%PDF-1.6
%
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
20 18
0000000016 00000 n
0000000876 00000 n
0000001001 00000 n
0000001022 00000 n
0000001263 00000 n
0000001365 00000 n
0000001468 00000 n
0000001572 00000 n
0000002267 00000 n
0000002965 00000 n
0000003073 00000 n
0000003756 00000 n
0000004365 00000 n
0000005089 00000 n
0000005811 00000 n
0000006574 00000 n
0000007100 00000 n
0000000656 00000 n
trailer
<]/Prev 75822>>
startxref
0
%%EOF
37 0 obj
<>stream
hb```b``e`a`ˀ@Q.uw?=/=OD'?L
L"
@si~ ,{%H֔KNۻsc0= D%D!o
endstream
endobj
21 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
<<>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 36 0 R>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>stream
Hēn@ 0GG-]%$VUEJka#`:.oY&jzeg~pu[\}̀%P
D2]BQB/v!l[a
# }g/̜2 N*OS]
5!ljri⣛oQxZ5kWQX Q膄5ò=x8e+߶x/X^卫
B;2nP֪Q+iT|Am&uBףVZk']aK9{US SkYݫ]eT:jϜ,Β
[#aMlܤ]k%~jQWr8r4ӊhb[VA3kyhψcL#<%I6=FB5ꕡ3f?^F¸2ޝ+XO9m{+{㽅PR*@-}-Uɷ)ؓ4pҞ4B~W1ɠ5\;N#NڼGsUUn/C1 m-,Ζq$COFJqP6y${&i&c$W4OkrN鑦gҢ p-ErR
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>stream
HtSr0~!qzd`:=G.dh=+ɭ\23Tf ÈfЎxZVGl]hkx\})u1GtQ[{/>0h}ExԌAeWMCtE{FgL2}1R+]ȓ 2 Ɖ'HΠ8Mݜ9fG41Tx,E&'^YF}X pyLi`:4KɇR"O[2ź4NP[IAͧr=z0VHGy=VGة?' zMKD8NTi֯TmhTq 0h33cO
n3zu>g.ىrٝY|[i2,j-zk}~7ܫ3:g^@T>4/;vI
b|
0
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
<>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>stream
HlTˎ0>NETہ .ߜ}sozODET4cfۦ",jf)!ӻ_RM
op@>0nmހ~i#DR
)4oK
ot7Є+X_S*I_{+Yd
endstream
endobj
31 0 obj
<>stream
HS 9zv
vDUUzisq&
h.+EVǛJ8}?-dfvºkuBy'9c(ku?tѶt@F?/pC|N
Nw4EB7xu؇RK,XsЋ#P|uhd?v
ulY2 H
-*'
R\cw+o(Z/ `S{םɖ[r7x찊}H~Vu
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
H\Mr0O;`vjWcwr3tCQ3$[=}ʱoA~{46**1?a
N?叆3e#n.m}8*9) Q&r"(ׁU3tBFV+zn
3Z
SDm:LnnvʒNB<}eB Ҝ2Z3D{FȮf>\)i+@Gr̘A;K!*;.Gx#!bB! {=%V/M5W7xZU/rǞXl"EQ
c9:͝5[\xSǓr52b1-1ĢIK[cWU
Up.D1%P/ȍ3rRu>vFTdXt%ыN%ef :~ jȂKfrlKR$bISvĿfNEjD7ds갿m(qb>Ή4N%ZU jn?4,2Bs-?Cߧ<-)X.-{Y]~7
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
Hdn0E 0KUQR]qwb"IUCRht3$ahTzܿ?+~w/zT.%a6 ]T>A*c|vxxBvO-1Zp7+IT:[nyNvg̫'5Ec1JD{$F4y8.,]oɮx\F7+m\ۤiùo%:R8
aB2j/*E:RŘ5xv\Y tE=b7Y/i j1eeẘt1n[}!
M!.2-*ݣ\$g#",uN)EvA#ѼCXc8q!.
'ΞC=x;Yݠid=t^"(RJȟ2xH~Đ"j?M
endstream
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
H\Tn0ÞTQ~(BAEQ zZTɕ]K6
.ٙV_U;݀ {j Zd"؎N{%<~veT9Z(>@ Fw?|_*֡[{yUWxBDkdev)\@#uƒfĊÄ 0⃜
:&Zc#v"Gt.MXC'v2@qi{jzN-P?vd[ʩe8ԑ8-̚ ޠCDP^q>вDZy6Nשּ,IDg
Ƙ!)_\cHCc9i> e&@#Hw)0mK.T51{v¤i%]=HY/j* 'B)UY8>G|S']zWZ6ceB| U05"r9i**599G:re1-a*"qP]#聼!$t
_ԳM)tR[we;}0!G ;pZsliG_1)Qt͘It`Ȃ!
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
HTKn0=0KHhuB%
);$%t"i7;|q?fP-[̔LZSiu=Ms98')D"3EB,ϸrWnaŒhEs<2-NX"^Q/Q')8]_~^Hɻ0t{4)'۔Yg3OR>/ProcSet 36 0 R>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/F2 10 Tf
54.5 711 TD 0.039 Tc 0 Tw (been partialed out. A robust finding is that current responses)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.102 Tc (tend to be contrasted \(i.e. negatively correlated\) with previ-)Tj
T* 0.36 Tc (ous stimuli )Tj
54 0 TD 0 Tc (and )Tj
19 0 TD (assimilated )Tj
50 0 TD (\(positively )Tj
49 0 TD -0.233 Tc (correlated\) )Tj
46 0 TD -0.295 Tc (toward)Tj
-218 -11 TD 0.146 Tc (previous responses. Moreover, there )Tj
156 0 TD 0 Tc (is )Tj
13 0 TD (an )Tj
15 0 TD (interaction )Tj
48 0 TD (be-)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.099 Tc (tween the two time-lagged variables )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
153 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.312 Tc ( and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
23 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.477 Tc (. The as-)Tj
-205 -11 TD 0.051 Tc (similation towards the previous response seems to be modu-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.107 Tc (lated by the difference between the two consecutive stimuli)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
T* (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD ( and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
19 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.138 Tc ( \(Jesteadt et al., 1977; Petzold, 1981\). The closer)Tj
-42 -11 TD 0.092 Tc (the stimuli, the stronger the assimilation.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.047 Tc (Theoretical analysis of the task also invites the hypothesis)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.073 Tc (that some form of memory is involved in the rating process.)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.026 Tc (Consider a trial in a category-rating experiment. The presen-)Tj
T* 0.091 Tc (tation of the stimulus evokes some subjective percept in the)Tj
T* 0 Tc (participant. The participant is then faced with the problem of)Tj
T* 0.176 Tc (communicating this subjective percept using the particular)Tj
T* 0.301 Tc (response scale chosen by the experimenter. There is no a)Tj
T* -0.044 Tc (priori correspondence between the subjective magnitudes and)Tj
T* 0 Tc (the response categories. Such correspondence must be estab-)Tj
T* 0.199 Tc (lished at the beginning of the experiment and then applied)Tj
T* 0.061 Tc (consistently until the end. This is a role for memory.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.215 Tc (This hypothesis )Tj
72 0 TD 0 Tc (is )Tj
13 0 TD (supported )Tj
44 0 TD (by )Tj
16 0 TD (a )Tj
10 0 TD (study )Tj
27 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD -0.341 Tc (Ward )Tj
26 0 TD -0.479 Tc (and)Tj
-231 -11 TD 0.127 Tc (Lockhead \(1970\). The experiment involved 8 sessions on 8)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.061 Tc (consecutive days. Feedback was provided at the end of each)Tj
T* 0.184 Tc (trial. Unbeknown to the participants the feedback was ma-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (nipulated )Tj
42 0 TD (so )Tj
15 0 TD (that )Tj
21 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (response )Tj
40 0 TD -0.094 Tc (categories )Tj
45 0 TD 0 Tc (were )Tj
24 0 TD -0.209 Tc (associated)Tj
-205 -11 TD 0.044 Tc (with different stimuli on different days. This caused system-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (atic shifts in participants\325 responses.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.264 Tc (The thesis of the present paper is that memory plays an)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.301 Tc (important role in category rating and in )Tj
175 0 TD 0 Tc (particular )Tj
43 0 TD (in )Tj
14 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD (transition )Tj
45 0 TD (from )Tj
26 0 TD (internal )Tj
37 0 TD (magnitudes )Tj
52 0 TD (to )Tj
15 0 TD (overt )Tj
28 0 TD (responses.)Tj
-203 -11 TD (Memory maintains the consistency of responses over periods)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.325 Tc (of hours and even days. Moreover, the hypothesis is that)Tj
T* 0 Tc (failures )Tj
35 0 TD (to )Tj
14 0 TD -0.129 Tc (achieve )Tj
35 0 TD -0.157 Tc (perfect )Tj
32 0 TD -0.088 Tc (consistency\321manifested )Tj
104 0 TD 0 Tc (as )Tj
14 0 TD -0.366 Tc (re-)Tj
-234 -11 TD -0.019 Tc (sponse drifts, sequential effects, and context effects\321are due)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.262 Tc (to the plasticity of the memory system and reflect the dy-)Tj
T* 0.047 Tc (namics of its operation.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.316 Tc (This paper reports the initial steps )Tj
153 0 TD -0.145 Tc (towards )Tj
36 0 TD 0 Tc (a )Tj
10 0 TD (memory-)Tj
-208 -11 TD 0.048 Tc (based theory of category rating. The theory is instantiated in)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.058 Tc (a computational model called A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
126 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD ( and the predictions of)Tj
-154 -11 TD -0.082 Tc (the model are compared with empirical data.)Tj
/F1 12 Tf
48 -22 TD 0.584 Tc (Psychological Experiment)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-48 -14 TD 0 Tc (The A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
25 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD ( model makes detailed predictions on a trial-by-)Tj
-53 -11 TD 0.353 Tc (trial basis. To estimate the )Tj
121 0 TD -0.124 Tc (parameters )Tj
48 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (model )Tj
30 0 TD -0.479 Tc (and)Tj
-231 -11 TD 0.215 Tc (evaluate its adequacy as a psychological theory one )Tj
223 0 TD -0.354 Tc (needs)Tj
-223 -11 TD 0.096 Tc (empirical data at the same level of granularity. The psycho-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.034 Tc (physical literature cited in the introduction reports aggregate)Tj
T* 0.066 Tc (data only and hence falls short of this standard. Therefore, a)Tj
T* 0 Tc (psychological )Tj
61 0 TD (experiment )Tj
50 0 TD (was )Tj
21 0 TD -0.282 Tc (carried )Tj
31 0 TD 0.244 Tc (out. )Tj
22 0 TD 0 Tc (In )Tj
14 0 TD -0.141 Tc (addition )Tj
37 0 TD 0 Tc (to)Tj
-236 -11 TD 0.115 Tc (providing the necessary data, it replicates the sequential ef-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.051 Tc (fects from the literature and tests the assumption of linearity)Tj
T* 0 Tc (of the scale of physical length.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
0 -22 TD (Method)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -25 TD 0.778 Tc (Stimulus Material.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
94 0 TD 0.083 Tc ( The stimuli were pairs of white dots)Tj
-94 -11 TD -0.182 Tc (presented )Tj
42 0 TD 0 Tc (against )Tj
34 0 TD (black )Tj
27 0 TD -0.155 Tc (background )Tj
51 0 TD 0 Tc (on )Tj
16 0 TD (a )Tj
10 0 TD (17-inch )Tj
37 0 TD (Apple-)Tj
-217 -11 TD 0.286 Tc (Vision monitor. The only independent variable in the ex-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.037 Tc (periment was the distance between the two dots measured in)Tj
T* 0.06 Tc (pixels. The distance used on each trial was drawn independ-)Tj
261 655 TD 0.227 Tc (ently from a uniform distribution ranging from 250 pixels)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.077 Tc (\(80 mm\) to 700 pixels \(224 mm\). The viewing distance was)Tj
T* 0.139 Tc (approximately 500 mm. The imaginary segment formed by)Tj
T* 0.25 Tc (the dots was always horizontal )Tj
136 0 TD 0 Tc (and )Tj
19 0 TD (was )Tj
21 0 TD -0.246 Tc (randomized )Tj
50 0 TD 0 Tc (with)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.051 Tc (respect to its absolute horizontal and vertical position on the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.14 Tc (screen. The stimulus set for each participant was generated)Tj
T* 0 Tc (and )Tj
20 0 TD -0.246 Tc (randomized )Tj
51 0 TD 0 Tc (separately. )Tj
49 0 TD (The )Tj
22 0 TD (maximal )Tj
42 0 TD -0.14 Tc (distance )Tj
38 0 TD -0.311 Tc (repre-)Tj
