5.10 Adaptations and References

Sections of this chapter were adapted and remixed from:

• Crump, M. (2021). Mental imagery. In Matthew J. C. Crump (Ed.), Instances of Cognition: Questions, Methods, Findings, Explanations, Applications, and Implications. Instances of Cognition textbook
• Murphy, G. (2024). Categories and concepts. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF Publishers. Retrieved from Categories and Concepts chapter (Noba Psychology)

References

• Allen, S. W., & Brooks, L. R. (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 3–19.
• Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
• Armstrong Jr., A. C. (1894). The imagery of American students. Psychological Review, 1(5), 496. DOI link
• Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.
• Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14–21.
• Chen, J. M., & Ratliff, K. A. (2018). Psychological essentialism predicts intergroup bias. Social Cognition, 36(3), 301–323.
• Daniel Tammet. (2021). In Wikipedia. Wikipedia entry for Daniel Tammet
• French, F. C. (1902). Mental imagery of students: A summary of the replies given to Titchener’s questionnaire by 118 juniors in Vassar College. Psychological Review, 9(1), 40. DOI link
• Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Magazine, 12, 318–327.
• Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. Macmillan.
• Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301–318. DOI link
• Galton, F. (1889). Co-relations and their measurement, chiefly from anthropometric data. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 45(273–279), 135–145. DOI link
• Galton, F. (1890). Kinship and correlation. The North American Review, 150(401), 419–431.
• Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 77–90.
• Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.
• Halpern, A. R. (1988). Mental scanning in auditory imagery for songs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 434.
• Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441–461.
• Horton, M. S., & Markman, E. M. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Development, 51, 708–719.
• Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press.
• Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., & Reiser, B. J. (1978). Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(1), 47. DOI link
• Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (2004). Dissociating explicit and procedural-based systems of perceptual category learning. Behavioural Processes, 66, 309–332.
• Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford University Press.
• Mareschal, D., Quinn, P. C., & Lea, S. E. G. (Eds.). (2010). The making of human concepts. Oxford University Press.
• Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. DOI link
• McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory & Cognition, 6, 462–472.
• Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge University Press.
• Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
• Zimmer, C. (2021, June 8). Many people have a vivid “mind’s eye,” while others have none at all. The New York Times: Science. New York Times article