Our knowledge of the world is populated with categories such as dogs, cups, and chairs. Such categories shape how we perceive, remember, and reason about their members. Much of our exposure to the entities we come to categorize occurs incidentally as we experience and interact with them in our everyday lives, with limited access to explicit teaching. This research investigated whether incidental exposure contributes to building category knowledge by rendering people “ready to learn”—allowing them to rapidly capitalize on brief access to explicit teaching. Across five experiments (N = 438 adults), we found that incidental exposure did produce a ready-to-learn effect, even when learners showed no evidence of robust category learning during exposure. Importantly, this readiness to learn occurred only when categories possessed a rich structure in which many features were correlated within categories. These findings offer a window into how our everyday experiences may contribute to building category knowledge.
Anwyl-IrvineA.MassonnieJ.FlittonA.KirkhamN.EvershedJ. (2019). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 388–407.
2.
BadgerJ. R.ShapiroL. R. (2012). Evidence of a transition from perceptual to category induction in 3- to 9-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 131–146.
3.
BillmanD.KnutsonJ. (1996). Unsupervised concept learning and value systematicitiy: A complex whole aids learning the parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 458–475.
4.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.
5.
CastroL.WassermanE. A.LaufferM. (2018). Unsupervised learning of complex associations in an animal model. Cognition, 173, 28–33.
6.
ChunM. M.JiangY. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71.
7.
ClapperJ. P. (2006). When more is less: Negative exposure effects in unsupervised learning. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 890–902.
8.
ClapperJ. P.BowerG. H. (1994). Category invention in unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 443–460.
9.
ClapperJ. P.BowerG. H. (2002). Adaptive categorization in unsupervised learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(5), 908–923.
10.
CreeG. S.McRaeK. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163–201.
11.
DengW.SloutskyV. M. (2012). Carrot eaters or moving heads: Inductive inference is better supported by salient features than by category labels. Psychological Science, 23(2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429133
12.
DengW.SloutskyV. M. (2015). The development of categorization: Effects of classification and inference training on category representation. Developmental Psychology, 51(3), 392–405.
13.
DengW.SloutskyV. M. (2016). Selective attention, diffused attention, and the development of categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 24–62.
14.
EcksteinM. P.DrescherB. A.ShimozakiS. S. (2006). Attentional cues in real scenes, saccadic targeting, and Bayesian priors. Psychological Science, 17(11), 973–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01815.x
15.
FrenchR. M.MareschalD.MermillodM.QuinnP. C. (2004). The role of bottom-up processing in perceptual categorization by 3- to 4-month-old infants: Simulations and data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 382–397.
16.
GabayY.DickF. K.ZevinJ. D.HoltL. L. (2015). Incidental auditory category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 1124–1138.
17.
GoujonA.DidierjeanA.ThorpeS. (2015). Investigating implicit statistical learning mechanisms through contextual cueing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(9), 524–533.
18.
HeathcoteA.BrownS.MewhortD. J. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 185–207.
19.
HendersonJ. M.WeeksP. A.Jr.HollingworthA. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 210–228.
HoltL. L.GabayY.DickF.ZevinJ. (2015). Incidental auditory category learning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 2386. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4920684
22.
KloosH.SloutskyV. M. (2008). What’s behind different kinds of kinds: Effects of statistical density on learning and representation of categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(1), 52–72.
23.
KruschkeJ. K. (1992). Alcove: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44.
24.
KruschkeJ. K. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press.
25.
LoveB. C. (2002). Comparing supervised and unsupervised category learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 829–835.
26.
LoveB. C.MedinD. L.GureckisT. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111(2), 309–332.
27.
MackS. C.EcksteinM. P. (2011). Object co-occurrence serves as a contextual cue to guide and facilitate visual search in a natural viewing environment. Journal of Vision, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.9.9
28.
MakowskiD.Ben-ShacharM. S.LüdeckeD. (2019). bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), Article 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541
29.
MaltB. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 85–148.
30.
MaltB. C.SmithE. E. (1984). Correlated properties in natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 250–269.
31.
MarkmanA. B.RossB. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 592–613.
32.
McElreathR. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. CRC Press.
33.
McRaeK.CreeG. S.SeidenbergM. S.McNorganC. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559.
34.
NissenM. J.BullemerP. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 1–32.
35.
NosofskyR. M. (2011). The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. In PothosE. M.WillsA. J. (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 18–39). Cambridge University Press.
36.
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.
37.
PothosE. M.ChaterN. (2005). Unsupervised categorization and category learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(4), 733–752.
38.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. http://www.R-project.org
39.
RehderB.HoffmanA. B. (2005). Eyetracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 51(1), 1–41.
40.
RoschE. (1975). Basic objects in natural categories. Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California.
SchwarbH.SchumacherE. H. (2012). Generalized lessons about sequence learning from the study of the serial reaction time task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 165–178.
43.
SloutskyV. M. (2010). From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops?Cognitive Science, 34(7), 1244–1286.
44.
SpearN. E.MillerJ. S.JagieloJ. A. (1990). Animal memory and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 169–211.
45.
Stan Development Team. (2020). RStan: The R interface to Stan (R package Version 2.21.2). http://mc-stan.org/
46.
SteyversM.BenjaminA. S. (2019). The joint contribution of participation and performance to learning functions: Exploring the effects of age in large-scale data sets. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1531–1543.
47.
VehtariA.GelmanA.GabryJ. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27, 1413–1432.
48.
WardT. B.ScottJ. (1987). Analytic and holistic modes of learning family-resemblance concepts. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 42–54.
49.
WardT. B.VelaE.HassS. D. (1990). Children and adults learn family resemblance categories analytically. Child Development, 61(3), 593–605.
50.
YamauchiT.MarkmanA. B. (1998). Category learning by inference and classification. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(1), 124–148.
51.
YuC.BallardD. H. (2007). A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues. Neurocomputing, 70(13–15), 2149–2165.
52.
ZeithamovaD.MaddoxW. T. (2009). Learning mode and exemplar sequencing in unsupervised category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 731–741.
53.
ZetterstenM.LupyanG. (2020). Finding categories through words: More nameable features improve category learning. Cognition, 196, Article 104135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104135
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
