↓ Skip to main content

Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Similarity-Dissimilarity Competition in Disjunctive Classification Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabien Mathy, Harry H. Haladjian, Eric Laurent, Robert L. Goldstone

Abstract

Typical disjunctive artificial classification tasks require participants to sort stimuli according to rules such as "x likes cars only when black and coupe OR white and SUV." For categories like this, increasing the salience of the diagnostic dimensions has two simultaneous effects: increasing the distance between members of the same category and increasing the distance between members of opposite categories. Potentially, these two effects respectively hinder and facilitate classification learning, leading to competing predictions for learning. Increasing saliency may lead to members of the same category to be considered lesssimilar, while the members of separate categories might be considered moredissimilar. This implies a similarity-dissimilarity competition between two basic classification processes. When focusing on sub-category similarity, one would expect more difficult classification when members of the same category become less similar (disregarding the increase of between-category dissimilarity); however, the between-category dissimilarity increase predicts a less difficult classification. Our categorization study suggests that participants rely more on using dissimilarities between opposite categories than finding similarities between sub-categories. We connect our results to rule- and exemplar-based classification models. The pattern of influences of within- and between-category similarities are challenging for simple single-process categorization systems based on rules or exemplars. Instead, our results suggest that either these processes should be integrated in a hybrid model, or that category learning operates by forming clusters within each category.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 67%
Philosophy 3 11%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,212,117
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,156
of 29,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,813
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#706
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,439 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.