Exemplar representation without generalization? Comment on Smith and Minda's (2000) "Thirty categorization results in search of a model".
Exemplar representation without generalization? Comment on Smith and Minda's (2000) "Thirty categorization results in search of a model".
复制标题
没有概括的典型代表？
DOI：
10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1735
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nosofsky,RM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nosofsky,RM
JD Smith和JP Minda（见记录1999-15928-001）对分类文献中报告的30个数据集进行了荟萃分析，这些数据集涉及使用DL Medin和MM Schaffer（1978）引入的”5-4”类别结构。元分析的目的是调查范例和详细的原型模型的分类。在这篇评论中，作者认为荟萃分析是误导性的，因为它包括了许多来自实验设计的数据集，这些数据集不适合区分模型。通常情况下，设计涉及的操作中，实际的5-4结构是没有，在现实中，测试，无效的预测模型。评注还澄清了基于范例的语境模式的工作的各个方面。最后，提出的关注，所有或没有范例的过程，史密斯和明达的（见记录1999-15928-001）的一部分，详细的原型模型是难以置信的，缺乏一般性。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2016阿帕，保留所有权利）
JD Smith and JP Minda (see record 1999-15928-001) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 data sets reported in the classification literature that involved use of the" 5–4" category structure introduced by DL Medin and MM Schaffer (1978). The meta-analysis was aimed at investigating exemplar and elaborated prototype models of categorization. In this commentary, the author argues that the meta-analysis is misleading because it includes many data sets from experimental designs that are inappropriate for distinguishing the models. Often, the designs involved manipulations in which the actual 5–4 structure was not, in reality, tested, voiding the predictions of the models. The commentary also clarifies various aspects of the workings of the exemplar-based context model. Finally, concerns are raised that the all-or-none exemplar processes that form part of Smith and Minda's (see record 1999-15928-001) elaborated prototype models are implausible and lacking in generality.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)