The prototype model of concepts was first proposed formally by Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn Mervis. This model was the most widely accepted view of the structure of concepts for many years. Since the 1980s, however, there have been many criticisms of the model's ability to represent the full range of our cognitive capacities. It now seems clear that a more sophisticated model is required. In this article, the author shows how connectionist models can answer some of the problems of prototype and exemplar theories, but only by transforming many aspects of the original model. Additional criticisms of prototype theory that also apply to connectionist models are then considered. These criticisms have deeper implications for our theories of conceptual structure. Before examining prototype and connectionist models, however, the author first describes what led to the prototype view and the rejection of the earlier view.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, S. L. , Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263-308.
2.
Barsalou, L. (1985). Ideals, control tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
3.
Barsalou, L. (1990). On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 61-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Barsalou, L. , & Hale, C. R. (1993). Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In I. V. Meechelen, J. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 97-144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6.
Bechtel, W. , & Abrahamsen, A. (1991). Connectionism and the mind: An introduction to parallel processing in networks. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
7.
Boden, M. (1977). Artificial intelligence and natural man. Sussex, England: Harvester.
8.
Brooks, L. R. (1987). Non-analytic cognition. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual bases of categories. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Clark, A. (1993). Associative engines: Connectionism, concepts, and representational change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Cussins, A. (1990). The connectionist construction of concepts. In M. Boden (Ed.), The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Estes, W. K. (1986). Memory storage and retrieval processes in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 155-175.
12.
French, R. (1992). Using semi-distributed representations to overcome catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Connection Science, 4(3/4), 365-378.
13.
Hampton, J. (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I. V. Meechelen, J. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67-95). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
McClelland, J. , & Rumelhart, D. (1996). A distributed model of human learning and memory. In J. McClelland, D. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
McCloskey, M. , & Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 1-37.
17.
Medin, D. L. (1986). Comment on “Memory storage and retrieval process in category learning.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 373-381.
18.
Medin, D. L. (1989, December). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-81.
19.
Medin, D. L. , & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 86, 207-238.
20.
Medin, D. L. , & Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 158-190.
21.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988a). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700-708.
22.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988b). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54-65.
23.
Quinlan, P. (1991). Connectionism and psychology: A psychological perspective on new connectionist research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
25.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
26.
Van Gelder, T. (1991). What is the “D” in “PDP”? A survey of the concept of distribution. In W. Ramsey, S. Stich, & D. Rumelhart (Eds.), Philosophy and connectionist theory (pp. 33-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Waismann, F. (1947). Verifiability. In A. Flew (Ed.), Logic and language. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
28.
Waltz, D. (1988). The prospects for building truly intelligent machines. In S. Graubard (Ed.), The artificial intelligence debate: False starts, real foundations (pp. 191-212). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.
