© 2010 by W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Concepts and Generic Knowledge
Chapter 8
Lecture Outline
Chapter 8: Concepts and Generic Knowledge
 Lecture Outline
 Definitions
 Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Exemplars
 Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Concepts as Theories
Definitions
 Concepts like dogs or
chairs
 Building blocks
 Simple but complex to
explain
Definitions
 Dog
 Definition
 A mammal with four legs that barks and wags its
tail
 Exceptions
 Dog that does not bark or that lost a leg
 For any definition, we can always find such
exceptions
Definitions
 Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953)
 Simple concepts have no definition
 Consider a “game”
 Played by children
 Engaged in for fun
 Has rules
 Involves multiple people
 Is competitive
 Is played during leisure
 For any set of definitive features, we can think
of exceptions that are still considered games.
Definitions
Definition Exception
Played by children Gambling?
Engaged in for fun Professional sports
Has rules Playing with Legos
Involves multiple people Solitaire
Is competitive Tea party
Is played during leisure Flying simulators
Games
Definitions
 Family resemblance
 members of a category
have a family
resemblance to each
other
Ideal member
Atypical member
In the example, dark hair, glasses, a
mustache, and a big nose are typical for
this family but do not define the family.
Definitions
 A dog probably has four legs, probably
barks, and probably wags its tail
 A creature without these features is
unlikely to be a dog
Definitions
 There may be no features that are shared
by all dogs or all games, just as there are
no features shared by every member of a
family
 The more characteristic features an object
has, the more likely we are to believe it is
part of the category
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Rosch’s prototype
theory,
 Prototypes
 Rather than thinking
about definitions that
define the boundaries
of a category
 One that possesses all
the characteristic
features
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Prototype
 An average of various category members that
have been encountered
 Differ across individuals (depending on their
experiences)
 May differ across countries
 For example, the prototypical house in the United States
compared to Japan
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Prototypes
 Graded membership
 Some members are closer to the prototype
 Fuzzy boundaries
 No clear dividing line for membership
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Which is the best red?
Evidence Favoring the Network Approach
 The sentence-verification task. 
typicality effects
 True or false?
 Robins ( 知更鳥 ) are birds
 Penguins are birds
 This is because robins share more features
with the prototypical “bird” than penguins do.
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 using production tasks
 Typicality effects
 Name as many fruits as possible
 Name as many birds as possible
 If we ask people to name as many birds as
they can, they typically start with category
members that are closest to the prototype
(e.g., robin). For fruit they are likely to start
with bananas, apples, or oranges.
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
Does this picture show you a bird?
[Insert typical bird]
[Insert a penguin]
Faster
Slower
picture-identification tasks
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 The more
prototypical
category
members are
also “privileged”
in rating tasks
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
Birds in a tree?
Not thisImagine this
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Typicality also influences judgments about
attractiveness. Which fish is the most attractive?
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Just as certain
category members
seem to be privileged,
so are certain types of
category
 For example, what is
this object?
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
Furniture
Chair
Upholstered armchair
Too general
Just right
Too specific
DetailExample
Rosch argued that there is a basic level of categorization that is neither too
general nor too specific, which we tend to use in speaking and reasoning about
categories
Here, “chair” is the basic-level category, as opposed to “furniture” (more
general, or superordinate) or “wooden desk chair” (more specific, or
subordinate)
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Basic-level categories
 Single word.
 The default for basic level
 Easy-to-explain commonalities
Prototypes and Typicality Effects
 Basic categories are learned first
 Used by children to describe most objects
Exemplars
 Exemplar
 What is this?
 An alternative to prototype theory is exemplar-
based reasoning—drawing on knowledge of
specific category members rather than on more
general, prototypical information about the
category.
Exemplars
Theory Prototype Exemplar
Typicality Average of a category Encountered more often
Graded membership Less similar to average How often it is encountered
Illustration Ideal fruit (apple)
vs. less ideal (fig 無花果 )
Apples (often)
vs. figs (not as often)
Both prototype theory and the exemplar view can explain the typicality and graded-
membership effects that we have discussed.
