Implications of two local consistency strategy selection models

This paper examines some mathematical implications of two process models of concept identification, the 1-element strategy selection model with a local consistency assumption and Chumbley's hypothesis manipulation (HM) model. Under slightly restrictive assumptions, each process model (Level 1) is shown to imply a stochastic model (Level 3), making predictions of behavior in experimental situations in which the stimulus presented to a subject on any trial is randomly selected and independent of that presented on any other trial. In addition, each model is shown to make predictions at an intermediate level (Level 2) about performance on successive trials with specific stimulus sequences presented.At Level 2, each model is shown to falsely predict zero probabilities for particular response patterns when stated stimulus sequences are used. Fewer such problems arise with the HM model than with the 1-element model. Minimum squared error fits of one set of experimental data show relatively good correspondence of predictions and observations when a Chumbley model with different saliences for different hypotheses is employed.