-222 -11 TD 0.291 Tc (sentable on the monitor was 1000 pixels \(320 mm\). Each)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.072 Tc (dot was roughly circular in shape with a diameter of 16 pix-)Tj
T* 0.107 Tc (els \(5 mm\).)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.573 Tc (Participants:)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
63 0 TD 0 Tc ( 24 students participated in the experiment to)Tj
-63 -11 TD -0.067 Tc (satisfy a course requirement.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.408 Tc (Procedure.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
51 0 TD 0.308 Tc ( The participants were asked to rate the )Tj
175 0 TD -0.288 Tc (\322dis-)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0 Tc (tance between the dots\323 on a scale ranging from )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
196 0 TD (1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.555 Tc ( to )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
16 0 TD (9)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.291 Tc (. The)Tj
-222 -11 TD -0.024 Tc (participants entered their responses on the numeric keypad of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.027 Tc (the computer keyboard. Each trial began with a 500 ms beep)Tj
T* 0.061 Tc (followed by 3300 ms stimulus presentation followed by 200)Tj
T* 0.036 Tc (ms inter-trial interval. There were 17 demonstration and 450)Tj
T* 0.247 Tc (experimental trials divided into 10 blocks with )Tj
204 0 TD 0 Tc (short )Tj
26 0 TD (rest)Tj
-230 -11 TD (periods )Tj
34 0 TD (between )Tj
38 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (blocks. )Tj
35 0 TD (The )Tj
21 0 TD (demonstration )Tj
62 0 TD -0.257 Tc (presented)Tj
-208 -11 TD 0.23 Tc (stimuli of length 275, 325, 375, \311,625, 675, 625, \311, 275)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.032 Tc (pixels and the participants were encouraged to practice press-)Tj
T* 0.166 Tc (ing the keys 1, 2, \311, 8, 9, 8, \311, 1. No feedback was given)Tj
T* 0.176 Tc (during the experimental trials. The whole procedure lasted)Tj
T* 0.095 Tc (about 40 minutes.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
0 -22 TD 0 Tc (Results and Discussion)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
0 -14 TD -0.07 Tc (The data are analyzed at the level of individual participants.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 1.049 Tc (Linearity of the Scale.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
118 0 TD 0.354 Tc ( To estimate the exponent )Tj
118 0 TD 0 Tc (of)Tj
-236 -11 TD 0.031 Tc (Stevens\325 power law, a function of the form )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
178 0 TD 1.534 Tc (R = a + k.S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
63 4 TD (n)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-241 -15 TD 0.06 Tc (is fitted to the data of each individual participant. The expo-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (nents )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
24 0 TD (n)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
6 0 TD 0.124 Tc ( range from 1.01 to 1.12 in the sample of 24 partici-)Tj
-30 -11 TD 0.361 Tc (pants, with mean 1.06. Thus the exponent is empirically)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.075 Tc (indistinguishable from unity for all participants. \(The corre-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (lations )Tj
33 0 TD (between )Tj
38 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (functions )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
43 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 6 Tf
7 4 TD (0.95)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
11 -4 TD (, )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
10 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 6 Tf
7 4 TD (1.00)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
11 -4 TD (, )Tj
10 0 TD (and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
20 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 6 Tf
7 4 TD (1.10)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
11 -4 TD ( )Tj
7 0 TD -0.402 Tc (are)Tj
-233 -11 TD 0.256 Tc (greater than 0.99 in the domain [250;700].\) This suggests)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.332 Tc (that the assumption of linearity of the scale is correct, at)Tj
T* 0 Tc (least within the precision of measurement.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.662 Tc (Overall Accuracy.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
89 0 TD 0.257 Tc ( The linearity of the scale allows the)Tj
-89 -11 TD 0.122 Tc (data to be analyzed by simple linear regression of )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
208 0 TD (R)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0.5 Tc ( on )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
18 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD (.)Tj
-241 -11 TD 0.036 Tc (The squared correlation coefficient )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
146 0 TD (R)Tj
/F3 6 Tf
7 4 TD (2)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 -4 TD 0.526 Tc ( is a measure of the)Tj
-156 -11 TD 0.044 Tc (accuracy of the respective participant. It ranges from 0.65 to)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.324 Tc (0.91 for the 24 participants, with mean 0.80 and std.dev.)Tj
T* 0.142 Tc (0.070. In other words, the immediate stimulus accounts for)Tj
T* 0.049 Tc (full three quarters of the response variance, sometimes up to)Tj
T* 0 Tc (90%.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.891 Tc (Response Distributions. )Tj
/F2 10 Tf
126 0 TD 0.277 Tc (Even though the stimuli are)Tj
-126 -11 TD 0.067 Tc (uniformly distributed, the responses are not. Figure 2 shows)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (the response distributions for two representative participants.)Tj
T* 0.078 Tc (A marked feature of these distributions is the predominance)Tj
T* 0.094 Tc (of responses in the middle of the scale at the expense of ex-)Tj
T* 0.201 Tc (treme ones. )Tj
54 0 TD 0 Tc (The )Tj
21 0 TD (response )Tj
40 0 TD -0.264 Tc (standard )Tj
37 0 TD 0 Tc (deviation )Tj
42 0 TD (ranges )Tj
31 0 TD (from)Tj
-225 -11 TD 0.33 Tc (1.20 to 2.44, with mean 1.96 and s.d. 0.28. For compari-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.156 Tc (son, if the 450 responses were evenly distributed in 9 cate-)Tj
T* -0.037 Tc (gories, the standard deviation would be 2.58.)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 36 0 R/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
4 0 obj
[5 0 R 6 0 R]
endobj
5 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/F2 10 Tf
72.5 597 TD 0.138 Tc 0 Tw (Figure 2: Response distributions for two represen-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (tative participants.)Tj
-9 -22 TD 0.14 Tc (It seems unlikely that the perceptual subsystem maps the)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.257 Tc (uniform stimulus distribution onto )Tj
152 0 TD 0 Tc (a )Tj
10 0 TD (highly )Tj
32 0 TD (non-uniform)Tj
-194 -11 TD 0.173 Tc (distribution of internal magnitudes. Therefore the shape of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.281 Tc (the response distribution appears to be largely due to )Tj
232 0 TD 0 Tc (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.198 Tc (cognitive subsystem. It is possible that the participants re-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.063 Tc (serve the extreme responses for distances that are very short)Tj
T* 0.091 Tc (\(close to zero\) or very long \(filling the width of the screen\).)Tj
T* 0.247 Tc (Such extreme stimuli are not presented during the experi-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (ment )Tj
26 0 TD (and )Tj
19 0 TD 0.21 Tc (this )Tj
21 0 TD 0 Tc (may )Tj
23 0 TD (be )Tj
15 0 TD (one )Tj
20 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (reasons )Tj
35 0 TD (for )Tj
17 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (non-)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.045 Tc (uniformity of responses. However, this explanation does not)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.266 Tc (address the peak in the middle of the scale. The memory-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (based theory of category rating offers an alternative explana-)Tj
T* 0.171 Tc (tion in terms of self-reinforcing buildup of strength for the)Tj
T* 0 Tc (frequent responses and corresponding loss of strength for the)Tj
T* -0.089 Tc (infrequent ones.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.766 Tc (Sequential Effects.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
94 0 TD 0.211 Tc ( A multiple linear regression is per-)Tj
-94 -11 TD 0.149 Tc (formed with the following variables entering as predictors:)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.099 Tc (the current stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
85 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.248 Tc (, the previous stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
100 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.205 Tc (, and the)Tj
-208 -11 TD 0 Tc (previous response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
76 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.3 Tc (. The signs of the regression coeffi-)Tj
-91 -11 TD 0 Tc (cients of the time-lagged variables are of special interest. For)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.27 Tc (the previous stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
96 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD (, )Tj
9 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD -0.31 Tc (standardized )Tj
52 0 TD -0.104 Tc (coefficient )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
47 0 TD (b)Tj
/F2 6 Tf
5 -2 TD (S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-241 -9 TD 0.117 Tc (ranged from \3200.53 to \3200.08, with mean \3200.25 and s.d. 0.10.)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.038 Tc (Conversely, the standardized coefficient )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
163 0 TD (b)Tj
/F2 6 Tf
5 -2 TD (R)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 2 TD 0.364 Tc ( for the previous)Tj
-172 -11 TD 0 Tc (response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
37 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.141 Tc ( ranged from +0.15 to +0.55, with mean +0.30)Tj
-52 -11 TD 0.364 Tc (and s.d. 0.10. Thus all 24 participants without )Tj
206 0 TD 0 Tc (exception)Tj
-206 -11 TD (show )Tj
27 0 TD -0.226 Tc (evidence )Tj
39 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (stimulus-driven )Tj
