{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04554655870445344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020242914979757085, 'mean_word_length': 5.964788732394366, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Similarity, identification, and categorization: comment on Ashby and Lee (1991)

Ashby and Lee (1991) tested various models derived from the general recognition theory (GRT; Ashby & Perrin, 1988; Ashby & Townsend, 1986) on their ability to predict and interrelate similarity, categorization, and identification performance. This commentary (a) argues that contrary to Ashby and Lee's suggestion, the likelihood-based GRT cannot generally predict categorization from identification without incorporating selective attention, (b) argues that the categorization rule in the likelihood-based GRT is extremely close in spirit to Nosofsky's (1986) exemplar-based similarity model, (c) reports new model-based analyses that call into question Ashby and Lee's interpretation of their identification-confusion data, (d) raises questions about the identification and similarity models tested by Ashby and Lee, and (e) criticizes Ashby and Lee's methods of fitting and evaluating the various models.