↓ Skip to main content

Category variability effect in category learning with auditory stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Category variability effect in category learning with auditory stimuli
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee-Xieng Yang, Yueh-Hsun Wu

Abstract

The category variability effect refers to that people tend to classify the midpoint item between two categories as the category more variable. This effect is regarded as evidence against the exemplar model, such as GCM (Generalized Context Model) and favoring the rule model, such as GRT (i.e., the decision bound model). Although this effect has been found in conceptual category learning, it is not often observed in perceptual category learning. To figure out why the category variability effect is seldom reported in the past studies, we propose two hypotheses. First, due to sequence effect, the midpoint item would be classified as different categories, when following different items. When we combine these inconsistent responses for the midpoint item, no category variability effect occurs. Second, instead of the combination of sequence effect in different categorization conditions, the combination of different categorization strategies conceals the category variability effect. One experiment is conducted with single tones of different frequencies as stimuli. The collected data reveal sequence effect. However, the modeling results with the MAC model and the decision bound model support that the existence of individual differences is the reason for why no category variability effect occurs. Three groups are identified by their categorization strategy. Group 1 is rule user, placing the category boundary close to the low-variability category, hence inducing category variability effect. Group 2 takes the MAC strategy and classifies the midpoint item as different categories, depending on its preceding item. Group 3 classifies the midpoint item as the low-variability category, which is consistent with the prediction of the decision bound model as well as GCM. Nonetheless, our conclusion is that category variability effect can be found in perceptual category learning, but might be concealed by the averaged data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 38%
Linguistics 3 12%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,306,972
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,599
of 29,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,176
of 253,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#294
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.