The Role of Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Learning on the Interleaving Effect in Category Induction

被引:0
|
作者
Zulkiply, Norehan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malaysia Sarawak, Dept Cognit Sci, Fac Cognit Sci & Human Dev, Kota Samarahan 94300, Sarawak, Malaysia
来源
关键词
Interleaving effect; inductive learning; category learning; category induction; bottom-up learning; top-down learning;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Interleaving has been shown to promote inductive category learning compared to massing. Interleaved presentation allows for the identification of features that are different between categories, thus enhancing discrimination learning of categories, whereas massed presentation promotes identification of features that are common among stimuli from the same category. Previous studies that found the interleaving effect employed the "bottom-up" learning approach (i.e. learning through exposure to exemplars) to inductive category learning. It is not known whether the same effects of interleaving can be observed in category induction using the top-down learning approach (i.e. learning when explicit information about the categories and the experimental procedures involved is given in advance). Thus, it would be interesting to compare "bottom-up learning" and "top-down learning" of categories. Using paintings from several artists, the present study investigated the effect of "bottom-up" learning (i.e. learning through exposure to exemplars) versus "top-down" learning of categories. One hundred and twenty undergraduate students participated in the present study, which used a 2 (Presentation style: Massed vs. Interleaved) x 2 (Learning type: Bottom-up vs. Top-down) mixed-factorial design. Consistent with previous findings, the benefits of interleaving were achieved using the "bottom-up" condition, while the current study also achieved some positive outcomes using the "top-down" condition. However, no significant effect of learning type was found, which indicates that performance in both groups did not differ significantly. Participants in both learning conditions perceived massing to be more helpful to learning than interleaving although their actual performance showed the opposite.
引用
收藏
页码:933 / 944
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [32] Exploring the Relative Role of Bottom-up and Top-down Information in Phoneme Learning
    Fourtassi, Abdellah
    Schatz, Thomas
    Varadarajan, Balakrishnan
    Dupoux, Emmanuel
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 52ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, VOL 2, 2014, : 1 - 6
  • [33] Counter-Based Power Modeling Methods: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up
    Bertran, Ramon
    Gonzalez, Marc
    Martorell, Xavier
    Navarro, Nacho
    Ayguade, Eduard
    COMPUTER JOURNAL, 2013, 56 (02): : 198 - 213
  • [34] Top-down and bottom-up diversity cascades in detrital vs. living food webs
    Dyer, LA
    Letourneau, D
    ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2003, 6 (01) : 60 - 68
  • [35] Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations
    Kriz, Sarah
    Hegarty, Mary
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER STUDIES, 2007, 65 (11) : 911 - 930
  • [36] The interaction of top-down and bottom-up statistics in the resolution of syntactic category ambiguity
    Gibson, E
    JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2006, 54 (03) : 363 - 388
  • [37] Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Macroeconomics
    De Grauwe, Paul
    CESIFO ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2010, 56 (04) : 465 - 497
  • [38] Medezeggenschap: top-down en bottom-up
    Astrid van de Weijenberg
    Management Kinderopvang, 2016, 22 (1): : 24 - 26
  • [39] Bottom-up Segmentation for Top-down Detection
    Fidler, Sanja
    Mottaghi, Roozbeh
    Yuille, Alan
    Urtasun, Raquel
    2013 IEEE CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION AND PATTERN RECOGNITION (CVPR), 2013, : 3294 - 3301
  • [40] Mass spectrometry: Bottom-up or top-down?
    Chait, Brian T.
    SCIENCE, 2006, 314 (5796) : 65 - 66