FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1999343847> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1999343847 abstract "Many claims about concept learning in animals rely on binary categorization tasks (Herrnstein et al., 1976; Freedman et al., 2001; Marsh and MacDonald, 2008). When subjects exceed chance levels of performance, they are alleged to have learned “the concept.” Critics are quick to point out that although subjects have learned something, confounds may explain performance more simply (Katz et al., 2007; Wright and Lickteig, 2010; Zentall et al., 2014). Despite a growing literature on both sides, supporters of “concept learning in animals” seem no closer to persuading the skeptics, while skeptics are no closer to persuading proponents. This rift hinges on disagreements over the strength of the evidence.Results from dichotomous classification procedures represent the weakest possible evidence for concepts in animals, for reasons unrelated to the validity of corresponding theoretical claims. One pitfall is the tailor-made classifier, which may arise during training. Effectively, “teaching to the test” undermines claims about animals' general knowledge. Another is the lucky guess during testing. A simplistic response during the testing phase will yield many rewards due to guessing alone, making it difficult to assess the precise content of learning. These shortcomings are independent, such that either might confound an experiment.1.1. The tailor-made classifierThe risk of animal subjects “outsmarting” their minders has been with us since Clever Hans. Whatever the aims of our experimental paradigms, the influence of extraneous information must be minimized so that results reflect the intended empirical test.Concept learning presents the scrupulous researcher with a challenge: How does one identify (much less control for) the extraneous features of a stimulus? Our understanding of how the brain categorizes stimuli remains limited (Freedman and Assad, 2011), but there is also no consensus about what constitutes a feature. The list of stimulus attributes that might be used to categorize stimuli includes overall descriptive statistics (“presence of the color green”), low-level structural details (“T-shaped edge junctions”), patterning (“presence/absence of tiled features”), functional interpretation (“looks like food”), ecological indicators (“bright color = poison”), and interacting levels of analysis (cf. Spalding and Ross, 2000; Marsh and MacDonald, 2008). As such, the content of learning is subject to multiple interpretations.A classifier is an algorithm (however simple or complex) that matches a stimulus with a discrete category. In general, classifiers must undergo training to become sensitive to category-relevant features. Any classifier is limited in what it can detect, and some begin with innate knowledge (such as instincts that some stimuli are threatening). These characteristics hold both for computer algorithms and for the processes used by organisms to classify stimuli. The aim of studying how organisms solve problems of this kind is to discover and describe their classifiers, and to distinguish processes that have evolved recently from those that are well-preserved across many species.Herein lies the problem: When training requires that only two categories be identified, then the classifier (and therefore the organism) need only identify some difference that distinguishes them, and nothing more. The result is a tailor-made classifier: Tailored by the specifics of the binary training paradigm, and optimized solely for that dichotomous discrimination. Just as a bespoke suit is tailored upon request to fit a single person, a tailor-made classifier is only effective at the discrimination it was trained for. At its most extreme, this is Clever Hans in a nutshell: A (cognitively) cheap trick that yields rewards but falls short of generalized knowledge.When faced with this problem, researchers often narrow the scope of the features available. A set of images might have colors removed, luminances matched, occluders introduced, and noise added (e.g., Basile and Hampton, 2013). Such studies are valuable because they help reveal which features can be used by the classifier. However, regularized stimuli cannot rule a tailor-made classifier, because so many potential “features” might provide the basis for the classification. Furthermore, insofar as the resulting stimuli are “unnatural,” they generalize poorly to how stimuli are categorized in ecological contexts. So long as any feature is consistent enough across stimuli to permit classification, there is a possibility that the classifier relies exclusively on that feature. To be sure that the classifier used by an organism is capable of generalized knowledge, it is essential that training encompass more than a single dichotomous categorization." @default.
• W1999343847 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1999343847 creator A5005978689 @default.
• W1999343847 creator A5031578230 @default.
• W1999343847 date "2015-02-18" @default.
• W1999343847 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1999343847 title "Two perils of binary categorization: why the study of concepts can't afford true/false testing" @default.
• W1999343847 cites W1942350006 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W1984600545 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W1991551354 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2013602171 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2024179803 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2026370060 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2028641956 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2043525107 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2050636233 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2054128930 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2060971741 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2063940738 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2088148960 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2089545511 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2137744517 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W2166049352 @default.
• W1999343847 cites W4250515448 @default.
• W1999343847 doi "https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00168" @default.
• W1999343847 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4332166" @default.
• W1999343847 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25762960" @default.
• W1999343847 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1999343847 type Work @default.
• W1999343847 sameAs 1999343847 @default.
• W1999343847 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W1999343847 countsByYear W19993438472017 @default.
• W1999343847 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1999343847 hasAuthorship W1999343847A5005978689 @default.
• W1999343847 hasAuthorship W1999343847A5031578230 @default.
• W1999343847 hasBestOaLocation W19993438471 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C48372109 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C94124525 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConcept C94375191 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C154945302 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C15744967 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C180747234 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C33923547 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C41008148 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C48372109 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C77805123 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C94124525 @default.
• W1999343847 hasConceptScore W1999343847C94375191 @default.
• W1999343847 hasLocation W19993438471 @default.
• W1999343847 hasLocation W19993438472 @default.
• W1999343847 hasLocation W19993438473 @default.
• W1999343847 hasLocation W19993438474 @default.
• W1999343847 hasOpenAccess W1999343847 @default.
• W1999343847 hasPrimaryLocation W19993438471 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W1689174162 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W1973940174 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2006795475 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2016067609 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2066059397 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2111744149 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2122009727 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2138438937 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W4239423467 @default.
• W1999343847 hasRelatedWork W2005638105 @default.
• W1999343847 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W1999343847 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1999343847 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1999343847 magId "1999343847" @default.
• W1999343847 workType "article" @default.