| Literature DB >> 29570837 |
Charlotte E R Edmunds1, Fraser Milton2, Andy J Wills1.
Abstract
Behavioral evidence for the COVIS dual-process model of category learning has been widely reported in over a hundred publications (Ashby & Valentin, ). It is generally accepted that the validity of such evidence depends on the accurate identification of individual participants' categorization strategies, a task that usually falls to Decision Bound analysis (Maddox & Ashby, ). Here, we examine the accuracy of this analysis in a series of model-recovery simulations. In Simulation 1, over a third of simulated participants using an Explicit (conjunctive) strategy were misidentified as using a Procedural strategy. In Simulation 2, nearly all simulated participants using a Procedural strategy were misidentified as using an Explicit strategy. In Simulation 3, we re-examined a recently reported COVIS-supporting dissociation (Smith et al., ) and found that these misidentification errors permit an alternative, single-process, explanation of the results. Implications for due process in the future evaluation of dual-process theories, including recommendations for future practice, are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990COVISzzm321990; Categorization strategies; Decision-bound analysis; Dual systems
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29570837 DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cogn Sci ISSN: 0364-0213