69 0 TD (contrast )Tj
38 0 TD (and )Tj
20 0 TD -0.147 Tc (response-)Tj
-207 -11 TD 0 Tc (driven assimilation.)Tj
9 -11 TD ( Additional )Tj
53 0 TD (regression )Tj
49 0 TD (analyses )Tj
42 0 TD 0.117 Tc (involving )Tj
49 0 TD 0 Tc (interaction)Tj
-202 -11 TD 0.169 Tc (terms replicate the finding of Jesteadt et al. \(1977\) that the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.048 Tc (assimilation towards )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
87 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.075 Tc ( is modulated by the difference be-)Tj
-102 -11 TD 0.071 Tc (tween the two consecutive stimuli )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
142 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD ( and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
21 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.117 Tc (. These analy-)Tj
-186 -11 TD -0.076 Tc (ses are not reported here because of lack of space.)Tj
/F1 12 Tf
4 -22 TD 0.56 Tc (Memory Based Model of Category Rating)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-4 -14 TD 0.328 Tc (As argued in the introduction, memory seems to play )Tj
235 0 TD 0 Tc (an)Tj
-235 -11 TD 0.04 Tc (important role in the category-rating process. The remainder)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD 0.21 Tc (this )Tj
21 0 TD 0 Tc (paper )Tj
27 0 TD (outlines )Tj
38 0 TD (one )Tj
20 0 TD (particular )Tj
43 0 TD (proposal )Tj
40 0 TD (about )Tj
29 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.13 Tc (computational mechanisms that may carry out this process.)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (The A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
25 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD ( model proposed here is based on a general the-)Tj
-53 -11 TD 0.142 Tc (ory of memory incorporated in the ACT-R cognitive archi-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.185 Tc (tecture \(Anderson & Lebi\217re, 1998\). The ACT-R theory is)Tj
T* 0.119 Tc (consistent with a broad range of memory phenomena. Thus)Tj
T* (A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
7 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD -0.037 Tc ( draws a bridge between psychophysics and memory)Tj
-35 -11 TD 0.08 Tc (research. The following two subsections describe the model)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.031 Tc (first in general terms and then with details and equations.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
261 645 TD 0 Tc (Main Principles of the Model)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
0 -14 TD -0.076 Tc (The centerpiece of the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
97 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.196 Tc ( model is the construct of an)Tj
/F3 10 Tf
-125 -11 TD -0.388 Tc (anchor)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
26 0 TD 0.381 Tc (. An anchor )Tj
57 0 TD 0 Tc (is )Tj
13 0 TD (an )Tj
15 0 TD (association )Tj
50 0 TD (between )Tj
38 0 TD (an )Tj
15 0 TD (internal)Tj
-214 -11 TD -0.135 Tc (magnitude)Tj
/F3 10 Tf
41 0 TD ( )Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 0 TD 0 Tc (and a category on the response scale. There is one)Tj
-44 -11 TD 0.243 Tc (anchor per category and it can be construed as an internal)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (representation of the prototypical member of this category.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.145 Tc (The collection of all anchors defines a mapping from the)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.257 Tc (continuum of magnitudes to the discrete categories of the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (response scale. This mapping is partly constrained and partly)Tj
T* 0.096 Tc (arbitrary. The constraints come from the demand for homo-)Tj
T* 0.171 Tc (morphism implied by the category-rating task. There is in-)Tj
T* 0.189 Tc (trinsic ordering of the intensity of the physical stimuli and)Tj
T* 0.079 Tc (hence of the magnitudes on the subjective continuum. Also,)Tj
T* 0.073 Tc (there is ordering of the response categories. When reporting)Tj
T* 0.106 Tc (their subjective magnitudes, the participants try to align the)Tj
T* 0 Tc (ordering of the two domains.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.073 Tc (Another constraint implied by the task is to maintain con-)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.348 Tc (sistency over time. If, for whatever reason, a stimulus is)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.208 Tc (labeled with a particular response on a given trial, there is)Tj
T* 0.3 Tc (pressure to label this stimulus with the same response on)Tj
T* 0.111 Tc (subsequent trials. This extends not only to the stimulus that)Tj
T* 0.31 Tc (happened to be presented but to other stimuli )Tj
200 0 TD 0 Tc (that )Tj
21 0 TD (evoke)Tj
-221 -11 TD (similar subjective magnitudes.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.166 Tc (These constraints motivate the following mechanisms of)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.212 Tc (the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
23 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.252 Tc ( model. When a stimulus is presented and en-)Tj
-51 -11 TD 0.167 Tc (coded as an internal magnitude, a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
144 0 TD 0.049 Tc (partial matching mecha-)Tj
-144 -11 TD 0.277 Tc (nism)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.142 Tc ( activates an anchor whose magnitude is similar to the)Tj
-20 -11 TD 0.082 Tc (magnitude of the target stimulus. In so far as anchor magni-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.254 Tc (tudes are relatively stable, categorization of the stimuli is)Tj
T* 0 Tc (consistent over time.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.233 Tc (The partial matching is stochastic and depends on other)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.166 Tc (factors besides similarity \(viz. recency and )Tj
184 0 TD -0.18 Tc (frequency, )Tj
46 0 TD 0 Tc (dis-)Tj
-230 -11 TD 0.133 Tc (cussed below\). Therefore it is not guaranteed to retrieve on)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.067 Tc (each trial the anchor that best matches the target magnitude.)Tj
T* 0.031 Tc (In the cases when there is large discrepancy between the tar-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (get magnitude evoked by the stimulus and the anchor magni-)Tj
T* 0.202 Tc (tude retrieved from memory, a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
133 0 TD 0 Tc (correction mechanism)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
89 0 TD 0.571 Tc ( may)Tj
-222 -11 TD 0.222 Tc (increment or decrement the response suggested by the an-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.024 Tc (chor. The correction mechanism is stochastic and error-prone)Tj
T* 0.43 Tc (too but )Tj
37 0 TD 0 Tc (it )Tj
12 0 TD (does )Tj
23 0 TD (tend )Tj
22 0 TD (to )Tj
14 0 TD -0.184 Tc (enforce )Tj
34 0 TD 0.09 Tc (homomorphism )Tj
70 0 TD -0.188 Tc (between)Tj
-212 -11 TD -0.077 Tc (magnitudes and responses.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (Phenomenologically, an introspective report of a category-)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.313 Tc (rating trial might run like this, \322I see the dots\311 The dis-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (tance looks like a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
73 0 TD (7)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.227 Tc (\311 No, it\325s too short for a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
111 0 TD (7)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.358 Tc (. I\325ll give it)Tj
-194 -11 TD 0 Tc (a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
7 0 TD (6)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD (.\323)Tj
-3 -11 TD 0.238 Tc (So, the stimulus has been encoded, matched against an-)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.168 Tc (chors, and a response has been produced. Is this the end of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.149 Tc (the trial? According to the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
119 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.219 Tc ( model and the broader)Tj
-147 -11 TD 0.23 Tc (ACT-R theory \(Anderson & Lebi\217re, 1998\), the answer is)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.132 Tc (no. The cognitive system is plastic \(within limits\) and each)Tj
T* 0.22 Tc (experience seems to leave a mark on it. It is impossible to)Tj
T* 0.368 Tc (step into the same river )Tj
108 0 TD 0 Tc (twice. )Tj
30 0 TD (The )Tj
21 0 TD (model )Tj
30 0 TD (postulates )Tj
46 0 TD (an)Tj
-235 -11 TD (obligatory )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
45 0 TD (learning mechanism)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
81 0 TD 0.296 Tc ( that pulls the magnitude of)Tj
-126 -11 TD 0.142 Tc (the relevant anchor in the direction of the magnitude of the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.074 Tc (stimulus that has just been presented. Thus each trial results)Tj
T* 0 Tc (in )Tj
14 0 TD (a )Tj
10 0 TD 0.182 Tc (slight )Tj
29 0 TD 0 Tc (change )Tj
33 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (magnitude )Tj
47 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD (one )Tj
20 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
19 0 TD (an-)Tj
-232 -11 TD (chors\321namely )Tj
66 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (one )Tj
20 0 TD (that )Tj
21 0 TD -0.152 Tc (corresponds )Tj
52 0 TD 0 Tc (to )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
19 0 TD (response)Tj
-210 -11 TD 0.056 Tc (given on that particular trial. The notion of obligatory learn-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (ing )Tj
19 0 TD (is )Tj
13 0 TD (similar )Tj
34 0 TD (to )Tj
15 0 TD (the )Tj
19 0 TD -0.174 Tc (ideas )Tj
26 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
15 0 TD (Logan )Tj
32 0 TD (\(1988\), )Tj
36 0 TD (although)Tj
-209 -11 TD (A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
7 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD -0.026 Tc ( learns prototypes rather than individual instances.)Tj
ET
q
225 0 0 95 63 617 cm
/I1 Do
endstream
endobj
6 0 obj
<>stream
Q
endstream
endobj
7 0 obj
<>stream
AdobedC
"#()%$%%!'+,,-/4443.4444444444_~
a!1AQa"q2B#$Rb34rC%Scs5&DTdE£t6UeuF'Vfv7GWgw(8HXhx )9IYiy
*:JZjz?}po,Y =fvon
$5#0 0?LZ'k陯]Dmx35U."ML9cNBEg]qs9фOQ3_#ֺ08fk#ֺ08fkzFԱA&陯ccWQs.dE_:Z?{h@ H$AĎ8HbGy*]%g+Wzn)fc?5Nw:xX;8С,Xom?gz:&v>G|g6ͻ'i%{wM|]-@:110?[~unu8}}=s\N7W,Xom?gzҡ,Xom~}Hwng}Lz{6gUsk_.
