Abstract:Introduction In this article,we compare classification learning with inference learning. In the inference task,participants predict the value of a missing feature of an item given its category label and other feature values.In the classification task,participants predict the category label of an item given its feature values.Yamauchi and Markman(1998,2000,2002) showed that these two types of learning did not result in the learning of equivalent knowledge.Categories defined by a family resemblance structure were more easily learned by inference learning than by classification learning,whereas categories defined by a nonlinearly separable structure were more easily learned by classification learning than by inference learning.Chin-Parker and Ross(2002,2004) found that Classification learners were highly sensitive to diagnostic features but not sensitive to nondiagnostic,prototypical features.Inference(learners) were less sensitive to the diagnostic features than were classification learners and were also sensitive to the nondiagnostic,prototypical features.In the current experiments,we examined the sensitivity of classification and inference learners to another critical type of category information-feature correlation information.We further systematically explored the two learning tasks that might lead to differential learning efficiency,strategy and outcome. Method As Chin-Parker & Ross(2002,2004) pointed out,Yamauchi & Markman ignored irrelative transfer effects in their 1988 study and used less learning exemplars in their 2002 study.We improved Yamauchi & Markman's experiment(2002) by designing 10 learning exemplars and 3/5 prototypical typicality category structure, using(learning-transfer) task paradigm and feature category detecting method.We explored the category feature correlation processing in different way in classification and inference learning.One hundred and forty-four volunteers,who took an introductory psychology course for partial credit at South China University of Technology,took part in the experiments(ninety-six for other two complementary experiments). Results For participants who reached the 90% learning criterion,we found that those in the inference learning condition(M=34.33) were required significantly more blocks than those in the classification learning condition(M=17.84).For participants given classification learning,we found that they classified transfer stimuli A6~A7 more accurately than they did the transfer stimuli B6~B7.In contrast,participants given inference learning did not show this trend. The study also showed that classification learning was better than inference learning to catch the category prototype.At inference transfer phase,classification learners were more likely to infer the absent feature as the(prototypical) feature than inference learner did.At single feature classifying,classification learners showed more(accurately) than inference learner did. Conclusions Inference learning was easier than classification learning with accepting feature correlation information;classification learning was more efficient than inference learning in reaching the learning criterion and switching strategies.Classification learning was better than inference learning in integrating prototype although classification learning was opt to exemplars memorizing comparing inference learning to prototype memorizing.

Multisensory transfer effects in implicit and explicit category learning

Crossmodal Correspondence Mediates Crossmodal Transfer from Visual to Auditory Stimuli in Category Learning

Transfer of visual perceptual learning over a task-irrelevant feature through feature-invariant representations: Behavioral experiments and model simulations

Multisensory Information Facilitates the Categorization of Untrained Stimuli.

Lack of Cross-Modal Effects in Dual-Modality Implicit Statistical Learning

The effect of deferring feedback on rule-based and information-integration category learning.

Distribution-dependent Representations in Auditory Category Learning and Generalization

Differential Impact of Visuospatial Working Memory on Rule-based and Information-integration Category Learning.

Transfer of learned cognitive control settings within and between tasks

Asymmetrical Transfer of Learning Effects Between Signal-Based and Criterion-Based Task Uncertainties in Perceptual Decision

Cross-modal Transfer in Man

Cross-modality effect in implicit learning of temporal sequence

Feedback and observational learning differ in effectiveness during category learning in early school aged children and adults

Bottom-Up And Top-Down Influences At Untrained Conditions Determine Perceptual Learning Specificity And Transfer

Structure transfer and consolidation in visual implicit learning

A Comparative Study of Two Types of Category Learning：Classification and Inference Learning

The Multiple Systems Theory in Category Learning

Bottom-up and Top-Down Factors of Motion Direction Learning Transfer.

Impact of Response Stimulus Interval on Transfer of Non-local Dependent Rules in Implicit Learning: an ERP Investigation

Effects of the Observation Learning and the Feedback Learning on Category Learning