Alignment-based nonmonotonicities in similarity.

According to the assumption of monotonicity in similarity judgments, adding a shared feature in common to 2 items should never decrease their similarity. Violations of monotonicity are not predicted by feature- or dimension-based models but can be accommodated by alignment-based models in which the parts of one compared display are placed in correspondence with the parts of the other display. In 2 experiments, evidence for nonmonotonicities is obtained that is generally consistent with the alignment-based model SIAM (similarity as interactive activation and mapping; R.L. Goldstone, 1994). The calculation of similarity in this model involves an interactive activation process whereby correspondences between the parts of compared displays mutually and concurrently influence each other. As SIAM predicts, the occurrence of nonmonotonicities depends on perceptual similarity of features and the duration of presented comparison.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[2]  S E Palmer,et al.  Structural aspects of visual similarity , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[3]  D. Gentner,et al.  Splitting the Differences: A Structural Alignment View of Similarity , 1993 .

[4]  R W Proctor,et al.  Order-relevant and order-irrelevant decision rules in multiletter matching. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  F. Hayes-Roth,et al.  Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars , 1977 .

[6]  Daniel E. Rose.  Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory, volume 1: High-level connectionist models: John A. Barnden and Jordan B. Pollack, eds.☆ , 1993 .

[7]  P. Suppes,et al.  Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology , 1976 .

[8]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Similarity in Language, Thought and Perception , 1995 .

[9]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity Involving Attributes and Relations: Judgments of Similarity and Difference Are Not Inverses , 1990 .

[10]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

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

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

[13]  J. Corter.  Similarity, confusability, and the density hypothesis. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  B. Ross.  This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. , 1987 .

[15]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Structural Evaluation of Analogies : What Counts? , 1989 .

[16]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Psychological models of deferred decision making , 1988 .

[17]  M. Dawson,et al.  The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem. , 1991, Psychological review.

[18]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language and the career of similarity. , 1991 .

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

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

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

[22]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

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

[24]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

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

[26]  D Marr,et al.  A computational theory of human stereo vision. , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

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

[29]  W. Torgerson,et al.  Multidimensional scaling of similarity , 1965, Psychometrika.

[30]  G. Bower,et al.  From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. , 1988 .

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

[32]  T. E. Lange,et al.  Below the Surface: Analogical Similarity and Retrieval Competition in Reminding , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[34]  B. Ross.  Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

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

[36]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity as a Selection Constraint in Analogical Mapping , 1991, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[38]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison , 1995 .

[39]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy , 1986, Cogn. Sci..