As predicted, combined-context embedding spaces‘ performance was intermediate between the preferred and non-preferred CC embedding spaces in predicting human similarity judgments: as more nature semantic context data were used to train the combined-context models, the alignment between embedding spaces and human judgments for the animal test set improved; and, conversely, more transportation semantic context data yielded better recovery of similarity relationships in the vehicle test set (Fig. 2b). We illustrated this performance difference using the 50% nature–50% transportation embedding spaces in Fig. 2(c), but we observed the same general trend regardless of the ratios (nature context: combined canonical r = .354 ± .004; combined canonical < CC nature p < .001; combined canonical > CC transportation p < .001; combined full r = .527 ± .007; combined full < CC nature p < .001; combined full > CC transportation p < .001; transportation context: combined canonical r = .613 ± .008; combined canonical > CC nature p = .069; combined canonical < CC transportation p = .008; combined full r = .640 ± .006; combined full > CC nature p = .024; combined full < CC transportation p = .001). Continue reading „step 3.dos Test 2: Contextual projection captures good information about interpretable object ability ratings regarding contextually-constrained embeddings“