期刊文献+

归类优势与基本水平效应的再探讨 被引量:1

Re-examining the Classifying Advantage and Basic Level Effect
下载PDF
导出
摘要 类别特异性分数是预测归类优势的有效指标。实验1考察该分数能否预测基本水平归类优势,结果:分数较高的表现归类优势。实验2检验有归类优势的下位类别的分数,结果:它们都有较高分数,同时发现下位类别的特异性可以影响分数。实验3探讨相同的基本水平与特异性不同的下位组合的归类表现,结果:下位特异性低就表现基本水平归类优势,高则相反。据此提出"经验说",分数高低与人们在经验中对各层次类别形成的表征特异性程度相关。 People are generally faster and more accurate to name or categorize objects at the basic level (e.g., dog), which is known as basic level effect. Previous researchers interpreted basic level effect as the comprehensive effects of steep rise of within-category similarity and slow rise of between-category similarity. But such an explanation can’t explain why People are sometimes faster and more accurate to name or categorize objects at the subordinate (e.g., pigeon). An operational method of computing the comprehensive effects was put forward in this study, which was called Scores of Category Specificity and defined as the difference between inferior between-category similarity and superior between-category similarity. We suggested that the category whose score was relatively high in its category series would show classifying advantages. Weather the scores could predict people’s classifying performance at basic-level categories was tested in Experiment 1. The results showed that subjects performed faster and more accurately at basic level in classifying tasks when the scores of basic-level categories were relatively high and that on the contrary was not true. In Experiment 2, we computing the scores of subordinate categories which had been proved that people were faster and more accurate to name or categorize objects at and referred to as special cases in previous studies. The results showed that people performed faster and more accurately at these subordinate categories just because the scores of these categories were relatively high, rather than interpreted as special cases. We found at the same time that specificity of subordinate categories had an impact on the scores. In Experiment 3, we further explored whether people had different performance when the same basic level category was combined with subordinate categories of different specificity. The results showed that people were faster and more accurate at basic level categories if they were combined with subordinate categories with low specificity and that people were faster and more accurate at subordinate categories if basic level categories were combined with subordinate categories with high specificity. Scores of Category Specificity were an effective indicator to predict at which level of categories people performed better in classifying tasks. The reason why scores of levels of categories varied was that people formed different degree of representational specificity according to various levels of taxonomical series in daily experience, which was known as Experience Theory.
作者 毋嫘 莫雷
出处 《心理学报》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2011年第2期143-151,共9页 Acta Psychologica Sinica
基金 教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目(05JZD00034)
关键词 基本水平类别 下位类别 相似性分数 类别特异性分数 归类优势 经验说 basic-level category subordinate category similarity scores of category specificity classifying advantage experience theory
  • 相关文献

参考文献28

  • 1Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ogmen, H. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1572-1595.
  • 2Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.
  • 3Collin, C. A., & McMullen, P. A. (2005). Subordinate-level categorization lies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(2), 354-364.
  • 4Collin, C. A. (2006). Spatial-frequency thresholds for object categorization at basic and subordinate levels. Perception, 35, 41-52.
  • 5Edmas, P. D., & Quinn, P. C. (1994). Studies on the formation of perceptually based basic-level categories in young infants. Child Development, 65, 903-917.
  • 6Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: providing a ground work. Cognition, 52, 125-157.
  • 7Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: As soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. 'Psychological Science, 16, 152-160.
  • 8Greene, M. R., & Oliva, A. (2006). Natural scene categorization from conjunctions of ecological global properties. In proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society, (pp. 291-296). Vancouver, Canada.
  • 9Green, M. R., & Oliva, A. (2009). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 137-176.
  • 10Jolieoeur, P., Gluck, M.,.& Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 31-53.

同被引文献22

  • 1Ashby, F. G” & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149-178.
  • 2Behl-Chadha, G . (1996). Basic-level and superodinate-like categorical representations in early infancy. Cognition, 60,105-141.
  • 3Bornstein, M. H.,& Martha, E. A. (2010). The development of object in categorization in young children: Hierarchical inclusiveness, age, perceptual attrU>ute, and group versus individual analyses. Developmental Psychology,46(2), 350-365.
  • 4Collin, C. A. (2006). Spatial-frequency thresholds for object categorization at basic and subordinate levels. Perception, 35,41-52.
  • 5Dixon, W. E.,Woodard. T., & Merry, M. S. (1998). Touchstat: A Monte Carlo program for calculating sequential touching probabilities. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 30,592-604.
  • 6Dixon, W. E., Woodard. T., Price, R. M.,Watkins, M.,& Brink, C. (2007). Touchstat V. 3.00: A new and improved Monte Carlo adjunct for the sequential touching task. Behavior Research Methods, 39,407-414.
  • 7Feldman, J. (2003). The simplicity principle in human concept learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science,12,227-232.
  • 8Green, M. R., & Oliva, A. (2009). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psycholf^y, 58, 137-176.
  • 9Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: As soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychological Science, 16, 152-.
  • 10Johnson, K. E.,& Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 248-277.

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部