Feedback can be superior to observational training for both rule-based and information-integration category structures

The effects of two different types of training on rule-based and information-integration category learning were investigated in two experiments. In observational training, a category label is presented, followed by an example of that category and the participant's response. In feedback training, the stimulus is presented, the participant assigns it to a category and then receives feedback about the accuracy of that decision. Ashby, Maddox, and Bohil (2002) reported that feedback training was superior to observational training when learning information-integration category structures, but that training type had little effect on the acquisition of rule-based category structures. These results were argued to support the COVIS dual-process account of category learning. However, a number of non-essential differences between their rule-based and information-integration conditions complicate interpretation of these findings. Experiment 1 controlled, between category structures, for participant error rates, category separation, and the number of stimulus dimensions relevant to the categorization. Under these more controlled conditions, rule-based and information-integration category structures both benefitted from feedback training to a similar degree. Experiment 2 maintained this difference in training type when learning a rule-based category that had otherwise been matched, in terms of category overlap and overall performance, with the rule-based categories used in Ashby et al. These results indicate that differences in dimensionality between the category structures in Ashby et al. is a more likely explanation for the interaction between training type and category structure than the dual-system explanation they offered

Due process in dual process: Model-recovery simulations of decision-bound strategy analysis in category learning

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.Behavioral evidence for the COVIS dual-process model of category learning has been widely reported in over a hundred publications (Ashby and Valentin, 2016). It is generally accepted that the validity of such evidence depends on the accurate identification of individual participants’ categorization strategies, a task that usually falls to Decision Bound analysis (Maddox and Ashby, 1993). Here, we examine the accuracy of this analysis in a series of model-recovery simulations. In Simulation 1, over a third of simulated participants using an Explicit (conjunctive) strategy were misidentified as using a Procedural strategy. In Simulation 2, nearly all simulated participants using a Procedural strategy were misidentified as using an Explicit strategy. In Simulation 3, we re-examined a recently-reported COVIS-supporting dissociation (Smith et al., 2014), and found that these misidentification errors permit an alternative, single-process, explanation of the results. Implications for due process in the future evaluation of dual-process theories, including recommendations for future practice, are discussed

Absence of cross-modality analogical transfer in perceptual categorization

This is the final version. Available on open access from Nurture Science Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordAnalogical transfer has been previously reported to occur between rule-based, but not information-integration, perceptual category structures (Casale, Roeder, & Ashby, 2012). The current study investigated whether a similar pattern of results would be observed in cross-modality transfer. Participants were trained on either a rule-based structure, or an information-integration structure, using visual stimuli. They were then tested on auditory stimuli that had the same underlying abstract category structure. Transfer performance was assessed relative to a control group who did not receive training on the visual stimuli. No cross-modality transfer was found, irrespective of the category structure employed

Goal-directed control in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer

The current article concerns human outcome - selective Pavlovian - instrumental transfer (PIT), where Pavlovian cues selectively invigorate instrumental responses that predict common rewarding outcomes. Several recent experiments have observed PIT effects that were insensitive to outcome devaluation manipulations, which has been taken as evidence of an automatic “associative” mechanism. Other similar studies observed PIT effects that were sensitive to devaluation, which suggest s a more controlled, goal - directed process. Studies supporting the automatic approach have been criticised for using a biased baseline, while studies supporting the goal - directed approach have been criticised for priming multiple outcomes attest. The current experiment addressed both of these issues. Participants first learned to perform two instrumental responses to earn two outcomes each (R1 - O1/ O3, R2 - O2/ O4), before four Pavlovian stimuli (S1 - S4) were trained to predict each outcome. One outcome that was paired with each instrumental response (O3 and O4) was then devalued, so that baseline response choice at test would be balanced. Instrumental responding was then assessed in the presence of each individual Pavlovian stimulus, so that only one outcome was primed per trial. PIT effect s were observed for the valued outcomes , t s > 3.99, p s < .001, but not for the devalued outcomes , F < 1 , BF 10 = 0.29. Hence, when baseline response choice was equated and only one outcome was primed per test trial, PIT was sensitive to outcome devaluation. The data therefore support goal - directed models of PIT

