The effects of alignability on memory

Psychological Science

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 363-367

  Markman, Arthur B ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0342825582     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00426.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson, R.C., & Pichert, J.W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
2. Bower, G.H., Black, J.B., & Turner, T.J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177-220.
3. Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
4. Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W.G. Chase (Eds.), Visual information processing (pp. 383-438). New York: Academic Press.
5. Brewer, W.F., & Dupree, D.A. (1983). Use of plain schemata in the recall and recognition of goal-directed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 117-129.
6. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41(1), 1-63.
7. Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
8. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
9. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gentner, D., & Imai, M. (1995). A further examination of the shape bias in early word learning. In Proceeding of the 25th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 167-176). Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information.
11. Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152-158.
12. Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1995). Similarity is like analogy. In C. Cacciari (Ed.), Similarity (pp. 111-148). Brussels: BREPOLS.
13. Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure-mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
14. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J., Markman, A.B., & Kotovsky, L. (1995). Two forces in ihe development of relational similarity. In T.J. Simon & G.S. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modelling (pp. 263-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science, 10, 277-300.
16. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
17. Goldstone, R.L. (1994a). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125-157.
18. Goldstone, R.L. (1994b). Similarity, interactive-activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 3-28.
19. Hampton, J.A. (1995). Similarity-based categorization: The development of prototype theory. Psychologica Belgica, 35, 103-126.
20. Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
21. Keane, M.T., Ledgeway, T., & Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 18, 387-138.
22. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (in press). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development.
23. Markman, A.B., & Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.
24. Markman, A.B., & Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
25. Markman, A.B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24, 235-249.
26. Markman, A.B., & Medin, D.L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 117-130.
27. Markman, A.B., & Wisniewski, E.J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 54-70.
28. Medin, D.L., Goldstone, R.L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278.
29. Medin, D.L., Goldstone, R.L., & Markman, A.B. (1995). Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processing and decision processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1), 1-19.
30. Namy, L.L., Smith, L.B., & Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (in press). Young children's discovery of spatial classification. Cognitive Development.
31. Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Slovic, P., & MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 172-194.
34. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
35. Wisniewski, E.J., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Feature alignment in category learning. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, New York.
36. Zhang, S., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Product differentiation, structural alignment and the pioneer advantage. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, New York.