The paradox of the universal triangle: Concepts, language, and prototypes

References

• Althaus, N., & Mareschal, D. (2014). Labels direct infants’ attention to commonalities during novel category learning. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e99670. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099670 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099670
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263–308. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4
   Google Scholar
• Attneave, F. (1955). Symmetry, information, and memory for patterns. The American Journal of Psychology, 68(2), 209–222. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/1418892 doi: 10.2307/1418892
   Google Scholar
• Balaban, M. T., & Waxman, S. R. (1997). Do words facilitate object categorization in 9-month-old infants? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64(1), 3–26. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.2332
   Google Scholar
• Baldo, J. V., Bunge, S. A., Wilson, S. M., & Dronkers, N. F. (2010). Is relational reasoning dependent on language? A voxel-based lesion symptom mapping study. Brain and Language, 113(2), 59–64. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004
   Google Scholar
• Baldo, J. V., Dronkers, N. F., Wilkins, D., Ludy, C., Raskin, P., & Kim, J. Y. (2005). Is problem solving dependent on language? Brain and Language, 92(3), 240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.103
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., & Gendron, M. (2007). Language as context for the perception of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 327–332. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. doi: 10.3758/BF03196968
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609; discussion 610–660.
   Google Scholar
• Berkeley, G. (2009). Principles of human knowledge and three dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boutonnet, B., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Words jump-start vision: A label advantage in object recognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(25), 9329–9335. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5111-14.2015
   Google Scholar
• Burling, R. (1993). Primate calls, human language, and nonverbal communication. Current Anthropology, 34(1), 25–53. doi: 10.1086/204132
   Google Scholar
• Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2014). All concepts are Ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: New directions (pp. 543–566). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Casasola, M. (2005). Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 183–192. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.188 doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.183
   Google Scholar
• Chater, N. (1999). The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 52(2), 273–302. doi: 10.1080/713755819
   Google Scholar
• Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2004). Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: A comparison of inference learning and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 216–226.
   Google Scholar
• Churchland, P. M. (1993). State-space semantics and meaning holism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53(3), 667–672. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/2108090 doi: 10.2307/2108090
   Google Scholar
• Churchland, P. M. (1998). Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: The fodor/lepore challenge answered. The Journal of Philosophy, 95(1), 5. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/2564566
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. L., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2000). An exemplar-retrieval model of speeded same-different judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(5), 1549–1569.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of representation: Why you can't represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 390–406. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12097 doi: 10.1111/tops.12097
   Google Scholar
• Çukur, T., Nishimoto, S., Huth, A. G., & Gallant, J. L. (2013). Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 16(6), 763–770. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3381 doi: 10.1038/nn.3381
   Google Scholar
• Danziger, K. (1980). The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(3), 241–262. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(198007)16:3<241::AID-JHBS2300160306>3.0.CO;2-O
   Google Scholar
• Dessalegn, B., & Landau, B. (2008). More than meets the eye: The role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19(2), 189–195. Retrieved from http://doi.org/PSCI2066 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02066.x
   Google Scholar
• Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016
   Google Scholar
• Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2010). Features of graded category structure: Generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models. Acta Psychologica, 133(3), 244–255. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.005 doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Edmiston, P., & Lupyan, G. (2013). Verbal and nonverbal cues activate concepts differently, at different times. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2243–2248). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Edmiston, P., & Lupyan, G. (2015). What makes words special? Words as unmotivated cues. Cognition, 143, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.008
   Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L. (2011). Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? The Mental Lexicon, 6(1), 1–33. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1075/ml.6.1.01elm doi: 10.1075/ml.6.1.01elm
   Google Scholar
• Evans, V. (2009). How words mean lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong (1st ed.). Oxford , New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gainotti, G. (2014). Old and recent approaches to the problem of non-verbal conceptual disorders in aphasic patients. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 53, 78–89. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.009
   Google Scholar
• Gallistel, C. R., & King, A. P. (2009). Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will transform neuroscience (1st ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L., Armstrong, S. L., & Connolly, A. C. (2012). Can prototype representations support composition and decomposition? In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), Oxford handbook of compositionality. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199541072-e-20
   Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In K. Holyoak & B. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633–661). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstone, R. L., Steyvers, M., & Rogosky, B. J. (2003). Conceptual interrelatedness and caricatures. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 169–180. doi: 10.3758/BF03194377
   Google Scholar
• Gomila, T. (2011). Verbal minds: Language and the architecture of cognition (1st ed.). Amsterdam , Boston: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, M. (2014). Human estimates of object frequency are frequently over-estimated. Presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and Theory (Vol. 46, pp. 79–113). London: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31(3), 355–384. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326402 doi: 10.1080/15326900701326402
   Google Scholar
• Harel, A., Kravitz, D. J., & Baker, C. I. (2014). Task context impacts visual object processing differentially across the cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201312567. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312567111
   Google Scholar
• Haxby, J. V., Guntupalli, J. S., Connolly, A. C., Halchenko, Y. O., Conroy, B. R., Gobbini, M. I., … Ramadge, P. J. (2011). A common, high-dimensional model of the representational space in human ventral temporal cortex. Neuron, 72( 2), 404–416. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.026 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.026
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2013). Spatial language and the psychological reality of schematization. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 205–208. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5 doi: 10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5
   Google Scholar
• Hume, D. (2012). A treatise of human nature. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5116
   Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (2010). How words capture visual experience: The perspective from cognitive neuroscience. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (1st ed., pp. 289–329). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006
   Google Scholar
• Kriegeskorte, N., & Kievit, R. A. (2013). Representational geometry: Integrating cognition, computation, and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 401–412. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.007
   Google Scholar
• Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., Ruff, D. A., Kiani, R., Bodurka, J., Esteky, H., … Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron, 60(6), 1126–1141. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.22
   Google Scholar
• Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: core readings (pp. 3–81). Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book.