Exemplars
 Prototypes
 Economical but less flexible
 Exemplars
 More flexible but less economical
 Chinese versus American Birds
 A gift for a 4-year-old who recently broke her wrist
 Our ability to “tune” our concepts to match
circumstances may also fit better with the
exemplar view than with prototype theory.
Exemplars
 Kermit the Frog
 Prototypical features
 Is green, eats flies
 Exemplar (unique)
 Sings, loves a pig
Both prototype and exemplar provide information
In sum, the evidence seems to suggest
that we use a combination of prototypes
and exemplars.
Exemplars
 Every concept is a mix of exemplar and
prototype
 Early learning involves exemplars
 Experience involves averaging exemplars to
get prototypes
 With more experience, we can use both
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Category membership and typicality
 Prototypes that are based on averaged
exemplars
 A process of triggering memories
 This is because both judgments should be
based in resemblance between the test case
and the prototype or exemplar.
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Typicality and
category membership
sometimes dissociate
 Moby Dick (白鯨)
was a whale (鯨
魚) but not a typical
one
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
The category is clear and yet typicality goes down
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Atypical features do not exclude category
members
 For example, a lemon that is painted with red
and white stripes, injected with sugar to make
it sweet, and then run over with a truck is still
a lemon
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 All the typical features
but not category
members
 For example, a perfect
counterfeit bill.
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Similar examples come from studies with
children (Keil, 1986)
 A skunk (臭鼬) cannot be turned into a
raccoon (狸)
 It has a raccoon mommy and daddy…
 A toaster can be turned into a coffeepot
 Just need to poke some holes in it…
Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance
 Essential properties
 Those that define a category
 Which are those?
 some categories are reasoned about in terms
of essential properties and not superficial
attributes; for example, the abused lemon still
has lemon DNA; it still has seeds that would
grow into lemon trees
Concepts as Theories
 Resemblance
 Prototypes and exemplars work
 categorization is based in comparing the
resemblance of the test case to prototypes and
exemplars
 Not enough
 Perfect counterfeit bill resembles a bill but is
not
Concepts as Theories
 Heuristic (捷思)
 A reasonably efficient strategy that works
most of the time
 the resemblance of more superficial features is
compared
 Prototypes and exemplars
 Heuristics allow some degree of error in
exchange for efficiency
Concepts as Theories
 When heuristics fail, may need a more
complete view
 Concept-as-theory
Concepts as Theories
whipped cream airplanesReal airplanes resemble
Concepts as Theories
 Concepts are like schemas
 They allow people to form generalizations
 Related to typicality
 Generalizations more likely from typical cases
 Robins are more likely to be like all birds
 Penguins are less likely
 Research in this area shows that people are willing
to make inferences from a typical case (e.g.,
robins) to an entire category (e.g., birds) but not
from an atypical case (e.g., ducks).
Concepts as Theories
 Theories also explain cause and effect
Lion Gazelle (羚羊)
EnzymeEnzyme
For instance, if told that gazelles have a particular enzyme, people
conclude that lions have it as well. But they are not willing to make the
reverse inference, given what they know about the food chain.
Concepts as Theories
 Natural kinds and artifacts are reasoned
about differently
 Natural kinds (e.g., the skunk and raccoon)
have essential properties
 These principles do not apply to artifacts (e.g.,
toaster and coffeepot)
Concepts as Theories
43
Categories represented
in different brain areas
different sites are activated
when people are thinking
about living things than
when they are thinking
about nonliving things (e.g.,
Chao et al., 2002).
Knowledge Network
 Knowledge is represented via a vast
network of connections and associations
between all of the information you know
Knowledge Network
 Other evidence for the knowledge
representation in a network comes from
the sentence-verification task
 Participants must quickly decide whether
sentences like the following are true:
 Robins are birds.
 Robins are animals.
 Cats have hearts.
 Cats are birds.
Knowledge Network
 “Cats have hearts” requires two links
 “Cats have claws” requires one link
Knowledge Network
Reaction time goes up for
longer associative paths
The time to answer these questions
depends on the length of the associative
path between the pieces of information
(Collins & Quillian, 1969).
