分類行為的研究在認知科學領域討論已久，過去許多研究指出分類行為有兩種，一種為再認型態的分類，另一種為命名型態的分類，再認型態的分類主要是受到相似性的影響，而命名型態的分類不僅會受到相似性的影響，亦會受到語言的影響。然而，過去有跨語言研究做出來的結果不符預期，並懷疑可能是熟悉度所致，因此，本研究欲探討熟悉度如何影響分類類別的區分，以及類別名稱的包容性，並區辯熟悉度與典型性兩者在語言分類層次上的不同。
為了瞭解熟悉度如何影響分類行為，我們進一步地將熟悉度分為兩者：一為刺激材料的熟悉度，二為實驗程序所造成的熟悉度差異。在研究一與研究二，欲了解跨語言使用者在再認和命名型態的分類作業上的熟悉度效果，且依據容器的語意特徵基模來分析使用者在判斷類別時是否使用不同特徵，結果顯示，在熟悉的刺激材料上跨語言使用者的相關值確實較高，但熟悉度並未影響使用者使用的特徵。在研究三則欲探討熟悉度與典型性在分類層次上之比較，結果顯示，熟悉度會讓受試者記憶較細節的地方，而典型性則會使受試者更快速地提取語義記憶，除此之外，典型性亦會影響熟悉度在分類層次上的動態歷程。
本研究之貢獻在於了解熟悉度在跨語言研究分類行為上的重要性，以及分隔熟悉度以及典型性兩者在語言分類系統上之不同。本研究認為不管是刺激材料熟悉度或是實驗程序所造成的熟悉度差異，都會影響跨語言分類行為研究的結果，建議未來跨語言研究應多加考慮熟悉度效果。另外，本研究亦對命名分類行為做更進一步地探討，釐清在物件上熟悉度與典型性兩者不同的效果。本研究最後針對結果、分類行為、熟悉度相關議題進行討論，亦提供未來研究方向與建議。

In this research, we want to know how familiarity effect influence the categorization process. In the first and second study, we want to understand the familiarity effect on recognition and naming tasks for cross-language users. The result shows that the correlation between cross-language users is higher in familiar stimuli, but the familiarity does not affect which feature users use in categorization. In the third study, we focused on familiarity effect and typicality effect in the hierarchy of categorization level. The results indicate that participants remember more subordinate details in familiar objects while participants extract semantic memory faster in typical objects. This research points out the importance of the familiarity, and distinguishes the typicality effect from the familiarity effect in categorization levels. Moreover, we found that the dynamic processing in familiar stimuli is influenced by typicality effect. We suggested that the cross-language research should be aware of the importance of familiarity.

中文參考文獻：
李昀（2012）。人工物分類之跨語言研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
英文參考文獻：
Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2006). From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 402–421. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.005
Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.004
Anaki, D., & Bentin, S. (2009). Familiarity effects on categorization levels of faces and objects. Cognition (Vol. 111).
Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (1992). Complex decision rules in categorization: Contrasting novice and experienced performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 50.
Barsalou, L. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and cognitive processes, 18(5-6), 513-562.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 637-660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281-1289.
Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision research, 37(12), 1673-1682.
Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Moylan, J., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C., & Anderson, A. W. (2000). The fusiform “face area” is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 12(3), 495-504.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and brain sciences, 20(1), 1-19.
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65(2), 231-262.
Hammitt, W. E. (1981). The familiarity‐preference component of on‐site recreational experiences. Leisure Sciences, 4(2), 177-193.
Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(3), 248.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive psychology, 16(2), 243-275.
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the language of locomotion: Research article. Psychological Science, 19(3), 232–240.
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus Naming: Similarity and the Linguistic Categorization of Artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 230–262. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2593
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior research methods, 44(2), 314-324.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological review, 85(3), 207.
Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 70–84. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3156953
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 10(1), 104.
Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., & McKinley, S. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(2), 211-233.
Palmeri, T. J., Wong, A. C., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Computational approaches to the development of perceptual expertise. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(8), 378-386.
Porteous, J. D. (2013). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. Routledge.
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 369.
Rosch, E. (2005). Principles of categorization. Etnolingwistyka. Problemy języka i kultury, (17), 11-35.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 573-605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382-439.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Psychology Software Incorporated.
Scott, L. S., Tanaka, J. W., Sheinberg, D. L., & Curran, T. (2006). A reevaluation of the electrophysiological correlates of expert object processing. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(9), 1453-1465.
Shepard, R. N. (1986). Discrimination and generalization in identification and classification: Comment on Nosofsky.
Shyi, G. C., & He, H. M. (2011). Effects of Familiarity and Expression Variation on Face Recognition and Generalization. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 53(4), 73-106.
Tanaka, J. W. (2001). The entry point of face recognition: Evidence for face expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 130(3), 534-543.
Tanaka, J. W. (2001). The entry point of face recognition: Evidence for face expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 130(3), 534-543.
Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?. Cognitive psychology, 23(3), 457-482.
Wu, L. ling, & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132(2), 173–189.