SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Adler, A., & Davis, R. (2004). Speech and sketching for multimodal design. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Island of Madeira, Portugal.
  • Aleven, V., Sewall, J., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Rapid authoring of intelligent tutors for real-world and experimental use. In Kinshuk, R. Koper, P. Kommers, P. Kirschner, D. G. Sampson, & W. Didderen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006) (pp. 847851). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
  • Alvarado, C., Oltmans, M., & Davis, R. (2002). A framework for multi-domain sketch recognition. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Sketch Understanding, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Barker, K., Blythe, J., Borchardt, G., Chaudhri, V., Clark, P., Cohen, P., Fitzgerald, J., Forbus, K., Gil, Y., Katz, B., Kim, J., King, G., Mishra, S., Morrison, C., Murray, K., Otstott, C., Porter, B., Schrag, R., Uribe, T., Usher, J., & Yeh, P. (2003). A knowledge acquisition tool for course of action analysis. Proceedings of the Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Acapulco, Mexico.
  • Blair, K., Schwartz, D., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: Teachable agents. Education Technology, 47, 5661.
  • Bohan, A., & O’Donoghue, D. (2000). LUDI: A model for geometric analogies using attribute matching. Proceedings of the 11th Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (AICS-2000), Galway, Ireland.
  • Bradley, E. (1995). Autonomous exploration and control of chaotic systems. Cybernetics and Systems, 26, 299319.
  • 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(3), 404431.
  • Cheng, P. C.-H., & Rojas-Anaya, H. (2008). Measuring mathematic formula writing competence: An application of graphical protocol analysis. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 869874). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121152.
  • Cohn, A. (1996) Calculi for qualitative spatial reasoning. In J. Calmet, J. A. Campbell, & J. Pfalzgraph (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Mathematical Computation, LNCS 1138 (pp. 124143). New York: Springer Verlag.
  • Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proceedings of ACM CHI’2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA, 245252.
  • Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L. V. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of ‘over’, ‘under’, ‘above’, and ‘below’. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 376398.
  • Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P., & Spelke, E. (2006). Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian Indigene Group. Science, 311, 381384.
  • Edwards, G., & Moulin, B. (1998). Toward the simulation of spatial mental images using the Voronoi model. In P. Olivier & K. P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 163184). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Press.
  • Evans, T. (1968). A program for the solution of geometric-analogy intelligence test questions. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 271353). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1989). The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 163.
  • Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (1998). On plates, bowls, and dishes: Factors in the use of English ‘in’ and ‘on’. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Madison, WI.
  • Ferguson, R., Aminoff, A., & Gentner, D. (1996). Modeling qualitative differences in symmetry judgments. Proceedings of CogSci96, La Jolla, CA.
  • Forbus, K. (1983). Qualitative reasoning about space and motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 5374). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA associates, Inc.
  • Forbus, K. (2007). Qualitative modeling. In F. Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation (pp. 361394). New York: Elsevier.
  • Forbus, K., & de Kleer, J. (1993). Building problem solvers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Forbus, K., Ferguson, R., & Usher, J. (2001) Towards a computational model of sketching. Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 7783.
  • Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of Similarity-based Retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 141205.
  • Forbus, K., Mostek, T., & Ferguson, R. (2002) An analogy ontology for integrating analogical processing and first-principles reasoning. Proceedings of IAAI-02, Edmonton, AB.
  • Forbus, K., Nielsen, P., & Faltings, B. (1991). Qualitative spatial reasoning: The CLOCK Project. Artificial Intelligence 51(1–3), 417471.
  • Forbus, K., & Oblinger, D. (1990). Making SME greedy and pragmatic. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA.
  • Forbus, K., Usher, J., & Chapman, V. (2003). Sketching for military courses of action diagrams. Proceedings of IUI’03, Miami, FL.
  • Forbus, K., Usher, J., & Tomai, E. (2005). Analogical learning of visual/conceptual relationships in sketches. Proceedings of AAAI-05, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155170.
