Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 789

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning.

Nosofsky, Robert M., Palmeri, Thomas J., McKinley, Stephen C.·1994·Psychological Review

Abstract

The authors propose a rule-plus-exception model (RULEX) of classification learning. According to RULEX, people learn to classify objects by forming simple logical rules and remembering occasional exceptions to those rules. Because the learning process in RULEX is stochastic, the model predicts that individual Ss will vary greatly in the particular rules that are formed and the exceptions that are stored. Averaged classification data are presumed to represent mixtures of these highly idiosyncratic rules and exceptions. RULEX accounts for numerous fundamental classification phenomena, including prototype and specific exemplar effects, sensitivity to correlational information, difficulty of learning linearly separable versus nonlinearly separable categories, selective attention effects, and difficulty of learning concepts with rules of differing complexity. RULEX also predicts distributions of generalization patterns observed at the individual subject level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.53

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 789

Metadata

Authors
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1994
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
53-79
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W1990198033
Cited by
789
References
3
FWCI
36.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.