ABSTRACT
In probabilistic categorization tasks, various cues are probabilistically (but not perfectly) predictive of class membership. This means that a given combination of cues sometimes belongs to one class and sometimes to another. It is not yet clear how categorizers approach such tasks. Here, we review evidence in favor of two alternative conceptualizations of learning in probabilistic categorization: as rule-based learning, or as incremental learning. Each conceptualization forms the basis of a way of analyzing performance: strategy analysis assumes rule-based learning, while rolling regression analysis assumes incremental learning. Here, we contrasted the ability of each to predict performance of normal categorizers. Both turned out to predict responses about equally well. We then reviewed performance of patients with damage to regions deemed important for either rule-based or incremental learning. Evidence was again about equally compatible with either alternative conceptualization of learning, although neither predicted an involvement of the medial temporal lobe. We suggest that a new way of conceptualizing probabilistic categorization might be fruitful, in which the medial temporal lobe help set up representations that are then used by other regions to assign patterns to categories.
