Distinctive-features versus prototype learning reexamined.

Abstract

The present study suports an alternative explanation for the results of a well-known study by Pick supporting the distinctive-features hypothesis vs. the schema hypothesis in perceptual learning. The Pick study did not provide a true test of the relative merits of the two hypotheses because more information was given to the distinctive-features group regarding E's concept of "same" and "different." The data show that when equal amounts of information are given, either by using different initial standards or through warm-up, no significant differences are produced.In a well-known study, Pick (1965) presented two opposing hypotheses concerning discrimination learning. The schema hypothesis (Brunei-, 19S7a, 1957b;Solley & Murphy, 1960;Vernon, 1952Vernon, , 1955 suggests that discrimination learning involves the construction of prototypes or models of stimuli. 8 These models are built up through repeated encounters with objects and then stored in memory. Discrimination involves matching sensory input with the stored models.The distinctive-features hypothesis, suggested by Gibson and Gibson (1955) and Gibson, Gibson, Pick, and Osser (1962), proposes that learning the dimensions of difference among objects leads to the improvement of discrimination. Practice, according to the distinctive-features hypothesis, enables S to determine which dimensions or features of a stimulus are critical for distinguishing it from other stimuli. Practice for the schema hypothesis, however, enables S to build and refine schema of the stimuli to be distinguished.

Effect of memory on distinctive features and schema learning.

“…Future research should also explore the relative value of schema and feature learning in other sensory modalities, given that for two senses (vision and touch) the effects are different. Caldwell and Hall (1970) have criticized the design of the Pick (1965) study as being biased toward an outcome in which distinctive-feature training would prove facilitative. This, they claim, is because the distinctivefeature group learns that certain transformations of standards are considered different by the experimenter (experiencing the same transformation-say right-to-left reversalon both training and transfer trials), while the schema group has less training in the experimenter's meaning of the concept dijferent (since the transformations change from training to transfer phases).…”

“…The second major purpose of our study was to examine the transfer of learning over time. The studies done previously (e.g., Caldwell & Hall, 1970;May, 1973;Pick, 1965) have not indicated anything about the long-term retention of perceptual learning as a function of the qualitative basis for initial learning. Since memory seems to influence the nature of how the child initially represents form differences, memory may very well influence the strength of a particular representational system over time, once the system has been formed.…”

The Effect of Color on Character Recognition: A Study of the Oregon License Plate

“…The distinctive feature paradigm has been frequently used in letter recognition research (Estes, 1972;Garner, 1988;Holbrook, 1975;Kunnapas, 1966;Mcintyre, Fox, and Neale, 1970;Miller, 1972;MacKinnon, O'Reilly, and Geiselman, 1990;Pick and Unze, 1979;Walley and Weiden, 1973). In fact, Holbrook (1975) and Kunnapas (1966) (Eysenck, 1984;Caldwell and Hall, 1970;Matlin, 1989).…”

Loss of concept identification in children with change in irrelevant facial features

“…She found that when children were trained to make discriminations based on the transformations of letter-like forms, transfer was better with new forms and the same transformations than with old forms and new transformations. However, in a replication by Caldwell and Hall (1970), children performed better with the same letterlike forms and new transformations, thus providing some support for a prototype model.The present study was designed to further determine the extent to which irrelevant aspects of the stimulus form part of concept learning in children. The study is concerned with systematic investigation of substitution of different values of an irrelevant dimension during transfer on concept loss.…”

“…She found that when children were trained to make discriminations based on the transformations of letter-like forms, transfer was better with new forms and the same transformations than with old forms and new transformations. However, in a replication by Caldwell and Hall (1970), children performed better with the same letterlike forms and new transformations, thus providing some support for a prototype model.…”