Modeling visual problem solving as analogical reasoning

Psychological Review

Volumn 124, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 60-90

  Lovett, Andrew ^a   Forbus, Kenneth ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Cognitive modeling; Problem solving; Visual comparison

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOGIC; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; THINKING; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGIC; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; THINKING; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85006894345     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/rev0000039     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Andersson, U. (2007). The contribution of working memory to children's mathematical word problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1201-1216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1317.
2. Arce-Ferrer, A. J., & Guzmán, E. M. (2009). Studying the equivalence of computer-delivered and paper-based administrations of the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 855-867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332219.
3. Bethell-Fox, C. E., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1984). Adaptive reasoning: Componential and eye movement analysis of geometric analogy performance. Intelligence, 8, 205-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0160-2896(84)90009-6.
4. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115.
5. Bornstein, M. H., & Korda, N. O. (1984). Discrimination and matching within and between hues measured by reaction times: Some implications for categorical perception and levels of information processing. Psychological Research, 46, 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00308884.
6. Burke, H. R., & Bingham, W. C. (1969). Raven's Progressive Matrices: More on construct validity. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 72, 247-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1969.10543505.
7. Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404.
8. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046743.
9. Cirillo, S., & Ström, V. (2010). An anthropomorphic solver for Raven's Progressive Matrices (Report No. 2010:096). Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
10. Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P., & Spelke, E. (2006, January 20). Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 311, 381-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121739.
11. Doumas, L. A. A., & Hummel, J. E. (2013). Comparison and mapping facilitate relation discovery and predication. PLoS ONE, 8, e63889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063889.
12. Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.1.
13. Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380-396.
14. Engle, R. W. (1994). Memory. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of intelligence (pp. 700-704). New York, NY: MacMillan.
15. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.
16. Evans, T. (1968). A program for the solution of geometric-analogy intelligence test questions. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic Information Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Analogical interpretation in context. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA.
18. Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5.
19. Farell, B. (1985). Same-different judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 419-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.419.
20. Ferguson, R. W., Aminoff, A., & Gentner, D. (1996). Modeling qualitative differences in symmetry judgments. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Forbus, K. (1983). Qualitative reasoning about space and motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 155-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Forbus, K. (2001). Exploring analogy in the large. In D. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), Analogy: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 23-58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Forbus, K., Nielsen, P., & Faltings, B. (1991). Qualitative spatial reasoning: The CLOCK project. Artificial Intelligence, 51, 417-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90116-2.
24. Forbus, K., Usher, J., Lovett, A., Lockwood, K., & Wetzel, J. (2011). CogSketch: Sketch understanding for cognitive science research and for education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 648-666. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01149.x.
25. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15516709cog0702_3
26. 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 thought (pp. 195-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 752-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01114.x.
28. Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R. W., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P., & Forbus, K. (1997). Analogical reasoning and conceptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 3-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0601_2
29. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00652.x.
30. Gentner, D., & Smith, L. A. (2013). Analogical learning and reasoning. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 668-681). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Glick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0010-0285(83)90002-6.
32. Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 222-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90010.L.
33. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4
34. Grudin, J. (1980). Processes in verbal analogy solution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 67-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.67.
35. Hahn, U., Chater, N., & Richardson, L. B. (2003). Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 87, 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00184-1.
36. Hobeika, L., Diard-Detoeuf, C., Garcin, B., Levy, R., & Volle, E. (2016). General and specialized brain correlates for analogical reasoning: A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 37, 1953-1969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23149.
37. Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01091-7.
38. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. A. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18(1-3), 65-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90022-2.
39. Hofstadter, D. (1995). Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
40. Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books.
41. Hughes, H. C., Nozawa, G., & Kitterle, F. (1996). Global precedence, spatial frequency channels, and the statistics of natural images. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 197-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.3.197.
42. Hulleman, J., te Winkel, W., & Boselie, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 162-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212069.
43. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.480.
44. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427.
45. Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In T. Inui & J. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Hunt, E. (1974). Quote the raven? Nevermore! In L. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition (pp. 129-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.352.
48. Janssen, A. B., & Geiser, C. (2010). On the relationship between solution strategies in two mental rotation tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 473-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.03.002.
49. Johnstone, A. H., & El-Banna, H. (1986). Capacities, demands and processes- A predictive model for science education. Education in Chemistry, 23, 80-84.
50. Julesz, B. (1984). A brief outline of the texton theory of human vision. Trends in Neurosciences, 7, 41-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(84)80275-1.
51. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008, April 25). Learning theory. The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1154659.
52. Kim, J. G., & Biederman, I. (2012). Greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than metric changes in the relations between simple shapes in the lateral occipital cortex. NeuroImage, 63, 1818-1826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.neuroimage.2012.08.066.
53. Kinchla, R. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (1979). The order of visual processing: "Top-down," "bottom- up," or "middle- out." Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 225-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03202991.