Knowledge Network
 Nodes can represent concepts
 Links such as hasa or isa can associate
each concept
Knowledge Network
Proposition = smallest unit that can be true or false
Four propositions about dogs
A more complex network (Anderson’s ACT)
is designed around the notion of
propositions—the smallest units of
knowledge that can be true or false.
Knowledge Network
Abstract knowledge represented via time and location nodes
Knowledge Network
 Propositional networks
 Localist representations—each node is
equivalent to one concept
 Connectionist networks (parallel
distributed processing, PDP)
 Distributed processing—information involves
a pattern of activation
 Parallel processing of information occurs at
the same time
Knowledge Network
 How does learning take place in a
connectionist or parallel distributed
processing (PDP) network?
 Changes in the connection weights or
strength of connections
Knowledge Network
 Learning algorithms—how weights are
changed
 Both nodes firing together strengthen their
connection
 Error signals cause a node to decrease its
connections to input nodes that led to the
error (back propagation)
Concepts
 In sum, concepts are central to human
reasoning, but are complex
 We often reason about concepts using
prototypes and exemplars, particularly in cases
where fast judgments are required
 However, for more sophisticated judgments, we
also employ theories, represented by networks
of interrelated conceptual knowledge
 Finally, various computational networks have
attempted to capture this complexity
Chapter 8 Questions
1. According to Wittgenstein,
a) we have no real general concept for each
category we know but instead learn each
category member individually.
b) we assess category membership
probabilistically, by family resemblance.
c) we can find rigid features that define a
category but only after intensive study.
d) we first encounter the prototypical
member of a category, and then we
compare all other potential members to it.
2. Which of the following facts fits with the claims of
prototype theory?
a) Pictures of items similar to the prototype are
identified as category members more quickly than
pictures of items less similar to the prototype.
b) Items close to the prototype are not the earliest
(and most likely) to be mentioned in a production
task.
c) When making up sentences about a category,
people tend to create sentences most appropriate
for the prototype of that category, as opposed to a
more peripheral member.
d) all of the above
3. Which of the following claims is TRUE?
a) Reliance on prototypes is likely to emerge
gradually as a participant’s experience with
a category grows.
b) People are likely to rely strongly on
prototypes early in their exposure to a
particular category.
c) People only rely on prototypes when they
have time to make a decision.
d) With exposure to many instances of a
particular category, it becomes easier to
remember each particular instance, and this
contributes to the emergence of a prototype.
4. Which of the following is true?
a) People only use prototypes when there
are no clear definitions to fall back on.
b) Just because people use prototypes does
not mean that is the only information
available to them.
c) People use exemplars rather than
prototypes whenever possible.
d) Clearly defined category boundaries are
necessary for deciding category
membership.
5. Which of the following is true about
heuristics?
a) One way to ensure error-free decisions is
to use the typicality heuristic.
b) One example of a heuristic is determining
cause and effect.
c) The categorization heuristic emphasizes
superficial characteristics.
d) Using heuristics is an inefficient way to
get things done.
6. In a production task, the ___ category
members that a person mentions are the
category members that produce the
slowest reaction times in a sentence-
verification task.
a) first
b) last
c) loudest
d) slowest
7. The idea that we categorize objects
based on their similarity to previously
stored instances is known as
a) geometric theory.
b) prototype theory.
c) feature theory.
d) exemplar theory.

Cog5 lecppt chapter08

  • 1.
    © 2010 byW. W. Norton & Co., Inc. Concepts and Generic Knowledge Chapter 8 Lecture Outline
  • 2.
    Chapter 8: Conceptsand Generic Knowledge  Lecture Outline  Definitions  Prototypes and Typicality Effects  Exemplars  Difficulties with Categorizing via Resemblance  Concepts as Theories
  • 3.
    Definitions  Concepts likedogs or chairs  Building blocks  Simple but complex to explain
  • 4.
