specifically, each model includes one "noise" parameter that represents the sum of perceptual and criterial noise (Ashby, 1992a; Maddox& Ashby, 1993). Each model assumes that the observer has accurate knowledge of the category structures [i.e., l o (x pi )]. To ensure that this was a reasonable assumption, each observer completed a number of baseline trials and was required to meet a stringent performance criterion (see Method section). Finally,each model allows for suboptimal decision criterion placement where the decision criterion is determined from the flatmaxima hypothesis, the COBRA hypothesis, or both, following Equation 6. To determine whether the flatmaxima and COBRA hypothesesare important in accountingfor each observer's data, we developed four models. Each model makes different assumptions about the k r and w values used. The nested structure of the models is represented in Figure 5, with each arrow pointing to a more general model and Figure 4. Decision criterion [ln( b )] predicted from the flatmaxima hypothesisplotted against the decision criterion [ln( b )] predicted from the independence assumption of the optimal classifier for the six simultaneous baserate/payoff conditions. (A) 2:1B/2:1P condition. (B) 3:1B/3:1P condition
Journal of Expenraeal Psychology Copyrighl 20D1 by Ih American Psychoiogc. Assocatioa. Inc, Learning, Mmor, nnd Cogmteon 0277393/01P$5.fJ DO1 ID 1037//0278739327.6.1367 200L o. 2:7. No. 6. [3671384
, 2001
"... this article. We also thank Lofilei Carderhas and Robert F. zwin for help with data collection ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
this article. We also thank Lofilei Carderhas and Robert F. zwin for help with data collection