Connectionist Implications for Processing Capacity Limitations in Analogies

There is now a reasonable amount of consensus that an analogy entails a mapping from one structure, the base or source, to another structure, the target (Gentner, 1983, 1989; Holyoak & Thagard, 1989). Theories of human analogical reasoning have been reviewed by Gentner (1989), who concludes that there is basic agreement on the one-to-one mapping of elements and the carry over of predicates. Furthermore, as Palmer (1989) points out, some of the theoretical differences represent different levels of description rather than competing models. Despite this consensus about the central role of structure mapping, it really only treats the syntax of analogies, and there are also important pragmatic factors, as has been pointed out by Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, and Thagard (1986) and Holyoak and Thagard (1989), However in this chapter we are primarily concerned with the problem of how to model the structure mapping or syntactic component of analogical reasoning in terms of parallel distributed processing (PDP) architectures.

[1]  G. Halford,et al.  A category theory approach to cognitive development , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Daniel J. Amit,et al.  Modeling brain function: the world of attractor neural networks, 1st Edition , 1989 .

[3]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[4]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer , 1987, Memory & cognition.

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

[6]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Complexity and the representation of patterned sequences of symbols. , 1972 .

[8]  M. Chi,et al.  Content knowledge: its role, representation, and restructuring in memory development. , 1987, Advances in child development and behavior.

[9]  Mark C. Detweiler,et al.  A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory , 1988 .

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

[11]  Paul Smolensky,et al.  Tensor Product Variable Binding and the Representation of Symbolic Structures in Connectionist Systems , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[12]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .

[13]  John Duncan,et al.  The demonstration of capacity limitation , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  G. Halford.  Reflections on 25 Years of Piagetian Cognitive Developmental Psychology, 1963–1988 , 1989 .

[15]  John H. Holland,et al.  Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.

[16]  Bennet B. Murdock,et al.  A distributed memory model for serial-order information. , 1983 .

[17]  J. Bain,et al.  Capacity Limitations in Children's Reasoning: A Dual-Task Approach. , 1986 .

[18]  David E. Rumelhart,et al.  Toward a microstructural account of human reasoning , 1989 .

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

[20]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Use of analogy in a production system architecture , 1989 .

[21]  G. Bower,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING AND M·OTIVATION , 2001 .

[22]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.