  • Gentner, D., & Bowerman, M. (2009). Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The Typological Prevalence hypothesis. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. Özçaliskan, & K. Nakamura (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 465480). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gross, M. D., & Do, E. (1996). Demonstrating the electronic cocktail napkin: A paper-like interface for early design. ACM Conference on Human Factors (CHI ‘96), 56.
  • Halstead, D., & Forbus, K. (2005). Transforming between propositions and features: Bridging the gap. Proceedings of AAA-05, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 6596.
  • Huang, X., & Zhao, F. (2000). Relation based aggregation: Finding objects in largespatial datasets. Intelligent Data Analysis, 4, 129147.
  • Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating location. Psychological Review, 98(3), 352376.
  • Jee, B., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., Sageman, B., & Uttal, D. (2009). Drawing on experience: Use of sketching to evaluate knowledge of spatial scientific concepts. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Joscowicz, L., & Sacks, E. (1991). Computational kinematics. Artificial Intelligence, 51, 381416.
  • Kim, H. (1993). Qualitative reasoning about fluids and mechanics, Ph.D. dissertation and ILS Technical Report, Northwestern University.
  • Klenk, M., Forbus, K., Tomai, E., Kim, H., & Kyckelhahn, B. (2005). Solving everyday physical reasoning problems by analogy using sketches. Proceedings of 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-05), Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Kosslyn, S. M., Chabris, C. F., Marsolek, C. M., & Koenig, O. (1992). Categorical versus coordinate spatial representations: Computational analyses and computer simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 562577.
  • Kuehne, S., Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Quinn, B. (2000). SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Landay, J. A., Hong, J., Klemmer, S., Lin, J., & Newman, M. (2002). Informal PUIs: No recognition required. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Sketch Understanding, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Lee, W., De Silva, R., Peterson, E. J., Calfee, R. C., & Stahovich, T. F. (2007). Newton’s Pen – A pen-based tutoring system for statics. Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, Riverside, CA.
  • Lockwood, K., Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2008). Automatic classification of containment and support spatial relations in English and Dutch. Proceedings of Spatial Cognition, Frieburg, Germany.
  • Lovett, A., Forbus, K., & Usher, J. (2007). Analogy with qualitative spatial representations can simulate solving Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN.
  • Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009a). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 216228.
  • Lovett, A., Lockwood, K., & Forbus, K. (2008). Modeling cross-cultural performance on the visual oddity task. Proceedings of Spatial Cognition 2008, Freiburg, Germany.
  • Lovett, A., Tomai, E., Forbus, K., & Usher, J. (2009b). Solving geometric analogy problems through two-stage analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 33(7), 11921231.
  • Nielsen, P. E. (1988). A qualitative approach to rigid body mechanics. (Tech. Rep. No. UIUCDCS-R-88-1469; UILU-ENG-88-1775). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Computer Science.
  • Pittman, J., Smith, I., Cohen, P., Oviatt, S., & Yang, T. (1996). Quickset: A multimodal interface for military simulations. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Computer-Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Orlando, FL, 217224.
  • Rasch, R., Kott, A., & Forbus, K. (2002). AI on the battlefield: An experimental exploration. Proceedings of the 14th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Edmonton, AB.
  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Section 1. General Overview. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
  • Regier, T. (1996). Thehuman semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Saund, E., Mahoney, J., Fleet, D., Larner, D., & Lank, E. (2002). Perceptualoganization as a foundation for intelligent sketch editing. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Sketch Understanding, Palo Alto, CA, 118125.
  • Schwering, A., Krumnack, U., Kuehneberger, K., & Gust, H. (2007). Using gestalt principles to compute analogies of geometric figures. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN.
  • Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Stahovich, T., Davis, R., & Shrobe, H. (2000). Qualitative rigid-body mechanics. Artificial Intelligence 119(1–2), 1960.
  • Wetzel, J., & Forbus, K. (2009). Automated critique of sketched mechanisms. Proceedings of the 21st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Pasadena, CA.
  • Yin, J., Forbus, K. D., Usher, J., Sageman, B., & Jee, B. (2010) Sketch Worksheets: A Sketch-based Educational Software System. Proceedings of the 22nd Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Atlanta.
  • Yip, K. (1991). KAM: A System for Intelligently Guiding Numerical Experimentation by Computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.