'Y_T뷢\an̖9`Lğy\eu2ͻEÚba`.qnpWOWjLLƧ&r>_ϭ6QP(,א?cc}d鏲g*lwv<
eK+h&qFƺwYOQ,Qe.xmķk@c\#vi/
endstream
endobj
8 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 36 0 R>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/F2 10 Tf
63.5 711 TD 0.122 Tc 0 Tw (The implications of this incremental learning mechanism)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.061 Tc (are worth considering in detail. After a long sequence of tri-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.044 Tc (als, each anchor magnitude ends up being a weighted average)Tj
T* 0.052 Tc (of the magnitudes of all stimuli classified in the correspond-)Tj
T* 0.059 Tc (ing response category. Thus the anchors are true prototypes.)Tj
T* 0.173 Tc (However, recent stimuli )Tj
106 0 TD 0 Tc (weigh )Tj
30 0 TD (more )Tj
26 0 TD (heavily )Tj
35 0 TD (than )Tj
23 0 TD -0.219 Tc (earlier)Tj
-220 -11 TD 0.185 Tc (ones, introducing bias. The influence of the initial instruc-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.053 Tc (tions and demonstrations gradually wash away.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.087 Tc (More importantly, the performance of the system on each)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.168 Tc (trial depends on the history of its performance on previous)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.329 Tc (trials. This makes it a dynamic system capable )Tj
207 0 TD 0 Tc (and )Tj
19 0 TD (even)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.109 Tc (forced to exhibit gradual shifts, sequential effects, and self-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.029 Tc (reinforcing preferences. Each run of the model becomes idio-)Tj
T* 0.251 Tc (syncratic in systematic ways apart from the random noise)Tj
T* -0.027 Tc (even when tested on the exact same sequence of stimuli.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.234 Tc (One final aspect of the model remains to be introduced.)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.114 Tc (There is abundant evidence that the human memory system)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.077 Tc (is sensitive to the frequency and recency of the encoded mate-)Tj
T* 0.191 Tc (rial. These )Tj
50 0 TD 0 Tc (two )Tj
21 0 TD (factors )Tj
32 0 TD (enter )Tj
25 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (ACT-R )Tj
36 0 TD (theory )Tj
31 0 TD (and )Tj
19 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD (A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
7 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.086 Tc ( model through a construct called )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
140 0 TD -0.1 Tc (base-level activa-)Tj
-175 -11 TD 0.35 Tc (tion \(BLA\))Tj
/F2 10 Tf
46 0 TD 0.22 Tc (. Each memory element, anchors included, )Tj
185 0 TD 0 Tc (has)Tj
-231 -11 TD 0.041 Tc (some base-level activation that goes up and down with time.)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.092 Tc (The partial matching mechanism is sensitive not only to the)Tj
T* 0 Tc (similarity between the target magnitude and the anchor mag-)Tj
T* 0.278 Tc (nitudes but also )Tj
73 0 TD 0 Tc (to )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (activation )Tj
45 0 TD (levels )Tj
29 0 TD (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (anchors.)Tj
-211 -11 TD 0.246 Tc (Overall, anchors with high BLA are more likely to win in)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.06 Tc (the matching process than anchors with low BLA, the target)Tj
T* 0.066 Tc (stimulus notwithstanding.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (The form of the base-level learning equation \(Eq. 6 below\))Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.13 Tc (entails that when a response is produced on a trial the BLA)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.068 Tc (of the corresponding anchor receives a sharp transient boost)Tj
T* -0.02 Tc (followed by small residual increase. On the other hand, when)Tj
T* 0.186 Tc (some response is not used for a long time the activation of)Tj
T* 0 Tc (the corresponding anchor gradually decays away. In terms of)Tj
T* 0.198 Tc (observable behavior, the rapid transient manifests itself as)Tj
T* 0.177 Tc (sequential response assimilation and the long-term )Tj
217 0 TD 0 Tc (overall)Tj
-217 -11 TD 0.082 Tc (strength leads )Tj
62 0 TD 0 Tc (to )Tj
14 0 TD -0.125 Tc (rich-gets-richer )Tj
65 0 TD -0.106 Tc (differentiation )Tj
61 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD -0.366 Tc (re-)Tj
-234 -11 TD -0.121 Tc (sponse frequencies.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
0 -22 TD 0 Tc (Details and Equations)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
0 -14 TD 0.174 Tc (Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of the various quanti-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.053 Tc (ties used in the model and the dependencies among them.)Tj
18 -66 TD 0.038 Tc (Figure 3: Schematic diagram of the quantities used)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.115 Tc (in the model: physical intensity of the stimulus)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
193 0 TD 1.969 Tc ( S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
12 0 TD (,)Tj
-205 -11 TD 0 Tc (target magnitude)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
68 0 TD 2.304 Tc ( M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
16 0 TD 0.171 Tc (, anchor magnitude)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
80 0 TD 2.415 Tc ( A)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
14 0 TD 0.211 Tc (, incre-)Tj
-178 -11 TD 0 Tc (ment)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.804 Tc ( I)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0 Tc (, and overt response)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
79 0 TD 1.415 Tc ( R)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
12 0 TD (.)Tj
-128 -22 TD 0.183 Tc (The perceptual subsystem \(cf. Figure 1\) is modeled by a)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.239 Tc (single equation [1]. It transforms the physical intensity of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.222 Tc (the stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
56 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.313 Tc ( into an internal magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
121 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD 0.349 Tc (. The trans-)Tj
-194 -11 TD 0.302 Tc (formation is linear, with )Tj
110 0 TD 0 Tc (some )Tj
27 0 TD (multiplicative )Tj
62 0 TD (noise. )Tj
30 0 TD (The)Tj
-229 -11 TD (magnitudes )Tj
51 0 TD (are )Tj
17 0 TD (arbitrarily )Tj
45 0 TD -0.212 Tc (scaled )Tj
29 0 TD 0 Tc (between )Tj
38 0 TD (0.25 )Tj
24 0 TD (and )Tj
19 0 TD (0.70,)Tj
-223 -11 TD (given that )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
43 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD ( varies between 250 and 700 pixels. The random)Tj
-50 -11 TD (variable )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
34 0 TD (e)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.165 Tc ( is normally distributed with zero mean. Thus the)Tj
-39 -11 TD 0 Tc (term \(1+)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
35 0 TD (e)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.047 Tc (\) is centered around 1.0. The standard deviation of)Tj
221 652 TD 0.094 Tc (the noise is a free parameter of the model. In the simulation)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.107 Tc (experiments reported in the next section this parameter was)Tj
T* 0.3 Tc (set to 0.050. The multiplicative relationship )Tj
194 0 TD 0 Tc (between )Tj
38 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.174 Tc (scale value \(i.e. the mean of the magnitude distribution in-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (duced by a given stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
107 0 TD (S)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.046 Tc (\) and the noise term implements)Tj
-114 -11 TD 0 Tc (Ekman\325s law \(Ekman, 1959\).)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
10 -14 TD 1.147 Tc (M = S.\(1+)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
52 0 TD (e)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
5 0 TD 1.111 Tc (\) / 1000)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
40 0 TD 0.446 Tc ( [1])Tj
-98 -14 TD -0.042 Tc (There are 9 anchors with magnitudes )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
149 0 TD (A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD (\311)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
10 0 TD (A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (9)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD 0 Tc ( respectively.)Tj
-190 -11 TD 0.197 Tc (The partial matching mechanism has to select one of them)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.133 Tc (according to their similarity to the target magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
217 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD 0 Tc ( and)Tj
-227 -11 TD (their base-level activations )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
109 0 TD (B)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD (\311)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
10 0 TD (B)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (9)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD (. This process is governed)Tj
-139 -11 TD 0.163 Tc (by two equations. First, a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
109 0 TD -0.332 Tc (score)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.051 Tc ( is produced for each anchor)Tj
-129 -11 TD 0.099 Tc (according to Eq. 2. Second, one anchor is chosen according)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.144 Tc (to the )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
26 0 TD 0 Tc (softmax)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
32 0 TD ( Equation 3.)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-47 -14 TD 0.734 Tc (Score)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
27 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.908 Tc ( = B)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
21 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 2 TD 1.25 Tc ( \320 MP.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
35 0 TD (|)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 0 TD 1.146 Tc (M\320A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