   Google Scholar
• Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83(3), 265–294. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4
   Google Scholar
• Locke, J. (1995). An essay concerning human understanding. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 315–353. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004
   Google Scholar
• Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111(2), 309–332. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.309
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2007). Reuniting categories, language, and perception. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1247–1252). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2008a). From chair to “chair”: A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 348–369. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.348
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2008b). The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108(2), 566–577. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2009). Extracommunicative functions of language: Verbal interference causes selective categorization impairments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 711–718. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.711 doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.711
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2012a). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Cognition, 3(54). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2012b). What do words do? Towards a theory of language-augmented thought. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123942937000078
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2013). The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: Why brains make mistakes computers don't. Cognition, 129(3), 615–636. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.015
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (in press). The centrality of language in human cognition. Language Learning. http://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12155
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Bergen, B. (2015). How language programs the mind. Topics in Cognitive Science. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12155
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 7(2), 167–193. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.21 doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.21
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Clark, A. (2015). Words and the world: Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 279–284. doi: 10.1177/0963721415570732
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Mirman, D. (2013). Linking language and categorization: Evidence from aphasia. Cortex, 49(5), 1187–1194. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.006
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., Mirman, D., Hamilton, R. H., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Categorization is modulated by transcranial direct current stimulation over left prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 124(1), 36–49. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.002
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., Rakison, D. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2007). Language is not just for talking: Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1077–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02028.x
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Spivey, M. J. (2010). Redundant spoken labels facilitate perception of multiple items. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2236–2253. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.8.2236 doi: 10.3758/BF03196698
   Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 170–186. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024904 doi: 10.1037/a0024904
   Google Scholar
• Mack, M. L., Preston, A. R., & Love, B. C. (2013). Decoding the brain's algorithm for categorization from its neural implementation. Current Biology, 23(20), 2023–2027. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.035 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.035
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book.
   Google Scholar
• Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 775–799.
   Google Scholar
• Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R (Revised ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, L. (2012). Attention and other cognitive deficits in aphasia: Presence and relation to language and communication measures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 21(2), S51–S64 Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0067) doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0067)
   Google Scholar
• Nosofky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39–57. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39
   Google Scholar
• Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35–58. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5
   Google Scholar
• Pecher, D. (2013). The perceptual representation of mental categories. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 358–373). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G. (2014). The role of language in multi-dimensional categorization: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure to verbal labels. Brain and Language, 135, 66–72. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.05.005
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3P1), 353–363. doi: 10.1037/h0025953
   Google Scholar
• Prinz, J. J. (2004). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis (New ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raizada, R. D. S., & Connolly, A. C. (2012). What makes different people's representations alike: Neural similarity space solves the problem of across-subject fMRI decoding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 868–877. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00189 doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00189
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, W. K., Ramjee, V., Beauchamp, M. S., McRae, K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2007). A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia, 45(12), 2802–2810. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, J. P., & Hund, A. A. (2002). Prototypes and particulars: Geometric and experience-dependent spatial categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 16–37. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.16
   Google Scholar
• Spivey, M. J. (2008). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabossi, P., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Linguistic context and the priming of semantic information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(4), 595–603. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/14640748008401848 doi: 10.1080/14640748008401848
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   Google Scholar
• Vignolo, L. A. (1999). Disorders of conceptual thinking in aphasia. In G. Denes & L. Pizzamiglio (Eds.), Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology (pp. 273–288). Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, R. A. (1995). Representational Ideas: From Plato to Patricia churchland. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M., Thompson-Schill, S. L., Osherson, D., Haxby, J., & Parsons, L. (2009). Predicting judged similarity of natural categories from their neural representations. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 859–868. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.029 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.029
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1 doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
   Google Scholar