    Definitions  Dog  Definition A mammal with four legs that barks and wags its tail  Exceptions  Dog that does not bark or that lost a leg  For any definition, we can always find such exceptions
  • 5.
    Definitions  Philosopher LudwigWittgenstein (1953)  Simple concepts have no definition  Consider a “game”  Played by children  Engaged in for fun  Has rules  Involves multiple people  Is competitive  Is played during leisure  For any set of definitive features, we can think of exceptions that are still considered games.
  • 6.
    Definitions Definition Exception Played bychildren Gambling? Engaged in for fun Professional sports Has rules Playing with Legos Involves multiple people Solitaire Is competitive Tea party Is played during leisure Flying simulators Games
  • 7.
    Definitions  Family resemblance members of a category have a family resemblance to each other Ideal member Atypical member In the example, dark hair, glasses, a mustache, and a big nose are typical for this family but do not define the family.
  • 8.
    Definitions  A dogprobably has four legs, probably barks, and probably wags its tail  A creature without these features is unlikely to be a dog
  • 9.
    Definitions  There maybe no features that are shared by all dogs or all games, just as there are no features shared by every member of a family  The more characteristic features an object has, the more likely we are to believe it is part of the category
  • 10.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Rosch’s prototype theory,  Prototypes  Rather than thinking about definitions that define the boundaries of a category  One that possesses all the characteristic features
  • 11.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Prototype  An average of various category members that have been encountered  Differ across individuals (depending on their experiences)  May differ across countries  For example, the prototypical house in the United States compared to Japan
  • 12.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Prototypes  Graded membership  Some members are closer to the prototype  Fuzzy boundaries  No clear dividing line for membership
  • 13.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Which is the best red?
  • 14.
    Evidence Favoring theNetwork Approach  The sentence-verification task.  typicality effects  True or false?  Robins ( 知更鳥 ) are birds  Penguins are birds  This is because robins share more features with the prototypical “bird” than penguins do.
  • 15.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  using production tasks  Typicality effects  Name as many fruits as possible  Name as many birds as possible  If we ask people to name as many birds as they can, they typically start with category members that are closest to the prototype (e.g., robin). For fruit they are likely to start with bananas, apples, or oranges.
  • 16.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects Does this picture show you a bird? [Insert typical bird] [Insert a penguin] Faster Slower picture-identification tasks
  • 17.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  The more prototypical category members are also “privileged” in rating tasks
  • 18.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects Birds in a tree? Not thisImagine this
  • 19.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Typicality also influences judgments about attractiveness. Which fish is the most attractive?
  • 20.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Just as certain category members seem to be privileged, so are certain types of category  For example, what is this object?
  • 21.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects Furniture Chair Upholstered armchair Too general Just right Too specific DetailExample Rosch argued that there is a basic level of categorization that is neither too general nor too specific, which we tend to use in speaking and reasoning about categories Here, “chair” is the basic-level category, as opposed to “furniture” (more general, or superordinate) or “wooden desk chair” (more specific, or subordinate)
  • 22.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Basic-level categories  Single word.  The default for basic level  Easy-to-explain commonalities
  • 23.
    Prototypes and TypicalityEffects  Basic categories are learned first  Used by children to describe most objects
  • 24.
    Exemplars  Exemplar  Whatis this?  An alternative to prototype theory is exemplar- based reasoning—drawing on knowledge of specific category members rather than on more general, prototypical information about the category.
  • 25.
    Exemplars Theory Prototype Exemplar TypicalityAverage of a category Encountered more often Graded membership Less similar to average How often it is encountered Illustration Ideal fruit (apple) vs. less ideal (fig 無花果 ) Apples (often) vs. figs (not as often) Both prototype theory and the exemplar view can explain the typicality and graded- membership effects that we have discussed.
  • 26.
    Exemplars  Prototypes  Economicalbut less flexible  Exemplars  More flexible but less economical  Chinese versus American Birds  A gift for a 4-year-old who recently broke her wrist  Our ability to “tune” our concepts to match circumstances may also fit better with the exemplar view than with prototype theory.
  • 27.