54. Kokinov, B., & French, R. M. (2003). Computational models of analogymaking. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 1, pp. 113-118). London, England: Nature.
55. Kosslyn, S. M. (1996). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Kosslyn, S. M., Koenig, O., Barrett, A., Cave, C. B., Tang, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 723-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.4.723.
57. Kroger, J. K., Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2004). Varieties of sameness: The impact of relational complexity on perceptual comparisons. Cognitive Science, 28, 335-358.
58. Kubricht, J., Lu, H., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Animation facilitates source understanding and spontaneous analogical transfer. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Kuehne, S., Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Quinn, B. (2000). SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Kunda, M., McGreggor, K., & Goel, A. K. (2013). A computational model for solving problems from the Raven's Progressive Matrices intelligence test using iconic visual representations. Cognitive Systems Research, 22-23, 47-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.08.001.
61. LaGasse, L. L. (1993). Effects of good form and spatial frequency on global precedence. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 89-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03211718.
62. Larkey, L., & Love, B. (2003). CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder. Cognitive Science, 27, 781-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709.cog2705_5
63. Love, B. C., Rouder, J. N., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1999). A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 291-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0697.
64. Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2011a). Cultural commonalities and differences in spatial problem-solving: A computational analysis. Cognition, 121, 281-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.012.
65. Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2011b). Organizing and representing space for visual problem-solving. In Proceedings of the 25th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning. Barcelona, Spain.
66. Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2012). Modeling multiple strategies for solving geometric analogy problems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Lovett, A., Tomai, E., Forbus, K., & Usher, J. (2009). Solving geometric analogy problems through two-stage analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 33, 1192-1231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01052.x.
68. Lynn, R., Allik, J., & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on three factors identified in Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Intelligence, 32, 411-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.007.
69. Maki, R. H. (1982). Why do categorization effects occur in comparative judgment tasks? Memory & Cognition, 10, 252-264. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3758/BF03197637.
70. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24, 235-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200884.
71. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 200B, 269-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1978.0020.
72. McGreggor, K., Kunda, M., & Goel, A. K. (2014). Fractals and Ravens. Artificial Intelligence, 215, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.05.005.
73. McLure, M. D., Friedman, S. E., Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. D. (2011). Edge-cycles: A qualitative sketch representation to support recognition. In Proceedings of the 25th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning. Barcelona, Spain.
74. Mitchell, M. (1993). Analogy-Making as Perception: A Computer Model. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Mulholland, T. M., Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1980). Components of geometric analogy solution. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 252-284. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90011-0.
76. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3.
77. Nothdurft, H. C. (1991). Texture segmentation and pop-out from orientation contrast. Vision Research, 31, 1073-1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(91)90211.M.
78. Oppenheim, A. V., & Schafer, R. W. (2009). Discrete-time signal processing (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
79. Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90016-0.
80. Palmer, S., & Rock, I. (1994). Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 29-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200760.
81. Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0140525X08003543.
82. Rasmussen, D., & Eliasmith, C. (2011). A neural model of rule generation in inductive reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 140-153. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01127.x.
83. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: I. General overview. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
84. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000a). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Research Suppl. 3. Neuropsychological Applications. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
85. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000b). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: 3. Standard Progressive Matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
86. Rosielle, L. J., & Cooper, E. E. (2001). Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition. Memory & Cognition, 29, 68-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195742.
87. Sagi, E., Gentner, D., & Lovett, A. (2012). What difference reveals about similarity. Cognitive Science, 36, 1019-1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1551-6709.2012.01250.x.
88. Schwering, A., Gust, H., Kühnberger, K., & Krumnack, U. (2009). Solving geometric proportional analogies with the analogy model HDTP. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
89. Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental Images and Their Transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701.
91. Snow, R. E., Kyllonen, P. C., & Marshalek, B. (1984). The topography of learning and ability correlations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 47-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
92. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263-331). New York, NY: Macmillan.
93. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
94. Stevens, K. A. (1981). The information content of texture gradients. Biological Cybernetics, 42, 95-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF00336727.
95. Taatgen, N. (2014). Between architecture and model: Strategies for cognitive control. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 8, 132-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2014.03.010.
96. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90023-4.
97. Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: Examining the correlation between operation span and Raven. Intelligence, 33, 67-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.08.003.
98. van der Ven, A. H. G. S., & Ellis, J. L. (2000). A Rasch analysis of Raven's standard progressive matrices. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 45-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00177-4.
99. Vendetti, M. S., Wu, A., & Holyoak, K. J. (2014). Far-out thinking: Generating solutions to distant analogies promotes relational thinking. Psychological Science, 25, 928-933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797613518079.
100. Vodegel Matzen, L. B. L., van der Molen, M. W., & Dudink, A. C. M. (1994). Error analysis of Raven test performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 433-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90070-1.
101. Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71-88). London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/11496-005.
102. Williams, J. E., & McCord, D. M. (2006). Equivalence of standard and computerized versions of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 791-800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.005.
103. Yan, J., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (2003). A theory of rerepresentation in analogical matching. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
104. Zagar, R., Arbit, J., & Friedland, J. (1980). Structure of a psychodiagnostic test battery for children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 313-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198001)36:1<313:: AID-JCLP2270360143>3.0.CO;2-J