PubMed · 5566585
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Pasnak. 1971. Pattern complexity and response to distinctive features.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5566585/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The ALCOVE model of category learning, despite its considerable success in accounting for human performance across a wide range of empirical tasks, is limited by its reliance on spatial stimulus representations. Some stimulus domains are better suited to featural representation, characterizing stimuli in terms of the presence or absence of discrete features, rather than as points in a multidimensional space. We report on empirical data measuring human categorization performance across a featural stimulus domain and show that ALCOVE is unable to capture fundamental qualitative aspects of this performance. In response, a featural version of the ALCOVE model is developed, replacing the spatial stimulus representations that are usually generated by multidimensional scaling with featural representations generated by additive clustering. We demonstrate that this featural version of ALCOVE is able to capture human performance where the spatial model failed, explaining the difference in terms of the contrasting representational assumptions made by the two approaches. Finally, we discuss ways in which the ALCOVE categorization model might be extended further to use "hybrid" representational structures combining spatial and featural components.
People often falsely recognize nonstudied lures that are semantically similar to previously studied words. Behavioral research suggests that such false recognition is based on high semantic overlap between studied items and lures that yield a feeling of familiarity, whereas true recognition is more often associated with the recollection of details. Despite this behavioral evidence for differences between true and false recognition, research measuring brain activity (PET, fMRI, ERP) has not clearly differentiated corresponding differences in brain activity. A median split was used to separate subjects into Good and Poor performers based on their discrimination of studied targets from similar lures. Only Good performers showed late (1000--1500 msec), right frontal event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that were more positive for targets and lures compared with new items. The right frontal differences are interpreted as reflecting postretrieval evaluation processes that were more likely to be engaged by Good than Poor performers. Both Good and Poor performers showed a parietal ERP old/new effect (400--800 msec), but only Poor performers showed a parietal old/lure difference. These results are consistent with the view that the parietal and frontal ERP old/new effects reflect dissociable processes related to recollection.
It is well known that judgments of oblique line segments are more variable and less accurate than are judgments of horizontal or vertical segments, i.e., the "oblique effect." A prior study from our laboratories confirmed these differentials for a task in which the collinearity of segments at various angular positions was judged. Further, that study found that each observer manifests a distinct, idiosyncratic profile of errors across the 360 degrees range. These error tendencies are conspicuous in models derived by harmonic analysis, and we describe significant excursions of a given model as "delta errors." The present experiments found complex profiles of delta error with various stimulus and test conditions. A given subject manifested similar models of delta error when judging collinearity of dot pairs versus line segments. In the prior work the segments to be judged were asymmetrically positioned upon the test sheet. However, the asymmetric positioning is not responsible for the errors, as the present work found errors excursions with a round display field. Similar profiles of delta error were found when subjects were allowed to mark an open space, versus being required to respond at a specific distance (indicated by a target circle). This addresses questions of whether the error should be measured as an angle. In the two final experiments, we present evidence that the source of delta error within the nervous system is at the point of binocular synthesis of the information from the two eyes, or beyond, and the effects are not due to errors of reaching. Potential neural substrates for these complex, idiosyncratic error tendencies are discussed.