Abstract
This article reformulates and reanalyzes a problem originally put forth by Homa, Sterling, and Trepel (1981). The question is whether a pure, exemplar-based abstraction process is an adequate model of category learning or whether it is necessary to postulate an additional prototype-abstraction process. Based on quantitative discrepancies from a pure, exemplar-based model, Homa et al. argued that it was necessary to recognize the operation of a prototype-abstraction process in order to fully explain their results. However, Homa et al. never actually fit the exemplar plus prototype model to the data to determine if indeed the additional prototype process could explain the deviations from the pure exemplar model. The present article compared the pure exemplar model with a mixed (exemplar plus prototype) model and did not find consistent evidence requiring the postulation of an additional prototype-abstraction process. These results point out the difficulty of distinguishing alternative classification models and underscore the need for careful analytic work in this area.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