24 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
2 2 TD (|)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 0 TD 0.435 Tc ( [2])Tj
-119 -14 TD 0 Tc (The )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
19 0 TD (mismatch)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
39 0 TD 0.121 Tc ( \(or dissimilarity\) between two magnitudes)Tj
-67 -11 TD 0.266 Tc (is simply the absolute difference between them. The mis-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.234 Tc (match is multiplied by a )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
106 0 TD 0.077 Tc (mismatch penalty factor )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
103 0 TD 1 Tc (MP)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
17 0 TD 0.265 Tc ( and)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.209 Tc (subtracted from the base-level activation of the )Tj
204 0 TD 0 Tc (anchor )Tj
32 0 TD (to)Tj
-236 -11 TD 0.153 Tc (produce the combined score for this anchor. )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
187 0 TD 1 Tc (MP)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
17 0 TD 0.585 Tc ( is a free)Tj
-204 -11 TD 0 Tc (parameter of the model that scales the mismatches relative to)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.094 Tc (the activation values. It was set to 7.0 in the simulations.)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
15 -14 TD (P)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.85 Tc ( = exp\(Score)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
62 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 2 TD 1.269 Tc ( / t\) )Tj
/F4 14 Tf
24 -2 TD 1.305 Tc (/ )Tj
/F5 14 Tf
10 0 TD (\345)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
11 -2 TD (j)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 4 TD 0.84 Tc ( exp\(Score)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
52 -2 TD (j)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 2 TD 1.223 Tc ( / t\))Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0 Tc ( [3])Tj
-200 -15 TD 0.108 Tc (Equation 3 converts scores into retrieval probabilities. )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
226 0 TD (P)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-242 -9 TD 0 Tc (is the probability of retrieval of anchor )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
158 0 TD (i)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 0 TD ( and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.9 Tc (exp\(\341\))Tj
/F2 10 Tf
29 0 TD 0 Tc ( denotes)Tj
-211 -11 TD 0.09 Tc (the exponentiation function. The )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
137 0 TD -0.198 Tc (temperature )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
50 0 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 0 TD 0.256 Tc ( is a free pa-)Tj
-191 -11 TD -0.129 Tc (rameter )Tj
37 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
16 0 TD (the )Tj
20 0 TD (model )Tj
32 0 TD (controlling )Tj
52 0 TD (the )Tj
20 0 TD -0.307 Tc (degree )Tj
32 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
17 0 TD (non-)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.247 Tc (determinism of the partial-matching process. It was set to)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.141 Tc (0.40 in the simulations.)Tj
9 -11 TD -0.037 Tc (Having retrieved an anchor, the model has to determine the)Tj
-9 -11 TD -0.094 Tc (correction )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
42 0 TD (I)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 0 TD 0.091 Tc ( to produce the final response. Under the current)Tj
-46 -11 TD 0.377 Tc (settings of the model, the correction can be 0, +/\3201, and)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (occasionally +/\3202. The correction depends, stochastically, on)Tj
T* 0.125 Tc (the discrepancy between the )Tj
122 0 TD 0 Tc (target )Tj
28 0 TD (magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
47 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD ( )Tj
6 0 TD (and )Tj
19 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD (anchor magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
76 0 TD (A)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0.288 Tc (. One free parameter of the model\321)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
155 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-239 -11 TD 0 Tc (\321defines a set of five )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
92 0 TD -0.126 Tc (discrepancy reference points)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
112 0 TD 0 Tc ( {-)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
11 0 TD (2d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
11 0 TD 0.557 Tc (, -)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
10 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD (,)Tj
-241 -11 TD 0 Tc (0, )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
12 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD (, )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
7 0 TD (2d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
11 0 TD 0.097 Tc (}. They are compared with the algebraic difference)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-35 -11 TD 0.956 Tc (\(M\320A\))Tj
/F2 10 Tf
32 0 TD 0 Tc ( to produce )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
47 0 TD -0.218 Tc (correction scores)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
66 0 TD (:)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-135 -14 TD 0.691 Tc (CorrScore)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
49 -2 TD (k)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
3 2 TD 1.101 Tc ( = )Tj
/F1 14 Tf
14 0 TD (|)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
4 0 TD (d)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
5 -2 TD (k)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
3 2 TD 1.097 Tc ( \320 \(M\320A\))Tj
/F1 14 Tf
46 0 TD (|)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 0 TD 0.242 Tc ( , k = \3202\311+2 [4])Tj
-129 -14 TD 0 Tc (The correction scores are converted to choice probabilities)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.097 Tc (by an equation analogous to Eq. 3. The only differences are)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.25 Tc (that the correction scores enter with )Tj
158 0 TD 0 Tc (negative )Tj
39 0 TD 0.205 Tc (signs, )Tj
30 0 TD 0 Tc (thus)Tj
-227 -11 TD 0.105 Tc (transforming the softmax rule into softmin, and that a sepa-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.215 Tc (rate temperature parameter is used. In the simulations this)Tj
T* 0.199 Tc (parameter was set to 0.040. The discrepancy reference pa-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (rameter was )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
52 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.265 Tc (=0.090. To illustrate these settings, suppose)Tj
-57 -11 TD -0.054 Tc (the anchor magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
88 0 TD (A)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0.061 Tc ( is 0.050 below the target magnitude)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-96 -11 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD 0.317 Tc (, which is roughly the width of one response category.)Tj
-10 -11 TD 0.099 Tc (Then there is 51% chance that the model will increment the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.176 Tc (anchor response by +1, 39% chance to leave it unchanged,)Tj
T* 0 Tc (and marginal chance to increment it by +2 or decrement it.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.086 Tc (The final response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
79 0 TD (R)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0.301 Tc ( is the algebraic sum of the anchor)Tj
-96 -11 TD -0.079 Tc (label and the increment, clipped between 1 and 9 if needed.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.059 Tc (At the end of the trial the learning mechanism updates the)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.164 Tc (magnitude of the anchor corresponding to the response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
233 0 TD (R)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD (.)Tj
-241 -11 TD 0.044 Tc (\(Note that this does not necessarily coincide with the anchor)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.069 Tc (retrieved from memory.\) The anchor magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
192 0 TD (A)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
8 0 TD 0 Tc ( is updated)Tj
-200 -11 TD 0.082 Tc (according to Eq. 5, which is a form of competitive learning.)Tj
ET
1 g
85 217 14 22 re
f
BT
/F4 11 Tf
0 g
89.5 226 TD (S)Tj
ET
1 g
130 217 22 22 re
f
BT
0 g
136.5 226 TD (M)Tj
ET
1 g
248 214 21 22 re
f
BT
0 g
255.5 223 TD (R)Tj
ET
0.75 w
221.375 236.625 m
246.375 230.625 l
S
2 j
244 229 m
250 230 l
246 234 l
244 229 l
f*
0 j
185.375 221.625 m
203.375 227.625 l
S
2 j
203 225 m
207 229 l
201 230 l
203 225 l
f*
0 j
99.375 229.625 m
131.375 229.625 l
S
2 j
130 227 m
135 230 l
130 233 l
130 227 l
f*
0 j
1 w
1 g
171 208 14 21 re
f
BT
0 g
175.5 217 TD (A)Tj
ET
1 g
207 221 14 22 re
f
BT
0 g
213.5 230 TD (I)Tj
ET
0.75 w
149.375 228.625 m
167.375 222.625 l
S
2 j
165 221 m
171 222 l
167 226 l
165 221 l
f*
0 j
149.375 229.625 m
204.375 236.625 l
S
2 j
202 234 m
207 237 l
202 240 l
202 234 l
f*
0 j
185.375 221.625 m
246.375 221.625 l
S
2 j
245 219 m
250 222 l
245 225 l
245 219 l
f*
0 j
endstream
endobj
10 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 36 0 R>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/F2 10 Tf
54.5 711 TD 0 Tc 0 Tw (The learning rate )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
70 0 TD (a)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.208 Tc ( weighs the most recent trial relative to)Tj
-77 -11 TD 0 Tc (earlier ones. The simulation experiments used )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
186 0 TD (a)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD (=0.50.)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-181 -14 TD 0.995 Tc (new_A = )Tj
/F5 10 Tf
47 0 TD (a)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
7 0 TD 1.198 Tc (.M + \(1\320)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
45 0 TD (a)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.96 Tc (\).old_A)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
37 0 TD 0.41 Tc ( [5])Tj
