What difference reveals about similarity

Cognitive Science

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1019-1050

  Sagi, Eyal ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^a   Lovett, Andrew ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alignable differences; Perceptual comparison; Same different judgments; Structural alignment; Structure mapping

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

COGNITION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 84864372432     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01250.x     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 (3), 522-533.
2. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
3. Farell, B. (1985). Same-different judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 419-456.
4. Forbus, K., Ferguson, R., & Gentner, D. (1994). Incrementalstructure-mapping. In A. Ram & K. Elselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 313-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19 (2), 141-205.
6. Forbus, K., & Oblinger, D. (1990). Making SME Greedy and Pragmatic. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
7. Forbus, K., Usher, J., Lovett, A., Lockwood, K., & Wetzel, J. (2008). CogSketch: Open-Domain Sketch Understanding for Cognitive Science Research and for Education. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Eurographics Workshop on SBIM.
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). London: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gentner, D. (2003). Why we're so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 195-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. (2011). Computational models of analogy. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 266-276.
12. Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition, 29 (4), 565-577.
13. Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2006). Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science, 30, 609-642.
14. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
15. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5 (3), 152-158.
16. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison. In C. Cacciari (Ed.), Similarity in language, thought and perception (pp. 111-147). Brussels: Brepols.
17. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
18. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 524-575.
19. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
20. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
21. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91 (1), 1-67.
22. Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52 (2), 125-157.
23. Goldstone, R. L., & Medin, D. L. (1994). Time course of comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20 (1), 29-50.
24. Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454-1464.
25. Hahn, U., Chater, N., & Richardson, L. B. (2003). Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 87 (1), 1-32.
26. Hampton, J. A. (1997). Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts. Memory and Cognition, 25, 888-909.
27. Harter, J. (Ed.) (2008) Plants: 2, 400 copyright-free illustrations of flowers, trees, fruits and vegetables (Dover Pictorial Archive Series). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
28. Hofstadter, D. R., & Mitchell, M. (1994). The Copycat Project: A model of mental fluidity and analogy-making. In K. J. Holyoak & J. A. Barnden, (Eds.), Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory, vol. 2. Analogical connections (pp. 31-112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29. Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2000). The proper treatment of symbols in a connectionist architecture. In E. Dietrich & A. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 229-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13 (3), 295-355.
31. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). LISA: A computational model of analogical inference and schema induction. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.
32. Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 196-231.
33. Krawczyk, D., Holyoak, K., & Hummel, J. (2004). Structural constraints and object similarity in analogical mapping and inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 85-104.
34. Larkey, L. B., & Love, B. C. (2003). CAB: Connectionist analogy builder. Cognitive Science, 27 (5), 781-794.
35. Love, B. C., Rouder, J. N., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1999). A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 291-316.
36. Lovett, A., Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. (2006). Simulating time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity via incremental encoding. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1723-1728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 216-228.
38. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Markman, A. B., & Dietrich, E. (2000). In defense of representation. Cognitive Psychology, 40 (2), 138-171.
40. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.
41. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24 (2), 235-249.
42. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2005). Nonintentional similarity processing. In R. Hassin, J. A. Bargh, & J. S. Uleman (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 107-137). New York: Oxford University Press.
43. 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.
44. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Comparison and choice: Relations between similarity processes and decision processes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 1-1.
45. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85 (3), 207-238.
46. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Navarro, D. J., & Lee, M. D. (2004). Common and distinctive features in stimulus representation: A modified version of the contrast model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (6), 961-974.
48. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9 (3), 353-383.
49. Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 (1), 104-114.
50. Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 510-520.
51. Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97 (2), 185-200.
52. Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74 (5), 392-409.
53. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 510-532.
54. Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (3), 456-468.
55. Ross, B. H., Perkins, S. J., & Tenpenny, P. L. (1990). Reminding-based category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 460-492.
56. Shepard, R. N. (1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 39, 373-421.
57. Shoben, E. J. (1983). Applications of multidimensional scaling in cognitive psychology. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 473-490.
58. Sloman, S. (1993). Do simple associations lead to systematic reasoning? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 471-471.
59. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1984). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Tversky, B. (1969). Pictorial and verbal encoding in a short-term memory task. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 225-233.
61. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
62. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.