The Effects of Linear Order in Category Learning: Some Replications of Ramscar et al. (2010) and Their Implications for Replicating Training Studies.

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7708195 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1551-6709 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 03640213 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cogn Sci Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2009-: Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Norwood, N. J., Ablex Pub. Corp.

Learning* ; Concept Formation*/physiology; Humans

Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) showed how, consistent with the predictions of error-driven learning models, the order in which stimuli are presented in training can affect category learning. Specifically, learners exposed to artificial language input where objects preceded their labels learned the discriminating features of categories better than learners exposed to input where labels preceded objects. We sought to replicate this finding in two online experiments employing the same tests used originally: A four pictures test (match a label to one of four pictures) and a four labels test (match a picture to one of four labels). In our study, only findings from the four pictures test were consistent with the original result. Additionally, the effect sizes observed were smaller, and participants over-generalized high-frequency category labels more than in the original study. We suggest that although Ramscar, Yarlett, Dye, Denny, and Thorpe (2010) feature-label order predictions were derived from error-driven learning, they failed to consider that this mechanism also predicts that performance in any training paradigm must inevitably be influenced by participant prior experience. We consider our findings in light of these factors, and discuss implications for the generalizability and replication of training studies.
(© 2024 The Authors. Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Cognitive Science Society (CSS).)

Apfelbaum, K. S., & McMurray, B. (2017). Learning during processing: Word learning doesn't wait for word recognition to finish. Cognitive Science, 41, 706–747.
Arppe, A., Hendrix, P., Milin, P., Baayen, R. H., Sering, T., & Shaoul, C. (2018). ndl: Naive discriminative learning. R package version 0.2.18. https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=ndl.
Baguley, T., & Kaye, W. (2010). Review of: Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference, by Z. Dienes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 695–698.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
De Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jspsych: A javascript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12.
Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non‐significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781.
Dienes, Z. (2016). How Bayes factors change scientific practice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 78–89.
Dye, M., Ramscar, M., & Suh, E. (2011). For the price of a song: How pitch category learning comes at a cost to absolute frequency representations. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 33.
Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Picture or text first? Explaining sequence effects when learning with pictures and text. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 153–180.
Finley, A. J., & Penningroth, S. L. (2015). Online versus in‐lab: Pros and cons of an online prospective memory experiment. Advances in Psychology Research, 113, 135–162.
Gagné, N., & Franzen, L. (2021). How to run behavioural experiments online: Best practice suggestions for cognitive psychology and neuroscience.
Hoppe, D. B., van Rij, J., Hendriks, P., & Ramscar, M. (2020). Order matters! Influences of linear order on linguistic category learning. Cognitive Science, 44(11), e12910.
Hupp, J. M., Sloutsky, V. M., & Culicover, P. W. (2009). Evidence for a domain‐general mechanism underlying the suffixation preference in language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(6), 876–909.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.
Kopp, B., & Wolff, M. (2000). Brain mechanisms of selective learning: Event‐related potentials provide evidence for error‐driven learning in humans. Biological Psychology, 51(2–3), 223–246.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
Morey, R. D., & Lakens, D. (2016). Why most of psychology is statistically unfalsifiable.
Nixon, J. S. (2020). Of mice and men: Speech sound acquisition as discriminative learning from prediction error, not just statistical tracking. Cognition, 197, 104081.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Powell, M. (2009). The bound optimization by quadratic approximation (BOBYQA) algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Technical report, Cambridge, England.
Qiu, M., & Johns, B. T. (2020). Semantic diversity in paired‐associate learning: Further evidence for the information accumulation perspective of cognitive aging. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(1), 114–121.
Ramscar, M. (2013). Suffixing, prefixing, and the functional order of regularities in meaningful strings. Psihologija, 46(4), 377–396.
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., Gustafson, J. W., & Klein, J. (2013). Dual routes to cognitive flexibility: Learning and response‐conflict resolution in the dimensional change card sort task. Child Development, 84(4), 1308–1323.
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., Popick, H. M., & O'Donnell‐McCarthy, F. (2011). The enigma of number: Why children find the meanings of even small number words hard to learn and how we can help them do better. PLoS One, 6(7), e22501.
Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Love, B., & Baayen, R. H. (2013). Learning is not decline: The mental lexicon as a window into cognition across the lifespan. Mental Lexicon, 8(3), 450–481.
Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Shaoul, C., Milin, P., & Baayen, H. (2014). The myth of cognitive decline: Non‐linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(1), 5–42.
Ramscar, M., & McClure, S. M. (2011). Manipulating information structure as a method of localizing information processing in the brain. In Poster presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society; April 2011.
Ramscar, M., Sun, C. C., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, H. (2017). The mismeasurement of mind: Life‐span changes in paired‐associate‐learning scores reflect the “cost” of learning, not cognitive decline. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1171–1179.
Ramscar, M., Thorpe, K., & Denny, K. (2007). Surprise in the learning of color words. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 29.
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., & Thorpe, K. (2010). The effects of feature‐label‐order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 909–957.
Recorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning: Variations in the Effectiveness of Reinforcement and Nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black, & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton‐ Century‐Crofts.
Rodd, J. (2019). How to maintain data quality when you can't see your participants. APS Observer, 32.
Silvey, C., Dienes, Z., & Wonnacott, E. (2021).Bayes factors for mixed‐effects models. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m4hju.
St Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Ramscar, M. (2009). Relationships between language structure and language learning: The suffixing preference and grammatical categorization. Cognitive Science, 33(7), 1317–1329.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2003). Statistics of natural image categories. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 14(3), 391.
Vujović, M. (2020). Exploring language learning as uncertainty reduction using artificial language learning. PhD thesis, University College London.
Vujović, M., Ramscar, M., & Wonnacott, E. (2021). Language learning as uncertainty reduction: The role of prediction error in linguistic generalization and item‐learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 119, 104231.

RPG-2019-160 Leverhulme Research Project; DFG381713393 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Keywords: Categorization; Discrimination; Language learning; Replication

Date Created: 20240523 Date Completed: 20240523 Latest Revision: 20240523

20240523

10.1111/cogs.13445

38778458