-146 -14 TD 0.165 Tc (The base-level learning equation is somewhat less trans-)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.257 Tc (parent. The ACT-R theory )Tj
118 0 TD 0 Tc (postulates )Tj
46 0 TD (Equation )Tj
41 0 TD (6a )Tj
15 0 TD (which)Tj
-220 -11 TD 0.198 Tc (contains an explicit term for each instant the anchor is up-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (dated \(Anderson & Lebi\217re, 1998, p.124\). Suppose a particu-)Tj
T* 0.242 Tc (lar response has been given at time lags )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
173 0 TD (t)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
4 -2 TD (1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD 0 Tc (,\311,)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
16 0 TD (t)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
4 -2 TD (n)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 2 TD 0.483 Tc ( from the)Tj
-203 -11 TD 0.104 Tc (present trial. Then the base-level activation )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
181 0 TD (B)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.292 Tc ( of the corre-)Tj
-188 -11 TD 0.212 Tc (sponding anchor is the logarithm of a sum of powers [6a],)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (where )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
26 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD -0.086 Tc ( is a decay parameter.)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
-19 -14 TD 0.97 Tc (B = ln )Tj
/F4 14 Tf
35 0 TD (\()Tj
/F5 14 Tf
6 -2 TD (\345)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
11 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
2 4 TD 1.361 Tc ( t)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (i)Tj
2 6 TD 0 Tc (\320d)Tj
/F4 14 Tf
6 -4 TD (\))Tj
/F2 10 Tf
6 0 TD 0.433 Tc ( [6a])Tj
-79 -15 TD 0.082 Tc (Because Equation 6a )Tj
91 0 TD 0 Tc (is )Tj
13 0 TD (computationally )Tj
71 0 TD (expensive, )Tj
48 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.094 Tc (model uses Eq. 6b which closely approximates the theoreti-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.079 Tc (cal formula. The approximation disregards the detailed update)Tj
T* 0.173 Tc (history and retains only the time lag since the last usage )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
237 0 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
4 0 TD (,)Tj
-241 -11 TD 0.196 Tc (the lag )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
33 0 TD (T)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 0 TD 0.352 Tc ( since the beginning of the experiment, and the)Tj
-40 -11 TD 0.113 Tc (total number of times the corresponding response has been)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.179 Tc (given up to the current trial. In the simulation experiments)Tj
T* 0.26 Tc (the decay parameter was set to )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
135 0 TD (d)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.383 Tc (=0.5, which is )Tj
68 0 TD 0 Tc (a )Tj
10 0 TD -0.252 Tc (default)Tj
-218 -11 TD 0.276 Tc (value used in many ACT-R models. The duration of each)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.033 Tc (trial was 4 sec, as in the psychological experiment.)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
12 -14 TD 0.97 Tc (B = ln )Tj
/F4 14 Tf
35 0 TD ([)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
5 0 TD (t)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
4 4 TD 0 Tc (\320d)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
6 -4 TD 1.115 Tc ( + n.\(T)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
36 4 TD 0 Tc (1\320d)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
9 -4 TD 1.111 Tc (\320t)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
10 4 TD 0 Tc (1\320d)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
9 -4 TD 1.085 Tc (\) )Tj
/F4 14 Tf
8 -2 TD (/)Tj
/F4 10 Tf
5 2 TD 0.793 Tc ( [\(1\320d\)\(T-t\)])Tj
/F4 14 Tf
60 0 TD (])Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0 Tc ( [6b])Tj
-195 -15 TD 0.372 Tc (Equations 2, 3, 4, and 6a are taken verbatim )Tj
198 0 TD 0 Tc (from )Tj
25 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.17 Tc (ACT-R architecture \(Anderson & Lebi\217re, 1998\) and )Tj
227 0 TD 0 Tc (thus)Tj
-227 -11 TD (establish continuity between the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
139 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD ( model and a broad)Tj
-167 -11 TD -0.025 Tc (spectrum of memory-related models. Equation1 is A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
209 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD (\325s)Tj
-237 -11 TD (connection to Stevens\325 and Ekman\325s psychophysical laws.)Tj
/F1 12 Tf
54 -22 TD 0.536 Tc (Evaluation of the Model)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
-54 -25 TD 0 Tc (Simulation Experiment)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
0 -14 TD 0.088 Tc (In order to test the model, its computer implementation was)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.142 Tc (run on the 24 random sequences of stimuli used in the psy-)Tj
T* 0.102 Tc (chological experiment. To mimic the effect of the introduc-)Tj
T* 0.083 Tc (tory demonstration, the magnitudes of the anchors were ini-)Tj
T* 0.098 Tc (tialized as follows. Anchor )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
114 0 TD (9)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.268 Tc ( was set to 0.800\321a compro-)Tj
-119 -11 TD 0.261 Tc (mise value between the longest stimulus presented on the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.091 Tc (demonstration \(675 pixels\) and the total width of the screen)Tj
T* 0.203 Tc (\(1000 pixels\). Anchor )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
97 0 TD (1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0.372 Tc ( was initialized to 0.150 )Tj
111 0 TD 0 Tc (and )Tj
19 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD (remaining anchors were evenly spaced in between. The other)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.077 Tc (parameters were set as reported in the previous section. The)Tj
T* 0.023 Tc (model generated 24 sequences of responses which were then)Tj
T* -0.039 Tc (analyzed in the same way as the psychological data.)Tj
13 -22 TD 0 Tc (Table 1: Comparison of the performance of the model)Tj
15 -11 TD -0.032 Tc (and the psychological data. See text for details.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
55 -23 TD 0.338 Tc (Human data)Tj
106 0 TD 0.557 Tc (Model)Tj
ET
50 165 67 1 re
f
117 165 1 1 re
f
118 165 93 1 re
f
211 165 1 1 re
f
212 165 92 1 re
f
BT
/F2 10 Tf
56.5 145 TD 0 Tc (Statistic)Tj
67 0 TD (min )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
19 0 TD 0.417 Tc (mean)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
25 0 TD 0.139 Tc ( max s.d.)Tj
49 0 TD 0 Tc (min )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
19 0 TD 0.417 Tc (mean)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
25 0 TD 0.139 Tc ( max s.d.)Tj
-204 -12 TD -0.214 Tc (Accuracy \()Tj
/F3 10 Tf
42 0 TD (R)Tj
/F3 6 Tf
7 4 TD (2)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 -4 TD (\))Tj
15 0 TD 0.333 Tc ( .65 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .80)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .91 .07)Tj
51 0 TD 0.333 Tc ( .65 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .76)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .84 .05)Tj
ET
50 142 67 1 re
f
117 142 1 1 re
f
118 142 93 1 re
f
211 142 1 1 re
f
212 142 92 1 re
f
BT
56.5 122 TD 0 Tc (Resp. std.dev.)Tj
67 0 TD (1.20 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.125 Tc (1.96)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
22 0 TD 0.25 Tc ( 2.44 .28)Tj
50 0 TD 0 Tc (1.58 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.125 Tc (1.81)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
22 0 TD 0.25 Tc ( 2.57 .21)Tj
-203 -11 TD 0.117 Tc (Multiple )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
38 0 TD (R)Tj
/F3 6 Tf
7 4 TD (2)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
22 -4 TD 0.333 Tc ( .67 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .83)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .93 .07)Tj
51 0 TD 0.333 Tc ( .73 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .78)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .84 .03)Tj
-202 -11 TD -0.09 Tc (Increase in )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
45 0 TD (R)Tj
/F3 6 Tf
7 4 TD (2)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
15 -4 TD 0.333 Tc ( .00 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .02)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .06 .01)Tj
51 0 TD 0.333 Tc ( .00 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .02)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .10 .02)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
-202 -11 TD (b)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0 Tc ( for )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
17 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
38 2 TD 0.333 Tc ( .80 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .90)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .93 .04)Tj
51 0 TD 0.333 Tc ( .80 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
22 0 TD 1.25 Tc ( .87)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
20 0 TD 0.318 Tc ( .92 .03)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
-202 -11 TD (b)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0 Tc ( for )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
17 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
38 2 TD (\320.53 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.125 Tc (\320.25)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
22 0 TD 0.25 Tc ( \320.08 .10)Tj
50 0 TD 0 Tc (\320.47 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.125 Tc (\320.23)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
22 0 TD 0.25 Tc ( \320.10 .09)Tj
/F5 10 Tf
-203 -11 TD (b)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
5 0 TD 0 Tc ( for )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
17 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
37 2 TD 0.272 Tc (+.15 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.2 Tc (+.30)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
23 0 TD 0.272 Tc ( +.55)Tj
22 0 TD ( )Tj
4 0 TD 0 Tc (.10)Tj
23 0 TD 0.272 Tc (+.13 )Tj
/F1 10 Tf
