A Quantum Probability Explanation for Violations of Symmetry in Similarity Judgments

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 2848-2853

  Pothos, Emmanuel M ^a   Busemeyer, Jerome R ^a  

^a Department of Psychology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

quantum probability; representation; Similarity; symmetry

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; PROBABILITY THEORY; QUANTUM PROBABILITIES; REPRESENTATION; SIMILARITY; SIMILARITY JUDGEMENTS; SIMILARITY MODELS; SYMMETRY; TRIANGLE INEQUALITY;

EID: 85092974858     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Aerts, D., & Gabora, L. (2005). A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes, 34, 192-221.
2. Ashby, G. F. & Perrin, N. A. (1988). Towards a Unified Theory of Similarity and Recognition. Psychological Review, 95, 124-150.
3. Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Romer, H. (2004). Quantum zero features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics, 90, 33-40.
4. Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (1997). Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 244-286.
5. Bruza, P. D. (2010) Quantum Memory. Australasian Science, 31, 34-35.
6. Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220-241.
7. Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. (in press). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review.
8. Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Halberstadt, J. (1997). Similarity in context. Memory & Cognition, 25, 237-255.
9. Hahn, U., Close, J., & Graf, M. (2009). Transformation direction influences shape-similarity judgments. Psychological Science, 20, 447-454.
10. Isham, C. J. (1989). Lectures on quantum theory. Singapore: World Scientific.
11. Khrennikov, A. Y. (2004). Information dynamics in cognitive, psychological, social and anomalous phenomena. Kluwer Academic.
12. Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85, 445-463.
13. Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 94–140.
14. Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of 'rational' decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2171-2178.
15. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370–392.
16. Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
17. Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231-280.
18. Tenenbaum, J. & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 629-641.
19. Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 309-318.
20. Trueblood, J. S. & Busemeyer, J. R. (in press). A comparison of the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. Cognitive Science.
21. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.