Nosofsky Robert M, Zaki Safa R
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Sep;28(5):924-40.
J. D. Smith and colleagues (J. P. Minda & J. D. Smith, 2001; J. D. Smith & J. P. Minda, 1998,2000; J. D. Smith, M. J. Murray, & J. P. Minda, 1997) presented evidence that they claimed challenged the predictions of exemplar models and that supported prototype models. In the authors' view, this evidence confounded the issue of the nature of the category representation with the type of response rule (probabilistic vs. deterministic) that was used. Also, their designs did not test whether the prototype models correctly predicted generalization performance. The present work demonstrates that an exemplar model that includes a response-scaling mechanism provides a natural account of all of Smith et al.'s experimental results. Furthermore, the exemplar model predicts classification performance better than the prototype models when novel transfer stimuli are included in the experimental designs.
J. D. 史密斯及其同事(J. P. 明达和J. D. 史密斯,2001年;J. D. 史密斯和J. P. 明达,1998年、2000年;J. D. 史密斯、M. J. 默里和J. P. 明达,1997年)提出了证据,他们声称这些证据对范例模型的预测提出了挑战,并支持原型模型。在作者看来,这一证据将类别表征的性质问题与所使用的反应规则类型(概率性的与确定性的)混为一谈。此外,他们的设计并未检验原型模型是否能正确预测泛化表现。目前的研究表明,一个包含反应缩放机制的范例模型能够自然地解释史密斯等人的所有实验结果。此外,当实验设计中包含新的迁移刺激时,范例模型比原型模型能更好地预测分类表现。