    Exemplars  Kermit theFrog  Prototypical features  Is green, eats flies  Exemplar (unique)  Sings, loves a pig Both prototype and exemplar provide information In sum, the evidence seems to suggest that we use a combination of prototypes and exemplars.
  • 28.
    Exemplars  Every conceptis a mix of exemplar and prototype  Early learning involves exemplars  Experience involves averaging exemplars to get prototypes  With more experience, we can use both
  • 29.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  Category membership and typicality  Prototypes that are based on averaged exemplars  A process of triggering memories  This is because both judgments should be based in resemblance between the test case and the prototype or exemplar.
  • 30.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  Typicality and category membership sometimes dissociate  Moby Dick (白鯨) was a whale (鯨 魚) but not a typical one
  • 31.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance The category is clear and yet typicality goes down
  • 32.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  Atypical features do not exclude category members  For example, a lemon that is painted with red and white stripes, injected with sugar to make it sweet, and then run over with a truck is still a lemon
  • 33.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  All the typical features but not category members  For example, a perfect counterfeit bill.
  • 34.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  Similar examples come from studies with children (Keil, 1986)  A skunk (臭鼬) cannot be turned into a raccoon (狸)  It has a raccoon mommy and daddy…  A toaster can be turned into a coffeepot  Just need to poke some holes in it…
  • 35.
    Difficulties with Categorizingvia Resemblance  Essential properties  Those that define a category  Which are those?  some categories are reasoned about in terms of essential properties and not superficial attributes; for example, the abused lemon still has lemon DNA; it still has seeds that would grow into lemon trees
  • 36.
    Concepts as Theories Resemblance  Prototypes and exemplars work  categorization is based in comparing the resemblance of the test case to prototypes and exemplars  Not enough  Perfect counterfeit bill resembles a bill but is not
  • 37.
    Concepts as Theories Heuristic (捷思)  A reasonably efficient strategy that works most of the time  the resemblance of more superficial features is compared  Prototypes and exemplars  Heuristics allow some degree of error in exchange for efficiency
  • 38.
    Concepts as Theories When heuristics fail, may need a more complete view  Concept-as-theory
  • 39.
    Concepts as Theories whippedcream airplanesReal airplanes resemble
  • 40.
    Concepts as Theories Concepts are like schemas  They allow people to form generalizations  Related to typicality  Generalizations more likely from typical cases  Robins are more likely to be like all birds  Penguins are less likely  Research in this area shows that people are willing to make inferences from a typical case (e.g., robins) to an entire category (e.g., birds) but not from an atypical case (e.g., ducks).
  • 41.
    Concepts as Theories Theories also explain cause and effect Lion Gazelle (羚羊) EnzymeEnzyme For instance, if told that gazelles have a particular enzyme, people conclude that lions have it as well. But they are not willing to make the reverse inference, given what they know about the food chain.
  • 42.
    Concepts as Theories Natural kinds and artifacts are reasoned about differently  Natural kinds (e.g., the skunk and raccoon) have essential properties  These principles do not apply to artifacts (e.g., toaster and coffeepot)
  • 43.
    Concepts as Theories 43 Categoriesrepresented in different brain areas different sites are activated when people are thinking about living things than when they are thinking about nonliving things (e.g., Chao et al., 2002).
  • 44.
    Knowledge Network  Knowledgeis represented via a vast network of connections and associations between all of the information you know
  • 45.
    Knowledge Network  Otherevidence for the knowledge representation in a network comes from the sentence-verification task  Participants must quickly decide whether sentences like the following are true:  Robins are birds.  Robins are animals.  Cats have hearts.  Cats are birds.
  • 46.
    Knowledge Network  “Catshave hearts” requires two links  “Cats have claws” requires one link
  • 47.
    Knowledge Network Reaction timegoes up for longer associative paths The time to answer these questions depends on the length of the associative path between the pieces of information (Collins & Quillian, 1969).
  • 48.
    Knowledge Network  Nodescan represent concepts  Links such as hasa or isa can associate each concept
  • 49.