Progress in modeling through distributed collaboration: Concepts, tools, and category-learning examples

Formal modeling in psychology is failing to live up to its potential due to a lack of effective collaboration. As a first step towards solving this problem, we have produced a set of freely available tools for distributed collaboration. This article describes those tools and the conceptual framework behind them. We also provide concrete examples of how these tools can be used. The approach we propose enhances, rather than supplants, more traditional forms of publication. All the resources for this project are freely available from the catlearn website http://catlearn.r-forge.r-project.org/

A dimensional summation account of polymorphous category learning

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via the DOI in this record.Data and code availaibility: The data and code for all analyses for all experiments are available at the OSF addresses given in each Results section. The stimuli are available at the same locations.Polymorphous concepts are hard to learn, and this is perhaps surprising because they, like many natural concepts, have an overall similarity structure. However, the dimensional summation hypothesis (Milton & Wills, 2004) predicts this difficulty. It also makes a number of other predictions about polymorphous concept formation, which are tested here. In Experiment 1 we confirm the theory’s prediction that polymorphous concept formation should be facilitated by deterministic pretraining on the constituent features of the stimulus. This facilitation is relative to an equivalent amount of training on the polymorphous concept itself. In Experiments 2–4, the dimensional summation account of this single feature pretraining effect is contrasted with some other accounts, including a more general strategic account (Experiment 2), seriality of training and stimulus decomposition accounts (Experiment 3), and the role of errors (Experiment 4). The dimensional summation hypothesis provides the best account of these data. In Experiment 5, a further prediction is confirmed — the single feature pretraining effect is eliminated by a concurrent counting task. The current experiments suggest the hypothesis that natural concepts might be acquired by the deliberate serial summation of evidence. This idea has testable implications for classroom learning.Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC

Dissociable learning processes, associative theory, and testimonial reviews: A comment on Smith and Church (2018

Smith and Church (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1565–1584 2018) present a “testimonial” review of dissociable learning processes in comparative and cognitive psychology, by which we mean they include only the portion of the available evidence that is consistent with their conclusions. For example, they conclude that learning the information-integration category-learning task with immediate feedback is implicit, but do not consider the evidence that people readily report explicit strategies in this task, nor that this task can be accommodated by accounts that make no distinction between implicit and explicit processes. They also consider some of the neuroscience relating to information-integration category learning, but do not report those aspects that are more consistent with an explicit than an implicit account. They further conclude that delay conditioning in humans is implicit, but do not report evidence that delay conditioning requires awareness; nor do they present the evidence that conditioned taste aversion, which should be explicit under their account, can be implicit. We agree with Smith and Church that it is helpful to have a clear definition of associative theory, but suggest that their definition may be unnecessarily restrictive. We propose an alternative definition of associative theory and briefly describe an experimental procedure that we think may better distinguish between associative and non-associative processes

Applying insights on categorisation, communication, and dynamic decision-making: a case study of a ‘simple’ maritime military decision

A complete understanding of decision-making in military domains requires gathering insights from several fields of study. To make the task tractable, here we consider a specific example of short-term tactical decisions under uncertainty made by the military at sea. Through this lens, we sketch out relevant literature from three psychological tasks each underpinned by decision-making processes: categorisation, communication, and choice. From the literature, we note two general cognitive tendencies that emerge across all three stages: the effect of cognitive load and individual differences. Drawing on these tendencies, we recommend strategies, tools and future research that could improve performance in military domains—but, by extension, would also generalise to other high-stakes contexts. In so doing, we show the extent to which domain general properties of high order cognition are sufficient in explaining behaviours in domain specific contexts.DSTL: Communicating Uncertaint