21 0 TD 1.2 Tc (+.25)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
23 0 TD 0.272 Tc ( +.53)Tj
22 0 TD ( )Tj
4 0 TD 0 Tc (.10)Tj
ET
50 64 67 1 re
f
117 64 1 1 re
f
118 64 93 1 re
f
211 64 1 1 re
f
212 64 92 1 re
f
BT
324.5 711 TD (Table 1 summarizes the outcome of these various analyses)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.058 Tc (and compares the performance of the model with the human)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.136 Tc (data. The overall accuracy of the model, operationalized as)Tj
T* -0.052 Tc (the squared correlation between stimuli and responses, ranges)Tj
T* 0.146 Tc (from 0.65 to 0.84 in the sample of 24 runs, with mean 0.76)Tj
T* 0.058 Tc (and standard deviation 0.046. The mean )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
166 0 TD (R)Tj
/F3 6 Tf
7 4 TD (2)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
3 -4 TD 0.31 Tc ( for the psycho-)Tj
-176 -11 TD 0.296 Tc (logical data is 0.80. The degree of non-uniformity of )Tj
232 0 TD 0 Tc (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.144 Tc (response distribution is reflected in the standard deviations)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.045 Tc (reported in the second row of Table 1.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.031 Tc (The remainder of Table 1 summarizes the multiple regres-)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.036 Tc (sion analysis of the response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
118 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.243 Tc ( on the current stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
104 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD (,)Tj
-241 -11 TD 0 Tc (previous )Tj
40 0 TD 0.178 Tc (stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
41 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD (, )Tj
9 0 TD (and )Tj
19 0 TD (previous )Tj
40 0 TD (response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
41 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD (. )Tj
10 0 TD (The)Tj
-229 -11 TD 0.262 Tc (model shows the same pattern of sequential effects as the)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.063 Tc (psychological data.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.157 Tc (Overall, the results of the simulation experiment suggest)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.457 Tc (that the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
44 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.222 Tc ( model closely matches human category-)Tj
-72 -11 TD 0.188 Tc (rating behavior. The biggest discrepancy between the )Tj
229 0 TD 0 Tc (two)Tj
-229 -11 TD 0.202 Tc (data sets is that the model responses are less variable. The)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.135 Tc (human data, however, includes both within-subject and be-)Tj
T* 0.145 Tc (tween-subject variability whereas the parameter settings of)Tj
T* 0.124 Tc (the model were fixed for all 24 runs. Individual differences)Tj
T* 0.054 Tc (can be modeled by using different parameter settings for the)Tj
T* -0.11 Tc (different runs.)Tj
/F1 11 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.044 Tc (Explanation of the Empirical Phenomena)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
0 -14 TD 0.034 Tc (The fact that a model fits the data indicates that its computa-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.094 Tc (tional mechanisms hang together and can be brought in line)Tj
T* 0.147 Tc (with the empirical observations. A much more acid test for)Tj
T* 0.202 Tc (the utility of the model, however, is the degree to which it)Tj
T* 0.187 Tc (contributes to the theoretical understanding of the psycho-)Tj
T* 0.188 Tc (logical phenomena. This closing section discusses the em-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (pirical effects in light of the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
122 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD ( model.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
-150 -22 TD 0.807 Tc (Nonuniformity of the Response Distribution.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
225 0 TD 0 Tc ( The)Tj
-225 -11 TD 0.341 Tc (model shifts the level of )Tj
111 0 TD 0 Tc (theorizing )Tj
46 0 TD (from )Tj
25 0 TD -0.136 Tc (aggregate )Tj
43 0 TD 0 Tc (scale)Tj
-225 -11 TD 0.202 Tc (values to individual responses. At that level of granularity)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (the )Tj
18 0 TD (entire )Tj
28 0 TD (response )Tj
40 0 TD (distribution )Tj
52 0 TD (becomes )Tj
40 0 TD 0.102 Tc (important. )Tj
48 0 TD 0 Tc (Two)Tj
-226 -11 TD 0.034 Tc (salient features of this distribution appear to be the predomi-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.017 Tc (nance of responses in the middle of the scale and the relative)Tj
T* 0.031 Tc (infrequency of extreme responses \(Figure 2\). Several factors)Tj
T* 0.239 Tc (conspire to produce such distributions in )Tj
178 0 TD 0 Tc (the )Tj
18 0 TD (model. )Tj
33 0 TD (The)Tj
-229 -11 TD (base-level learning mechanism \(Eq. 6a/b\) tends to differenti-)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.067 Tc (ate the response frequencies\321more frequent anchors build up)Tj
T* 0.387 Tc (strength which in turn makes them more likely to be re-)Tj
T* 0.326 Tc (trieved in the future. This makes flat )Tj
164 0 TD 0 Tc (distributions )Tj
56 0 TD (unsta-)Tj
-220 -11 TD (ble\321small differences tend )Tj
117 0 TD (to )Tj
14 0 TD (grow. )Tj
29 0 TD (This )Tj
24 0 TD -0.137 Tc (self-reinforcing)Tj
-184 -11 TD 0.115 Tc (dynamics cannot go out of hand, however, because of three)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.071 Tc (stabilizing factors. First and foremost, the immediate stimu-)Tj
T* 0.174 Tc (lus controls about 75% of the response variance and hence)Tj
T* 0.166 Tc (the responses cannot stray too much from the stimuli. Sec-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (ond, )Tj
23 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD -0.094 Tc (correction )Tj
45 0 TD 0 Tc (mechanism )Tj
52 0 TD (redistributes )Tj
55 0 TD (the )Tj
19 0 TD (strength)Tj
-212 -11 TD 0.168 Tc (among neighboring anchors. This inhibits the formation of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (isolated )Tj
36 0 TD (spikes )Tj
31 0 TD (or )Tj
14 0 TD (gaps )Tj
24 0 TD (in )Tj
15 0 TD (the )Tj
19 0 TD (distribution, )Tj
56 0 TD (making )Tj
37 0 TD (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.079 Tc (smooth unimodal shape the most stable configuration. . The)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.201 Tc (third stabilizing factor is related to the context effects dis-)Tj
T* -0.085 Tc (cussed below.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.905 Tc (Context Effect.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
78 0 TD 0.453 Tc ( If the stimuli control 75% )Tj
124 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD -0.366 Tc (re-)Tj
-234 -11 TD 0.05 Tc (sponse variance and the base-level learning tends to amplify)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.267 Tc (inequalities, what happens when the stimuli are )Tj
208 0 TD 0 Tc (unevenly)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>/ProcSet 36 0 R>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/F2 10 Tf
54.5 711 TD 0.089 Tc 0 Tw (distributed themselves? It may appear that the model would)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.2 Tc (produce responses that are even more skewed. This would)Tj
T* 0.166 Tc (directly contradict the finding of several studies )Tj
205 0 TD -0.182 Tc (\(Parducci,)Tj
-205 -11 TD 0.205 Tc (1965; Parducci & Wedell, 1986; Schifferstein )Tj
198 0 TD 0 Tc (& )Tj
14 0 TD (Frijters,)Tj
-212 -11 TD 0.298 Tc (1992\). Empirically, the responses tend to be )Tj
195 0 TD 0 Tc (less )Tj
21 0 TD -0.332 Tc (skewed)Tj
-216 -11 TD 0.17 Tc (than the stimuli, not more so. However, simulation experi-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.275 Tc (ments with the A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
73 0 TD 0 Tc (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.302 Tc ( model that are too long to be de-)Tj
-101 -11 TD 0 Tc (tailed here indicate that it produces context effects consistent)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.191 Tc (with the empirical data. In a nutshell, this is due to the an-)Tj
T* 0.094 Tc (chor adjustment Equation 5. Because the anchors are proto-)Tj
T* 0.089 Tc (types, they tend to cluster in those regions of the magnitude)Tj
T* 0.153 Tc (continuum that are densely populated with stimuli. In turn,)Tj
T* 0 Tc (this reduces the skewness of the response distribution.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
0 -22 TD 0.714 Tc (Sequential Effects.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
93 0 TD 0 Tc ( The positive autocorrelation between)Tj
-93 -11 TD 0.081 Tc (responses on successive trials is a direct consequence of the)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.198 Tc (recency )Tj
36 0 TD 0 Tc (component )Tj
51 0 TD (of )Tj
15 0 TD -0.094 Tc (base-level )Tj
46 0 TD 0 Tc (activations )Tj
50 0 TD (\(Eq. )Tj
23 0 TD (6a/b\).)Tj
-221 -11 TD 0.209 Tc (When a particular response is given, the BLA of its corre-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.129 Tc (sponding anchor goes up, which in turn improves the prob-)Tj
T* 0.171 Tc (ability of retrieving the same anchor on the next trial. This)Tj
T* 0.105 Tc (produces assimilation towards the previous response. How-)Tj
T* 0.142 Tc (ever, the increase of the activation level matters only when)Tj
T* 0.126 Tc (the two successive stimuli are similar enough \(cf. Eq. 2\). If)Tj
T* 0.191 Tc (they are too far apart, the response on the first trial primes)Tj
T* 0.228 Tc (an anchor that is too remote from the target on the second)Tj
T* 0.128 Tc (trial to have any influence on the final outcome. The closer)Tj
T* 0.064 Tc (the two consecutive stimuli, the stronger the assimilation.)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.195 Tc (Another sequential effect is the negative )Tj
175 0 TD 0 Tc (correlation )Tj
48 0 TD (be-)Tj
-232 -11 TD (tween the response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
78 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.22 Tc ( on a given trial and the stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
