Abstract
Category learning theorists tacitly assume that stimuli are encoded by a single pathway. Motivated by theories of object recognition, we evaluated a dual-pathway account of stimulus encoding. The part-based pathway establishes mappings between sensory input and symbols that encode discrete stimulus features, whereas the image-based pathway applies holistic templates to sensory input. Our experiments used rule-plus-exception structures, in which one exception item in each category violates a salient regularity and must be distinguished from other items. In Experiment 1, we found discrete representations to be crucial for recognition of exceptions following brief training. Experiments 2 and 3 involved multisession training regimens designed to encourage either part- or image-based encoding. We found that both pathways are able to support exception encoding, but have unique characteristics. We speculate that one advantage of the part-based pathway is the ability to generalize across domains, whereas the image-based pathway provides faster and more effortless recognition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791–804.
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105, 442–481.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
Erickson, M. A., & Kruschke, J. K. (1998). Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 107–140.
Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., & Tanaka, J. W. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
Foard, C. F., & Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1984). Holistic and analytic modes of processing: The multiple determinants of perceptual analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 94–111.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. New York: Wiley.
Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (2002). Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: Bridging brain activity and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 431–446.
Gauthier, I., Williams, P., Tarr, M. J., & Tanaka, J. (1998). Training “Greeble” experts: A framework for studying expert object recognition processes. Vision Research, 38, 2401–2428.
Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johansen, M. K., & Palmeri, T. J. (2002). Are there representational shifts during category learning? Cognitive Psychology, 45, 482–553.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
Logothetis, N. K., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 577–621.
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.
Maddox, W. T. (1992). Perceptual and decisional separability. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 147–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification— categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.
Nosofsky, R. M., & Johansen, M. K. (2000). Exemplar-based accounts of “multiple-system” phenomena in perceptual categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 375–402.
Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53–79.
Nosofsky, R. M., & Zaki, S. R. (2003). A hybrid-similarity exemplar model for predicting distinctiveness effects in perceptual old-new recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1194–1209.
Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76, 241–263.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.
Palmeri, T. J., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Visual object understanding. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 291–303.
Palmeri, T. J., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1995). Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 548–568.
Palmeri, T. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2008). Visual object perception and longterm memory. In S. Luck & A. Hollingsworth (Eds.), Visual memory (pp. 163–207). New York: Oxford University Press.
Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263–266.
Regehr, G., & Brooks, L. R. (1993). Perceptual manifestations of an analytic structure: The priority of holistic individuation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 92–114.
Sakamoto, Y., & Love, B. C. (2004). Schematic influences on category learning and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 534–553.
Schyns, P. G., Goldstone, R. L., & Thibaut, J.-P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 1–54.
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112, 881–911.
Tanaka, J. W., Curran, T., & Sheinberg, D. L. (2005). The training and transfer of real-world perceptual expertise. Psychological Science, 16, 145–151.
Tanaka, J. W., & Gauthier, I. (1997). Expertise in object and face recognition. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 36, pp. 83–125). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tarr, M. J., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class? Cognition, 67, 73–110.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.
Ullman, S., Vidal-Naquet, M., & Sali, E. (2002). Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 682–687.
Zhang, L., & Cottrell, G. W. (2005). Holistic processing develops because it is good. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by AFOSR Grant FA9550-04-1-0226 and NSF Grant 0349101 to B.C.L. and AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0204 and NIMH Grant MH077708 to W.T.M.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, T., Love, B.C. & Maddox, W.T. Two pathways to stimulus encoding in category learning?. Memory & Cognition 37, 394–413 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.394
Received:
Accepted:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.394
