Cited by 86Categorization, perception, and languageMemory Processes and InfluencesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The effect of category learning on sensitivity to within-category correlations

Open access
Chin-Parker, Seth, Ross, Brian H.·2002·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

A salient property of many categories is that they are not just sets of independent features but consist of clusters of correlated features. Although there is much evidence that people are sensitive to between-categories correlations, the evidence about within-category correlations is mixed. Two experiments tested whether the disparities might be due to different learning and test tasks. Subjects learned about categories either by classifying items or by inferring missing features of items. Their knowledge of the correlations was measured with classification, prediction, typicality, and production tests. The inference learners, but not the classification learners, showed sensitivity to the correlations, although different tests were differentially sensitive. These results reconcile some earlier disparities and provide a more complete understanding of people's sensitivities to within-category correlations.

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 · 10.3758/bf03194936

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A test emphasizing similarity more and discrimination less, such as an inference test, might have favored blocking or reduced interleaving's advantage even with the same training.

    “Another test, one that emphasized discrimination less and similarity more-such as an inference rather than a classification test (see Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002)-might have produced an advantage of blocking, or at least a smaller advantage of interleaving, even if the training conditions had been the same.”

    From Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval (2013) · cites this paper as Chin-Parker & Ross, 2002

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2002-04
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
353-362
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2037402435
Cited by
86
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9720304)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
category learning, correlated features, feature inference, classification learning, prediction, typicality
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Environment, Humans, Learning, Random Allocation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Visual Perception

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