nips nips2006 nips2006-97 nips2006-97-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Julian Laub, Klaus-Robert Müller, Felix A. Wichmann, Jakob H. Macke
Abstract: Attempting to model human categorization and similarity judgements is both a very interesting but also an exceedingly difficult challenge. Some of the difficulty arises because of conflicting evidence whether human categorization and similarity judgements should or should not be modelled as to operate on a mental representation that is essentially metric. Intuitively, this has a strong appeal as it would allow (dis)similarity to be represented geometrically as distance in some internal space. Here we show how a single stimulus, carefully constructed in a psychophysical experiment, introduces l2 violations in what used to be an internal similarity space that could be adequately modelled as Euclidean. We term this one influential data point a conflictual judgement. We present an algorithm of how to analyse such data and how to identify the crucial point. Thus there may not be a strict dichotomy between either a metric or a non-metric internal space but rather degrees to which potentially large subsets of stimuli are represented metrically with a small subset causing a global violation of metricity.
[1] F. Gregory Ashby and W. William Lee. Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(2):150–172, 1991.
[2] L. Goldfarb. A unified approach to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition, 17:575–582, 1984.
[3] J.K. Kruschke. ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1):22–44, 1992.
[4] J.B. Kruskal. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1):1–27, 1964.
[5] J. Laub and K.-R. Müller. Feature discovery in non-metric pairwise data. Journal of Machine Learning, 5:801–818, 2004.
[6] D.L. Medin, R.L. Goldstone, and D. Gentner. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2):254– 278, 1993.
[7] S. Mika, B. Schölkopf, A.J. Smola, K.-R. Müller, M. Scholz, and G. Rätsch. Kernel PCA and de–noising in feature spaces. In M.S. Kearns, S.A. Solla, and D.A. Cohn, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 11, pages 536–542. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[8] R.M. Nosofsky. Attention, similarity, and the indentification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115:39–57, 1986.
[9] E. P¸ kalska, P. Paclík, and R. P. W. Duin. A generalized kernel approach to dissimilarity-based classifie cation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:175–211, 2001.
[10] B. Schölkopf, A. Smola, and K.-R. Müller. Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem. Neural Computation, 10:1299–1319, 1998.
[11] R. N. Shepard. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika, 27(2):125–140, 1962.
[12] R.N. Shepard. Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22:325–345, 1957.
[13] R.N. Shepard. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. 237(4820):1317–1323, 1987. Science,
[14] Roger N. Shepard, Carl I. Hovland, and Herbert M. Jenkins. Learning and memorization of classifications. Psychological Monographs, 75(13):1–42, 1961.
[15] W. S. Torgerson. Theory and Methods of Scaling. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958.
[16] A. Tversky. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4):327–352, 1977.
[17] A. Tversky and I. Gati. Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89(2):123–154, 1982.
[18] F. A. Wichmann, A. B. A. Graf, E. P. Simoncelli, H. H. Bülthoff, and B. Schölkopf. Machine learning applied to perception: decision-images for classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17, pages 1489–1496. MIT Press, 2005.