The effect of category variability in perceptual categorization

Exemplar and distributional accounts of categorization make differing predictions for the classification of a critical exemplar precisely halfway between the nearest exemplars of 2 categories differing in variability. Under standard conditions of sequential presentation, the critical exemplar was classified into the most similar, least variable category, consistent with an exemplar account. However, if the difference in variability is made more salient, then the same exemplar is classified into the more variable, most likely category, consistent with a distributional account. This suggests that participants may be strategic in their use of either strategy. However, when the relative variability of 2 categories was manipulated, participants showed changes in the classification of intermediate exemplars that neither approach could account for

On the adequacy of current empirical evaluations of formal models of categorization

Categorization is one of the fundamental building blocks of cognition, and the study of categorization is notable for the extent to which formal modeling has been a central and influential component of research. However, the field has seen a proliferation of noncomplementary models with little consensus on the relative adequacy of these accounts. Progress in assessing the relative adequacy of formal categorization models has, to date, been limited because (a) formal model comparisons are narrow in the number of models and phenomena considered and (b) models do not often clearly define their explanatory scope. Progress is further hampered by the practice of fitting models with arbitrarily variable parameters to each data set independently. Reviewing examples of good practice in the literature, we conclude that model comparisons are most fruitful when relative adequacy is assessed by comparing well-defined models on the basis of the number and proportion of irreversible, ordinal, penetrable successes (principles of minimal flexibility, breadth, good-enough precision, maximal simplicity, and psychological focus)

Predicting Category Intuitiveness With the Rational Model, the Simplicity Model, and the Generalized Context Model

Naïve observers typically perceive some groupings for a set of stimuli as more intuitive than others. The problem of predicting category intuitiveness has been historically considered the remit of models of unsupervised categorization. In contrast, this article develops a measure of category intuitiveness from one of the most widely supported models of supervised categorization, the generalized context model (GCM). Considering different category assignments for a set of instances, the authors asked how well the GCM can predict the classification of each instance on the basis of all the other instances. The category assignment that results in the smallest prediction error is interpreted as the most intuitive for the GCM—the authors refer to this way of applying the GCM as “unsupervised GCM.” The authors systematically compared predictions of category intuitiveness from the unsupervised GCM and two models of unsupervised categorization: the simplicity model and the rational model. The unsupervised GCM compared favorably with the simplicity model and the rational model. This success of the unsupervised GCM illustrates that the distinction between supervised and unsupervised categorization may need to be reconsidered. However, no model emerged as clearly superior, indicating that there is more work to be done in understanding and modeling category intuitiveness

Patient experience and challenges in group concept mapping for clinical research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Group concept mapping (GCM) is a research method that engages stakeholders in generating, structuring and representing ideas around a specific topic or question. GCM has been used with patients to answer questions related to health and disease but little is known about the patient experience as a participant in the process. This paper explores the patient experience participating in GCM as assessed with direct observation and surveys of participants. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis performed within a larger study in which 3 GCM iterations were performed to engage patients in identifying patient-important outcomes for diabetes care. Researchers tracked the frequency and type of assistance required by each participant to complete the sorting and rating steps of GCM. In addition, a 17-question patient experience survey was administered over the telephone to the participants after they had completed the GCM process. Survey questions asked about the personal impact of participating in GCM and the ease of various steps of the GCM process. RESULTS: Researchers helped patients 92 times during the 3 GCM iterations, most commonly to address software and computer literacy issues, but also with the sorting phase itself. Of the 52 GCM participants, 40 completed the post-GCM survey. Respondents averaged 56 years of age, were 50% female and had an average hemoglobin A1c of 9.1%. Ninety-two percent (n = 37) of respondents felt that they had contributed something important to this research project and 90% (n = 36) agreed or strongly agreed that their efforts would help others with diabetes. Respondents reported that the brainstorming session was less difficult when compared with sorting and rating of statements. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that patients find value in participating in GCM. Patients reported less comfort with the sorting step of GCM when compared with brainstorming, an observation that correlates with our observations from the GCM sessions. Researchers should consider using paper sorting methods and objective measures of sorting quality when using GCM in patient-engaged research to improve the patient experience and concept map quality

Comparison and contrast in perceptual categorization

People categorized pairs of perceptual stimuli that varied in both category membership and pairwise similarity. Experiments 1 and 2 showed categorization of 1 color of a pair to be reliably contrasted from that of the other. This similarity-based contrast effect occurred only when the context stimulus was relevant for the categorization of the target (Experiment 3). The effect was not simply owing to perceptual color contrast (Experiment 4), and it extended to pictures from common semantic categories (Experiment 5). Results were consistent with a sign-and-magnitude version of N. Stewart and G. D. A. Brown's (2005) similarity-dissimilarity generalized context model, in which categorization is affected by both similarity to and difference from target categories. The data are also modeled with criterion setting theory (M. Treisman & T. C. Williams, 1984), in which the decision criterion is systematically shifted toward the mean of the current stimuli

The First Comparison Between Swarm-C Accelerometer-Derived Thermospheric Densities and Physical and Empirical Model Estimates

The first systematic comparison between Swarm-C accelerometer-derived thermospheric density and both empirical and physics-based model results using multiple model performance metrics is presented. This comparison is performed at the satellite's high temporal 10-s resolution, which provides a meaningful evaluation of the models' fidelity for orbit prediction and other space weather forecasting applications. The comparison against the physical model is influenced by the specification of the lower atmospheric forcing, the high-latitude ionospheric plasma convection, and solar activity. Some insights into the model response to thermosphere-driving mechanisms are obtained through a machine learning exercise. The results of this analysis show that the short-timescale variations observed by Swarm-C during periods of high solar and geomagnetic activity were better captured by the physics-based model than the empirical models. It is concluded that Swarm-C data agree well with the climatologies inherent within the models and are, therefore, a useful data set for further model validation and scientific research.Comment: https://goo.gl/n4QvU