Exemplar-model account of categorization and recognition when training instances never repeat.

Author(s):  
Mingjia Hu ◽  
Robert M. Nosofsky
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany R. Knapp ◽  
Robert M. Nosofsky ◽  
Thomas A. Busey
Keyword(s):  

Genetics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 1961-1974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Wei ◽  
Armando Caballero ◽  
William G Hill

Formulae were derived to predict genetic response under various selection schemes assuming an infinitesimal model. Account was taken of genetic drift, gametic (linkage) disequilibrium (Bulmer effect), inbreeding depression, common environmental variance, and both initial segregating variance within families (σAW02) and mutational (σM2) variance. The cumulative response to selection until generation t(CRt) can be approximated asCRt≈R0[t−β(1−σAW∞2σAW02)t24Ne]−Dt2Ne,where Ne is the effective population size, σAW∞2=NeσM2 is the genetic variance within families at the steady state (or one-half the genic variance, which is unaffected by selection), and D is the inbreeding depression per unit of inbreeding. R  0 is the selection response at generation 0 assuming preselection so that the linkage disequilibrium effect has stabilized. β is the derivative of the logarithm of the asymptotic response with respect to the logarithm of the within-family genetic variance, i.e., their relative rate of change. R  0 is the major determinant of the short term selection response, but σM2, Ne and β are also important for the long term. A selection method of high accuracy using family information gives a small Ne and will lead to a larger response in the short term and a smaller response in the long term, utilizing mutation less efficiently.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Cohen

A small but growing body of research on English and Dutch has found that pronunciation of affixes in a word form is sensitive to paradigmatic probability – i.e., the probability of using that form over other words in the same morphological paradigm. Yet it remains unclear (a) how paradigmatic probability is best measured; (b) whether an increase in paradigmatic probability leads to phonetic enhancement or reduction; and (c) by what mechanism paradigmatic probability can affect pronunciation. The current work examines pronunciation variation of Russian verbal agreement suffixes. I show that there are two distinct patterns of variation, corresponding to two different measures of paradigmatic probability. One measure, pairwise paradigmatic probability, is associated with a pronunciation pattern that resembles phonetic enhancement. The second measure, lexeme paradigmatic probability, can show enhancement effects, but can also yield reduction effects more similar to those of contextual probability. I propose that these two patterns can be explained in an exemplar model of lexical storage. Reduction effects are the consequence of faster retrieval and encoding of an articulatory target, while effects that resemble enhancement result when the pronunciation target of both members of a pair of competing word forms is shifted towards the more frequent of two.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document