Finding similarity in a model of relational reasoning

Similarity plays a central role in the study of perception and cognition. Previous attempts to model similarity have captured effects of either featural or structural similarity, but typically not both. We simulated both by fitting similarity data with the LISA model of relational reasoning [Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466, Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003a). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264]. The same mechanisms LISA uses to simulate analogy also provide a natural account of feature-based similarity effects (e.g., violations of symmetry), structural effects (e.g., the advantage of alignable over non-alignable differences), and the combined effects of featural and structured information (i.e., MIPs and MOPs; ''Matches In/Out of Place'') on similarity judgments. Our approach differs from most models of similarity in that LISA was not originally designed to simulate similarity judgments, but rather analogical reasoning. LISA's incidental ability to simulate diverse similarity effects speaks to the plausibility of the model's account of human knowledge representation.

[1]  Daniel C. Krawczyk,et al.  A Neurocomputational Model of Analogical Reasoning and its Breakdown in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[3]  M. Lassaline,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[5]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. , 1962 .

[6]  D. Gentner,et al.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Leonidas A A Doumas,et al.  A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. , 2008, Psychological review.

[8]  Leonidas A. A. Doumas,et al.  The Development of Analogical Reasoning in Children: A Computational Account , 2006 .

[9]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Varieties of sameness: the impact of relational complexity on perceptual comparisons , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[12]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  The Roles of Similarity in Transfer: Separating Retrievability From Inferential Soundness , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Simulating Time-Course Phenomena in Perceptual Similarity via Incremental Encoding , 2006 .

[14]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[15]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Relational Reasoning in a Neurally Plausible Cognitive Architecture , 2005 .

[16]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[17]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Mary Utter,et al.  Structural alignment in induction and similarity , 1996 .

[19]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[20]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[21]  Jonathan A. Marshall,et al.  Adaptive perceptual pattern recognition by self-organizing neural networks: Context, uncertainty, multiplicity, and scale , 1995, Neural Networks.

[22]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Tuk-tuk: a unified account of similarity judgment and analogical mapping , 2005 .

[23]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Time Course of Comparison , 1994 .

[24]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. , 2003, Psychological review.

[25]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Processes of Similarity Judgment , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  J. Hummel,et al.  Modeling Human Mental Representations: What Works, What doesn't and Why? , 2005 .

[28]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[29]  Tony Plate,et al.  Holographic Reduced Representations: Convolution Algebra for Compositional Distributed Representations , 1991, IJCAI.

[30]  Indre V. Viskontas,et al.  Relational integration, inhibition, and analogical reasoning in older adults. , 2004, Psychology and aging.

[31]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. , 1997 .

[32]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[33]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  Sunanda Mitra.  Adaptive pattern recognition by self-organizing neural networks , 1994, Other Conferences.

[35]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[36]  Geoffrey E. Hinton.  Tensor Product Variable Binding and the Representation of Symbolic Structures in Connectionist Systems , 1991 .