Why do we SLIP to the basic level? Computational constraints and their implementation.
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Psychological Review
- Vol. 108 (4) , 735-758
- https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.735
Abstract
The authors introduce a new measure of basic-level performance (strategy length and internal practicability; SLIP). SLIP implements 2 computational constraints on the organization of categories in a taxonomy: the minimum number of feature tests required to place the input in a category (strategy length) and the ease with which these tests are performed (internal practicability). The predictive power of SLIP is compared with that of 4 other basic-level measures: context model, category feature possession, category utility, and compression measure, drawing data from other empirical work, and 3 new experiments testing the validity of the computational constraints of SLIP using computer-synthesized 3-dimensional artificial objects.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- To What Extent Do Unique Parts Influence Recognition Across Changes in Viewpoint?Psychological Science, 1997
- Category Coherence in Cross-Cultural PerspectiveCognitive Psychology, 1995
- Flexible tuning of similarity in exemplar-based categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1994
- Parts in object concepts: Experiments with artificial categoriesMemory & Cognition, 1991
- Converging operations on a basic level in event taxonomiesMemory & Cognition, 1990
- Superordinate and basic category names in discourse: A textual analysisDiscourse Processes, 1989
- Comparing natural and abstract categories: A case study from computer scienceCognitive Science, 1985
- Cue validity and levels of categorization.Psychological Bulletin, 1982
- Developmental Differences in the Acquisition of Basic and Superordinate CategoriesChild Development, 1980
- Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review, 1978