For over 300 years, the humble triangle has served as the paradigmatic example of the problem of abstraction. How can we have the idea of a general triangle even though every experience with triangles is with specific ones? Classical cognitive science seemed to provide an answer in symbolic representation. With its easily enumerated necessary and sufficient conditions, the triangle would appear to be an ideal candidate for being represented in a symbolic form. I show that it is not. Across a variety of tasks—drawing, speeded recognition, unspeeded visual judgments, and inference—representations of triangles appear to be graded and context dependent. I show that using the category name “triangle” activates a more prototypical representation than using an arguably coextensive cue, “three-sided polygon”. For example, when asked to draw “triangles” people draw more typical triangles than when asked to draw “three-sided polygons”. Altogether, the results support the view that (even formal) concepts have a graded and flexible structure, which takes on a more prototypical and stable form when activated by category labels.
AlthausN., & MareschalD. (2014). Labels direct infants’ attention to commonalities during novel category learning. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e99670. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099670 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099670
2.
ArmstrongS. L., GleitmanL. R., & GleitmanH. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263–308. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4
3.
AttneaveF. (1955). Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns. The American Journal of Psychology, 68(2), 209–222. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/1418892 doi: 10.2307/1418892
4.
BalabanM. T., & WaxmanS. R. (1997). Do words facilitate object categorization in 9-month-old infants? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64(1), 3–26.
5.
BaldoJ. V., BungeS. A., WilsonS. M., & DronkersN. F. (2010). Is relational reasoning dependent on language? A voxel-based lesion symptom mapping study. Brain and Language, 113(2), 59–64. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004
6.
BaldoJ. V., DronkersN. F., WilkinsD., LudyC., RaskinP., & KimJ. Y. (2005). Is problem solving dependent on language? Brain and Language, 92(3), 240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.103
7.
BarrettL. F., LindquistK. A., & GendronM. (2007). Language as context for the perception of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 327–332. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003
8.
BarsalouL. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.
9.
BarsalouL. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In NeisserU. (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609; discussion 610–660.
11.
BerkeleyG. (2009). Principles of human knowledge and three dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
BoutonnetB., & LupyanG. (2015). Words jump-start vision: A label advantage in object recognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(25), 9329–9335.
13.
BurlingR. (1993). Primate calls, human language, and nonverbal communication. Current Anthropology, 34(1), 25–53.
14.
CasasantoD., & LupyanG. (2014). All concepts are Ad hoc concepts. In MargolisE. & LaurenceS. (Eds.), Concepts: New directions (pp. 543–566). Cambridge: MIT Press.
15.
CasasolaM. (2005). Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 183–192. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.188 doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.188
16.
ChaterN. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(2), 273–302.
17.
Chin-ParkerS., & RossB. H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: A comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 216–226.
18.
ChurchlandP. M. (1993). State-space semantics and meaning holism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53(3), 667–672. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/2108090 doi: 10.2307/2108090
19.
ChurchlandP. M. (1998). Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: The fodor/lepore challenge answered. The Journal of Philosophy, 95(1), 5. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/2564566
20.
CohenA. L., & NosofskyR. M. (2000). An exemplar-retrieval model of speeded same-different judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(5), 1549–1569.
21.
ConnellL., & LynottD. (2014). Principles of representation: Why you can't represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 390–406. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12097 doi: 10.1111/tops.12097
22.
ÇukurT., NishimotoS., HuthA. G., & GallantJ. L. (2013). Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 16(6), 763–770. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3381 doi: 10.1038/nn.3381
23.
DanzigerK. (1980). The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(3), 241–262.
24.
DessalegnB., & LandauB. (2008). More than meets the eye: The role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19(2), 189–195. Retrieved from http://doi.org/PSCI2066 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02066.x
25.
DoveG. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016
26.
DryM. J., & StormsG. (2010). Features of graded category structure: Generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models. Acta Psychologica, 133(3), 244–255. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.005 doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.005
27.
EdmistonP., & LupyanG. (2013). Verbal and nonverbal cues activate concepts differently, at different times. In KnauffM., PauenM., SebanzN., & WachsmuthI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2243–2248). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
28.
EdmistonP., & LupyanG. (2015). What makes words special? Words as unmotivated cues. Cognition, 143, 93–100.
29.
ElmanJ. L. (2011). Lexical knowledge without a lexicon?The Mental Lexicon, 6(1), 1–33. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1075/ml.6.1.01elm doi: 10.1075/ml.6.1.01elm
30.
EvansV. (2009). How words mean lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
FodorJ. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong (1st ed.). Oxford , New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
GainottiG. (2014). Old and recent approaches to the problem of non-verbal conceptual disorders in aphasic patients. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 53, 78–89. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.009
33.
GallistelC. R., & KingA. P. (2009). Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience (1st ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
GleitmanL., & PapafragouA. (2005). Language and thought. In HolyoakK. & MorrisonB. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633–661). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
GoldstoneR. L., SteyversM., & RogoskyB. J. (2003). Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 169–180.
37.
GomilaT. (2011). Verbal minds: Language and the architecture of cognition (1st ed.). Amsterdam , Boston: Elsevier.
38.
GreeneM. (2014). Human estimates of object frequency are frequently over-estimated. Presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society.
39.
HamptonJ. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and Theory (Vol. 46, pp. 79–113). London: Elsevier.
40.
HamptonJ. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31(3), 355–384. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326402 doi: 10.1080/15326900701326402
41.
HarelA., KravitzD. J., & BakerC. I. (2014). Task context impacts visual object processing differentially across the cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201312567. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312567111
42.
