On the adequacy of prototype theory as a thmry of concepts
By D. Osherson, Edward E Siullth, Gary O. Olson, M. Potter, Lance J. Rips, W. Salter, D. N. Oshelson, E. E. Smi2h. 2002
Subfields: Cognitive Science & Psychology, Philosophy
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Science & Psychology
- Brenden M. Lake
- Josh Tenenbaum
- J. Feldman
- Craig Crossland
- Ruslan Salakhutdinov
- James A. Hampton
- Lance J. Rips
- Douglas L. Medin
In Philosophy
- J. Feldman
- Ruslan Salakhutdinov
- Josh Tenenbaum
- James A. Hampton
- Lance J. Rips
- Brenden M. Lake
- Douglas L. Medin
Citations in the corpus
- Linguistic Distributional Knowledge and Sensorimotor Grounding both Contribute to Semantic Category Production (2020, background): “Typicality ratings have traditionally been assumed to reflect the inherently graded nature of semantic categories as part of feature-based theories of category membership (e.g., Osherson & Smith, 1981; Rosch, 1975; Rosch et al., 1976).”
- Quantum Structure in Cognition (2008, background): “These are the items that Hampton (1988a), following the guppy-effect analysis of Osherson and Smith (1981), already observed to be the problematic ones.”
- Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all? ☆ (2008, background): “Central members of categories in general are often seen as ideal examples that ‘‘stand for” the category (Osherson & Smith, 1981).”
- Concepts and categories: Memory, meaning, and metaphysics (2012, background): “One potential way to combine prototypes—fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965)—proved vulnerable to a range of counterexamples (Osherson & Smith, 1981, 1982).”
- A Nearest Hyperrectangle Learning Method (1991, background): “The set of examples that accumulate over time form category definitions; for example, the set of all chairs that a person has seen forms that person's definition of "chair" (see also (Osherson & Smith, 1981; Medin, 1983; Smith & Osherson, 1984; Barr & Caplan, 1987)).”
- Concepts as Prototypes (2006, background): “A mathematical exploration of the implications of this approach can be found in Gärdenfors (2000), and Osherson and Smith (1981) included a similarity space as part of their formalization of prototype theory.”