    Knowledge Network Proposition =smallest unit that can be true or false Four propositions about dogs A more complex network (Anderson’s ACT) is designed around the notion of propositions—the smallest units of knowledge that can be true or false.
  • 50.
    Knowledge Network Abstract knowledgerepresented via time and location nodes
  • 51.
    Knowledge Network  Propositionalnetworks  Localist representations—each node is equivalent to one concept  Connectionist networks (parallel distributed processing, PDP)  Distributed processing—information involves a pattern of activation  Parallel processing of information occurs at the same time
  • 52.
    Knowledge Network  Howdoes learning take place in a connectionist or parallel distributed processing (PDP) network?  Changes in the connection weights or strength of connections
  • 53.
    Knowledge Network  Learningalgorithms—how weights are changed  Both nodes firing together strengthen their connection  Error signals cause a node to decrease its connections to input nodes that led to the error (back propagation)
  • 54.
    Concepts  In sum,concepts are central to human reasoning, but are complex  We often reason about concepts using prototypes and exemplars, particularly in cases where fast judgments are required  However, for more sophisticated judgments, we also employ theories, represented by networks of interrelated conceptual knowledge  Finally, various computational networks have attempted to capture this complexity
  • 55.
  • 56.
    1. According toWittgenstein, a) we have no real general concept for each category we know but instead learn each category member individually. b) we assess category membership probabilistically, by family resemblance. c) we can find rigid features that define a category but only after intensive study. d) we first encounter the prototypical member of a category, and then we compare all other potential members to it.
  • 57.
    2. Which ofthe following facts fits with the claims of prototype theory? a) Pictures of items similar to the prototype are identified as category members more quickly than pictures of items less similar to the prototype. b) Items close to the prototype are not the earliest (and most likely) to be mentioned in a production task. c) When making up sentences about a category, people tend to create sentences most appropriate for the prototype of that category, as opposed to a more peripheral member. d) all of the above
  • 58.
    3. Which ofthe following claims is TRUE? a) Reliance on prototypes is likely to emerge gradually as a participant’s experience with a category grows. b) People are likely to rely strongly on prototypes early in their exposure to a particular category. c) People only rely on prototypes when they have time to make a decision. d) With exposure to many instances of a particular category, it becomes easier to remember each particular instance, and this contributes to the emergence of a prototype.
  • 59.
    4. Which ofthe following is true? a) People only use prototypes when there are no clear definitions to fall back on. b) Just because people use prototypes does not mean that is the only information available to them. c) People use exemplars rather than prototypes whenever possible. d) Clearly defined category boundaries are necessary for deciding category membership.
  • 60.
    5. Which ofthe following is true about heuristics? a) One way to ensure error-free decisions is to use the typicality heuristic. b) One example of a heuristic is determining cause and effect. c) The categorization heuristic emphasizes superficial characteristics. d) Using heuristics is an inefficient way to get things done.
  • 61.
    6. In aproduction task, the ___ category members that a person mentions are the category members that produce the slowest reaction times in a sentence- verification task. a) first b) last c) loudest d) slowest
  • 62.
    7. The ideathat we categorize objects based on their similarity to previously stored instances is known as a) geometric theory. b) prototype theory. c) feature theory. d) exemplar theory.

Editor's Notes

  • #57 Correct answer: b Feedback: Wittgenstein came up with the idea of family resemblance.
  • #58 Correct answer: d Feedback: All three answers are correct.
  • #59 Correct answer: a Feedback: Prototypes require exemplars and hence they emerge gradually.
  • #60 Correct answer: b Feedback: Prototypes can be used in certain situations (under ideal circumstances), where exemplars may be available as well.
  • #61 Correct answer: c Feedback: Heuristics are fast, efficient systems and hence categorization emphasizes superficial characteristics.
  • #62 Correct answer: b Feedback: The first members are usually the prototypes and hence those most tightly linked to a category. The last members will be more loosely linked and hence last.
  • #63 Correct answer: d Feedback: Exemplars are instances of an item. The idea is that we store these examples in our memory.