142 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-237 -9 TD 0.249 Tc (on the previous trial. Part of this effect is probably due to)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.179 Tc (the perceptual subsystem and its tendency to enhance con-)Tj
T* 0 Tc (trasts. The A)Tj
/F2 8 Tf
52 0 TD (NCHOR)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
28 0 TD 0.046 Tc ( model, however, has a deliberately sim-)Tj
-80 -11 TD 0.133 Tc (plified front end that precludes any interaction between the)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.275 Tc (stimuli at the perceptual )Tj
109 0 TD 0 Tc (level. )Tj
28 0 TD 0.332 Tc (Still, )Tj
27 0 TD 0 Tc (the )Tj
18 0 TD (model )Tj
30 0 TD (exhibits)Tj
-212 -11 TD 0.22 Tc (contrast effects due to the plasticity of anchor magnitudes)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.152 Tc (\(Eq. 5\) and the discrepancy penalizing aspect of the partial)Tj
T* 0.231 Tc (matching mechanism \(Eq. 2\). The magnitude )Tj
196 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (the )Tj
18 0 TD (past)Tj
-228 -11 TD 0.178 Tc (stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
39 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD 0.277 Tc ( is averaged into the magnitude of one of the)Tj
-53 -11 TD 0.271 Tc (anchors, which then serves as a proxy of that stimulus on)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.09 Tc (subsequent trials. The anchor magnitudes )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
174 0 TD (A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.113 Tc ( are subtracted)Tj
-184 -11 TD 0.074 Tc (from the new target magnitude )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
129 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD 0.13 Tc ( during the partial match-)Tj
-139 -11 TD 0.048 Tc (ing process. In other words, one of the )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
159 0 TD (A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0.401 Tc ( terms in Eq. 2 is)Tj
-169 -11 TD 0.123 Tc (positively correlated with )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
110 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD (, )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
8 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD ( )Tj
6 0 TD (is )Tj
13 0 TD 0.096 Tc (positively )Tj
46 0 TD -0.297 Tc (correlated)Tj
-207 -11 TD 0 Tc (with )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
21 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD (,, and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
25 0 TD (A)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (i)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD ( and )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
19 0 TD (M)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
10 0 TD 0.057 Tc ( are subtracted from each other. This)Tj
-95 -11 TD -0.046 Tc (creates negative relationship between the response )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
202 0 TD (R)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
8 -2 TD (t)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
2 2 TD 0 Tc ( and the)Tj
-212 -11 TD 0.093 Tc (previous stimulus )Tj
/F4 10 Tf
75 0 TD (S)Tj
/F4 6 Tf
7 -2 TD 0 Tc (t-1)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
7 2 TD (.)Tj
/F1 10 Tf
-89 -22 TD 0.584 Tc (Memory-Related )Tj
87 0 TD 0.759 Tc (Effects.)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
38 0 TD ( )Tj
6 0 TD 0 Tc (The )Tj
21 0 TD (anchors )Tj
36 0 TD (are )Tj
18 0 TD (stored )Tj
30 0 TD (in)Tj
-236 -11 TD 0.265 Tc (memory and decay only slowly with time. Therefore, )Tj
232 0 TD 0 Tc (the)Tj
-232 -11 TD 0.078 Tc (mapping from stimuli to responses implicit in these anchors)Tj
0 -11 TD -0.088 Tc (can influence the performance hours and even days later.)Tj
9 -22 TD 0.083 Tc (This paper argues in favor of the hypothesis that category)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.052 Tc (ratings are produced in a memory-based manner. A range of)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (category-rating phenomena seem to arise naturally from a set)Tj
T* 0.295 Tc (of principles that are also consistent with a large body of)Tj
T* 0.194 Tc (memory research. In so far as the ANCHOR model is suc-)Tj
T* 0.094 Tc (cessfull, it illustrates the advantages of its integrative meth-)Tj
T* 0.048 Tc (odology and the utility of general architectures for cognitive)Tj
T* 0 Tc (modeling.)Tj
/F1 12 Tf
331 649 TD 0.6 Tc (Acknowledgments)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-70 -14 TD 0.076 Tc (This research is supported in part by grant AFOSR F49620-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0 Tc (99-10086 )Tj
44 0 TD -0.421 Tc (awarded )Tj
36 0 TD 0 Tc (to )Tj
14 0 TD (John )Tj
25 0 TD (Anderson. )Tj
46 0 TD (The )Tj
21 0 TD (authors )Tj
36 0 TD (thank)Tj
-222 -11 TD 0.077 Tc (Stefan Mateeff, Stephen Gotts, and two anonymous review-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.098 Tc (ers for their valuable comments on the paper. The contribu-)Tj
T* -0.055 Tc (tion of Stefan Mateeff is especially gratefully acknowledged.)Tj
/F1 12 Tf
91 -22 TD 0.604 Tc (References)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
-91 -14 TD 0.248 Tc (Anderson, J. R. & Lebi\217re, C. \(1998\). )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
164 0 TD 0.164 Tc (The atomic compo-)Tj
-155 -11 TD 0.16 Tc (nents of thought)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
67 0 TD 0.123 Tc (. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-)Tj
-67 -11 TD 0 Tc (ciates.)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.068 Tc (Ekman, G. \(1959\). Weber\325s law and related functions. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
224 0 TD -0.332 Tc (Jour-)Tj
-215 -11 TD 0.112 Tc (nal of Psychology, 47)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
89 0 TD 0.117 Tc (, 343-352.)Tj
-98 -11 TD 0.193 Tc (Jesteadt, W., Luce, D., & Green, D. M. \(1977\). Sequential)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.047 Tc (effects in judgments of loudness. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
137 0 TD 0 Tc (Journal of Experimental)Tj
-137 -11 TD 0.129 Tc (Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
216 0 TD 0.468 Tc ( \(1\),)Tj
-216 -11 TD 0 Tc (92-104.)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.149 Tc (Krantz, D. H. A. \(1972\). A theory of magnitude estimation)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (and )Tj
19 0 TD (cross-modality )Tj
64 0 TD (matching. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
47 0 TD -0.201 Tc (Journal )Tj
36 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
15 0 TD -0.128 Tc (Mathematical)Tj
-181 -11 TD 0.147 Tc (Psychology, 9)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
58 0 TD 0.117 Tc (, 168-199.)Tj
-67 -11 TD 0.311 Tc (Logan, G. D. \(1988\). Toward an instance theory of auto-)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (matization. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
48 0 TD 0.082 Tc (Psychological Review, 95)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
105 0 TD 0.072 Tc ( \(4\), 492-527.)Tj
-162 -11 TD 0.093 Tc (Parducci, A.\(1965\). Category judgment: A range-frequency)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (model. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
30 0 TD 0.082 Tc (Psychological Review, 72)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
105 0 TD 0.072 Tc ( \(6\), 407-418.)Tj
-144 -11 TD 0.247 Tc (Parducci, A. & Wedell, D. H. \(1986\). The category effect)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.065 Tc (with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stim-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.131 Tc (uli, and method of presentation. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
135 0 TD 0.097 Tc (Journal of Experimental)Tj
-135 -11 TD 0.022 Tc (Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
216 0 TD 0.468 Tc ( \(4\),)Tj
-216 -11 TD 0 Tc (496-516.)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.049 Tc (Petzold, P. \(1981\). Distance effects on sequential dependen-)Tj
9 -11 TD 0 Tc (cies )Tj
21 0 TD (in )Tj
14 0 TD -0.113 Tc (categorical )Tj
48 0 TD 0 Tc (judgments. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
50 0 TD -0.201 Tc (Journal )Tj
35 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (Experimental)Tj
-182 -11 TD 0.129 Tc (Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
216 0 TD 0.468 Tc ( \(6\),)Tj
-216 -11 TD 0 Tc (1371-1385.)Tj
-9 -11 TD 0.248 Tc (Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Frijters, J. E. R. \(1992\). Contex-)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.128 Tc (tual and sequential effects on judgments of sweetness in-)Tj
0 -11 TD 0.148 Tc (tensity. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
33 0 TD 0.034 Tc (Perception & Psychophysics, 52)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
131 0 TD 0.072 Tc ( \(3\), 243-255.)Tj
-173 -11 TD 0.182 Tc (Stevens, S. S. \(1957\). On the psychophysical law. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
212 0 TD 0 Tc (Psycho-)Tj
-203 -11 TD 0.103 Tc (logical Review, 64)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
76 0 TD 0.072 Tc ( \(3\), 153-181.)Tj
-85 -11 TD 0.182 Tc (Ward, L. M. & Lockhead, G. R. \(1970\). Sequential effects)Tj
9 -11 TD 0.217 Tc (and memory in category judgments. )Tj
/F3 10 Tf
157 0 TD -0.201 Tc (Journal )Tj
35 0 TD 0 Tc (of )Tj
14 0 TD (Experi-)Tj
-206 -11 TD 0.104 Tc (mental Psychology, 84)Tj
/F2 10 Tf
93 0 TD 0.084 Tc ( \(1\), 27-34.)Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>
endobj
16 0 obj
[/CalGray<>]
endobj
17 0 obj
[/CalRGB<>]
endobj
18 0 obj
<>stream
application/pdf
Alexander A. Petrov and John R. Anderson
ANCHOR: A Memory-Based Model of Category Rating
2000-05-08T18:38:49Z
Appligent pdfHarmony 2.0
2018-05-15T18:54:07-07:00
2018-05-15T18:54:07-07:00
Acrobat PDFWriter 3.0 for Power Macintosh
pdfHarmony 2.0 Linux Kernel 2.6 64bit Mar 13 2012 Library 9.0.1
uuid:0efa91d4-a81d-11b2-0a00-e0ed02affe7f
uuid:2cf5d530-a8a6-11b2-0a00-00f7d7c5ff7f
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 20
0000000000 65535 f
0000007135 00000 n
0000007324 00000 n
0000018662 00000 n
0000018882 00000 n
0000018911 00000 n
0000030014 00000 n
0000030064 00000 n
0000032842 00000 n
0000033041 00000 n
0000046948 00000 n
0000047149 00000 n
0000060703 00000 n
0000060894 00000 n
0000070874 00000 n
0000070946 00000 n
0000071031 00000 n
0000071103 00000 n
0000071258 00000 n
0000075450 00000 n
trailer
<]>>
startxref
116
%%EOF