1 / 13

Individual Differences in Attention During Category Learning

Individual Differences in Attention During Category Learning. Michael D. Lee UC Irvine. Ruud Wetzels University of Amsterdam. Kruschke (1993) Condensation Experiment. 8 stimuli varying in their box height and interior line position

naoko
Download Presentation

Individual Differences in Attention During Category Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Individual Differences in Attention During Category Learning Michael D. LeeUC Irvine Ruud WetzelsUniversity of Amsterdam

  2. Kruschke (1993) Condensation Experiment • 8 stimuli varying in their box height and interior line position • Divided into 2 categories, so that both dimensions are relevant • 40 participants did 40 blocks of trials with corrective feedback

  3. Generalized Context Model

  4. Results of Standard GCM Analysis • Marginal posterior over the attention parameter indicates both dimensions are important • Familiar story, and a strong temptation to stop there …

  5. Posterior Predictive • “Violin plots” of posterior predictive for each stimuli, together with aggregated data (black line) and individual data (broken lines)

  6. Types of Individual Differences

  7. Allowing for Individual Differences • Continuous individual differences are modeled by drawing subject parameters from an over-arching hierarchical distribution • Discrete individual differences are modeled as a latent mixture, so different subjects can be drawn from different group distributions • Let WinBUGS do the heavy lifting, check chains for convergence, etc, …

  8. Results of Individual Differences Analysis • Suggests there are two groups, with different attention

  9. Bayes Factor • Savage-Dickey method gives approximate Bayes Factor of 2.3 in favor there being two groups (rather than one) “artist’s impression”

  10. Posterior Predictive Distribution • Posterior predictive distributions of categorization behavior are qualitatively different • tracks people’s behavior at both the sub-group and individual level

  11. Interpretation of Groups • The two groups are shown in the panels • The bars show the number of “A” vs “B” category decisions made for each stimulus

  12. Interpretation of Groups • The group on the left pays attention to position, and so makes mistakes with stimuli 4 and 5

  13. Interpretation of Groups • The group on the left pays attention to position, and so makes mistakes with stimuli 4 and 5 • The group on the right pays attention to height, and so makes mistakes with stimuli 2 and 7

More Related