HaxbyJ. V., GuntupalliJ. S., ConnollyA. C., HalchenkoY. O., ConroyB. R., GobbiniM. I., … RamadgeP. J. (2011). A common, high-dimensional model of the representational space in human ventral temporal cortex. Neuron, 72(2), 404–416. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.026 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.026
43.
HolmesK. J., & WolffP. (2013). Spatial language and the psychological reality of schematization. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 205–208. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5 doi: 10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5
44.
HumeD. (2012). A treatise of human nature. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
KemmererD. (2010). How words capture visual experience: The perspective from cognitive neuroscience. In MaltB. C. & WolffP. (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (1st ed., pp. 289–329). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
47.
KieferM., & PulvermüllerF. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006
48.
KriegeskorteN., & KievitR. A. (2013). Representational geometry: Integrating cognition, computation, and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 401–412. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.007
49.
KriegeskorteN., MurM., RuffD. A., KianiR., BodurkaJ., EstekyH., … BandettiniP. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60(6), 1126–1141. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043
50.
KruschkeJ. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44.
51.
LaurenceS., & MargolisE. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In MargolisE. & LaurenceS. (Eds.), Concepts: core readings (pp. 3–81). Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book.
52.
LiP., & GleitmanL. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83(3), 265–294.
53.
LockeJ. (1995). An essay concerning human understanding. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
54.
LoewensteinJ., & GentnerD. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 315–353. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004
55.
LoveB. C., MedinD. L., & GureckisT. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111(2), 309–332.
56.
LupyanG. (2007). Reuniting categories, language, and perception. In McNamaraD. S. & TraftonJ. G. (Eds.), Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1247–1252). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
57.
LupyanG. (2008a). From chair to “chair”: A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 348–369.
58.
LupyanG. (2008b). The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108(2), 566–577.
LupyanG. (2012a). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Cognition, 3(54). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054
61.
LupyanG. (2012b). What do words do? Towards a theory of language-augmented thought. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123942937000078
62.
LupyanG. (2013). The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: Why brains make mistakes computers don't. Cognition, 129(3), 615–636. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.015
LupyanG., & BergenB. (2015). How language programs the mind. Topics in Cognitive Science. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12155
65.
LupyanG., & CasasantoD. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 167–193. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.21 doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.21
66.
LupyanG., & ClarkA. (2015). Words and the world: Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 279–284.
67.
LupyanG., & MirmanD. (2013). Linking language and categorization: Evidence from aphasia. Cortex, 49(5), 1187–1194. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.006
68.
LupyanG., MirmanD., HamiltonR. H., & Thompson-SchillS. L. (2012). Categorization is modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation over left prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 124(1), 36–49. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.002
69.
LupyanG., RakisonD. H., & McClellandJ. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1077–1083.
70.
LupyanG., & SpiveyM. J. (2010). Redundant spoken labels facilitate perception of multiple items. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2236–2253. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.8.2236 doi: http://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.8.2236
71.
LupyanG., & Thompson-SchillS. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 170–186. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024904 doi: 10.1037/a0024904
72.
MackM. L., PrestonA. R., & LoveB. C. (2013). Decoding the brain's algorithm for categorization from its neural implementation. Current Biology, 23(20), 2023–2027. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.035 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.035
MindaJ. P., & SmithJ. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 775–799.
75.
MirmanD. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R (Revised ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
76.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
77.
MurphyG. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
78.
MurrayL. (2012). Attention and other cognitive deficits in aphasia: Presence and relation to language and communication measures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 21(2), S51–S64Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0067) doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0067)
79.
NosofkyR. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39–57.
80.
OshersonD. N., & SmithE. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5
81.
PecherD. (2013). The perceptual representation of mental categories. In ReisbergD. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 358–373). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82.
PerryL. K., & LupyanG. (2014). The role of language in multi-dimensional categorization: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure to verbal labels. Brain and Language, 135, 66–72. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.005
83.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins.
84.
PinkerS. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking.
85.
PosnerM. I., & KeeleS. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3P1), 353–363.
86.
PrinzJ. J. (2004). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis (New ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
87.
RaizadaR. D. S., & ConnollyA. C. (2012). What makes different people's representations alike: Neural similarity space solves the problem of across-subject fMRI decoding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 868–877. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00189 doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00189
88.
RogersT., & McClellandJ. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book.
89.
RoschE. (1978). Principles of categorization. In RoschE. & LloydB. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
90.
RumelhartD. E., McClellandJ. L., & the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91.
SimmonsW. K., RamjeeV., BeauchampM. S., McRaeK., MartinA., & BarsalouL. W. (2007). A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia, 45(12), 2802–2810. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.002
92.
SpencerJ. P., & HundA. A. (2002). Prototypes and particulars: Geometric and experience-dependent spatial categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 16–37.
93.
SpiveyM. J. (2008). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
94.
TabossiP., & Johnson-LairdP. N. (1980). Linguistic context and the priming of semantic information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(4), 595–603. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/14640748008401848 doi: 10.1080/14640748008401848
VignoloL. A. (1999). Disorders of conceptual thinking in aphasia. In DenesG. & PizzamiglioL. (Eds.), Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology (pp. 273–288). Hove: Psychology Press.
97.
WatsonR. A. (1995). Representational Ideas: From Plato to Patricia churchland. Springer Science & Business Media.
98.
WeberM., Thompson-SchillS. L., OshersonD., HaxbyJ., & ParsonsL. (2009). Predicting judged similarity of natural categories from their neural representations. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 859–868. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.029 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.029
99.
ZwaanR. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008
100.
ZwaanR. A., & TaylorL. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1 doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
