Differential brain responses when applying criterion attribute versus family resemblance rule learning

Tracy, Joseph I.; Mohamed, Feroze B.; Faro, S; Pinus, Alexander B.; Tiver, R; Harvan, J; Bloomer, Conor; Pyrros, Ayis; Madi, Saussan

doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00052-6

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We predicted there would be an extensive overlap of regions recruited for both overall similarity and single-dimension sorting, supporting our hypothesis that both strategies were the result of similar analytic processes. This would be in contrast to previous work, which showed very limited common activation between strategies (e.g., Tracy et al, 2003). Furthermore, we anticipated greater activation for overall similarity sorting compared to single-dimension sorting in regions associated with rule-based and working memory processes, such as frontal cortex, because the overall similarity rule is hypothesised to be more complex than the singledimension rule.…”

contrasting

confidence: 89%

“…Singledimension sorting implicated medial parietal lobe (assumed to reflect target monitoring), inferior frontal lobe (rule maintenance in working memory and feature selection) and anterior temporal lobe (sensitivity to isolated features). Family resemblance sorting activated left extrastriate cortex and medial cerebellar regions, which Tracy et al (2003) took to be consistent with its multi-featural nature. Tracy et al (2003) argued that their results were consistent with the idea that separate categorization systems are used to form these two category structures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Family resemblance sorting activated left extrastriate cortex and medial cerebellar regions, which Tracy et al (2003) took to be consistent with its multi-featural nature. Tracy et al (2003) argued that their results were consistent with the idea that separate categorization systems are used to form these two category structures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Recent work has also highlighted the role of inferior parietal cortex (e.g., Overall similarity and single-dimension categorization 6 Grossman et al, 2002) and lateral occipital cortex (Seger & Cincotta, 2002) in nonanalytic, similarity based categorization To date, however, relatively few neuroimaging studies have investigated the distinction between overall similarity and single-dimension sorting directly. One exception to this is an fMRI study by Tracy et al (2003; though see also Nomura et al, 2007), who trained participants to categorize a set of pseudowords either by family resemblance (overall similarity) or by a single-dimension. In a subsequent scanning session, participants classified the stimuli according to these category structures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The neural basis of overall similarity and single-dimension sorting

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to group stimuli into meaningful categories is fundamental to natural behavior. Raw perceptions would be useless without an ability to classify items as, for example, threat or food. Previous work suggests that people have a tendency to group stimuli either on the basis of a single dimension or by overall similarity (e.g., Milton, F.N., Longmore, C.A., and Wills, A.J. (2008). Processes of overall similarity sorting in free classification. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform, 34, 676–692.). It has recently been suggested that overall similarity sorting can engage similar rule-based processes to single-dimension sorting and, in addition, requires greater use of working memory (Milton, F.N., and Wills, A.J. (2004). The influences of stimulus properties on category construction. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn, 30, 407–415.). These\ud predictions were tested in an event-related fMRI study of spontaneous categorization. Results showed a striking overlap of activation between overall similarity and single-dimension sorting indicating engagement of common neural processes. Furthermore, overall similarity sorting recruited additional activity in bilateral precuneus, right cuneus, left cerebellum, left postcentral gyrus, right thalamus and right ventrolateral frontal cortex (VLFC). Our findings suggest that overall similarity sorting can be the result of rule-based processes and highlight a potential role for right VLFC in integrating multi-dimensional sensory information to form conceptual categories

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The neural basis of overall similarity and single-dimension sorting

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relative to a baseline condition (just looking at the animals), the Rule group activated the prefrontal cortex (Brodmann areas [BAs] 6 and 46), the posterior parietal cortex (BA 7), the occipital cortex (BAs 17,18,and 19), and certain sub-cortical areas (thalamus and cerebellum); in contrast, relative to the same baseline, the Similarity group activated occipital cortex (BAs 17,18,and 19), and a sub-cortical area (cerebellum). Although the areas activated in the Similarity group in visual association cortex (BAs 17, 18, and 19) may be important for an exemplar similarity process (Tracy et al, 2003), they appeared to be largely a subset of those activated in the Rule group.…”

Section: Using Novel Categories: Neuroimaging Studiesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Multiple systems of category learning

Smith

Grossman

2008

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence for the existence of three qualitatively different categorization systems. These categorization systems are themselves based on three distinct memory systems: working memory (WM), explicit long-term memory (explicit LTM), and implicit long-term memory (implicit LTM). We first contrast categorization based on WM with that based on explicit LTM, where the former typically involves applying rules to a test item and the latter involves determining the similarity between stored exemplars or prototypes and a test item. Neuroimaging studies show differences between brain activity in normal participants as a function of whether they are instructed to categorize novel test items by rule or by similarity to known category members. Rule instructions typically lead to more activation in frontal or parietal areas, associated with WM and selective attention, whereas similarity instructions may activate parietal areas associated with the integration of perceptual features. Studies with neurological patients in the same paradigms provide converging evidence, e.g., patients with Alzheimer's disease, who have damage in prefrontal regions, are more impaired with rule than similarity instructions. Our second contrast is between categorization based on explicit LTM with that based on implicit LTM. Neuropsychological studies with patients with medial-temporal lobe show that patients are impaired on tasks requiring explicit LTM, but perform relatively normally on an implicit categorization task. Neuroimaging studies provide converging evidence: Whereas explicit categorization is mediated by activation in numerous frontal and parietal areas, implicit categorization is mediated by a deactivation in posterior cortex.

show abstract

A Comparison of the neural correlates that underlie rule‐based and information‐integration category learning

Carpenter

Wills

Benattayallah

et al. 2016

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influential competition between verbal and implicit systems (COVIS) model proposes that category learning is driven by two competing neural systems-an explicit, verbal, system, and a procedural-based, implicit, system. In the current fMRI study, participants learned either a conjunctive, rule-based (RB), category structure that is believed to engage the explicit system, or an information-integration category structure that is thought to preferentially recruit the implicit system. The RB and information-integration category structures were matched for participant error rate, the number of relevant stimulus dimensions, and category separation. Under these conditions, considerable overlap in brain activation, including the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and the hippocampus, was found between the RB and information-integration category structures. Contrary to the predictions of COVIS, the medial temporal lobes and in particular the hippocampus, key regions for explicit memory, were found to be more active in the information-integration condition than in the RB condition. No regions were more activated in RB than information-integration category learning. The implications of these results for theories of category learning are discussed. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3557-3574, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Differential brain responses when applying criterion attribute versus family resemblance rule learning

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

The neural basis of overall similarity and single-dimension sorting

The neural basis of overall similarity and single-dimension sorting

Multiple systems of category learning

A Comparison of the neural correlates that underlie rule‐based and information‐integration category learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About