SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 (3), 522533.
  • Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 163.
  • Farell, B. (1985). Same-different judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 419456.
  • 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. 313318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19 (2), 141205.
  • Forbus, K., & Oblinger, D. (1990). Making SME Greedy and Pragmatic. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
  • 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.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
  • Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199241). London: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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. 195235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. (2011). Computational models of analogy. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 266276.
  • Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition, 29 (4), 565577.
  • Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2006). Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science, 30, 609642.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431467.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5 (3), 152158.
    Direct Link:
  • 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. 111147). Brussels: Brepols.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 4556.
  • Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 524575.
  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306355.
  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138.
  • Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91 (1), 167.
  • Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52 (2), 125157.
  • Goldstone, R. L., & Medin, D. L. (1994). Time course of comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20 (1), 2950.
  • Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 14541464.
  • Hahn, U., Chater, N., & Richardson, L. B. (2003). Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 87 (1), 132.
  • Hampton, J. A. (1997). Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts. Memory and Cognition, 25, 888909.
  • Harter, J. (Ed.) (2008) Plants: 2,400 copyright-free illustrations of flowers, trees, fruits and vegetables (Dover Pictorial Archive Series). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
  • 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. 31112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • 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. 229264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13 (3), 295355.
  • Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). LISA: A computational model of analogical inference and schema induction. Psychological Review, 104, 427466.
  • Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 196231.
  • Krawczyk, D., Holyoak, K., & Hummel, J. (2004). Structural constraints and object similarity in analogical mapping and inference. Thinking and Reasoning, 10, 85104.
  • Larkey, L. B., & Love, B. C. (2003). CAB: Connectionist analogy builder. Cognitive Science, 27 (5), 781794.
  • Love, B. C., Rouder, J. N., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1999). A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 291316.
  • 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. 17231728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 216228.
  • Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Markman, A. B., & Dietrich, E. (2000). In defense of representation. Cognitive Psychology, 40 (2), 138171.
  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517535.
  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24 (2), 235249.
  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2005). Nonintentional similarity processing. In R. Hassin, J. A. Bargh, & J. S. Uleman (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 107137). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • 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, 5470.
  • 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, 11.
  • Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85 (3), 207238.
  • Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • 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), 961974.
  • Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9 (3), 353383.
  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 (1), 104114.
  • Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 510520.
  • Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97 (2), 185200.
  • Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74 (5), 392409.
  • Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 510532.
  • 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), 456468.
  • Ross, B. H., Perkins, S. J., & Tenpenny, P. L. (1990). Reminding-based category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 460492.
  • Shepard, R. N. (1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 39, 373421.
  • Shoben, E. J. (1983). Applications of multidimensional scaling in cognitive psychology. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 473490.
  • Sloman, S. (1993). Do simple associations lead to systematic reasoning? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 471471.
  • Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1984). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Tversky, B. (1969). Pictorial and verbal encoding in a short-term memory task. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 225233.
  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327352.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453458.