Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons

Similarity comparisons are a basic component of cognition, and there are many elegant models of this process. None of these models describe comparisons of structured representations, although mounting evidence suggests that mental representations are well characterized by structured hierarchical systems of relations. We propose that structured representations can be compared via structural alignment, a process derived from models of analogical reasoning. The general prediction of structural alignment is that similarity comparisons lead subjects to attend to the matching relational structure in a pair of items. This prediction is illustrated with a computational simulation that also suggests that the strength of the relational focus is diminished when the relational match is impoverished, or when competing interpretations lead to rich object matches. These claims are tested in four experiments using the one-shot mapping paradigm, which places object similarity and relational similarity in opposition. The results support the hypothesis that similarity involves the alignment of structured representations.

[1]  E. Thorndike,et al.  The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). , 1901 .

[2]  E. Rosch Cognitive reference points , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  Lawrence C. Sager,et al.  Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  G R Lockhead,et al.  Classifying intergral stimuli. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[7]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Some Demonstrations of the Effects of Structural Descriptions in Mental Imagery , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  N. Goodman Problems and projects , 1979 .

[9]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning New Principles from Precedents and Exercises , 1982, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  S. Ullman Visual routines , 1984, Cognition.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Emergent features, attention, and object perception. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  K. Sterelny The Imagery Debate , 1986, Philosophy of Science.

[15]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives , 1986 .

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

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

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

[19]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

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

[21]  Smadar T. Kedar-Cabelli,et al.  Analogy — From a Unified Perspective , 1988 .

[22]  L. R. Novick Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Russell Greiner,et al.  Learning by Understanding Analogies , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Evidence for Relational Selectivity in the Interpretation of Analogy and Metaphor , 1988 .

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

[26]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .

[27]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The Transfer of Cognitive Skill , 1989 .

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

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

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

[31]  Rogers P. Hall,et al.  Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: A Comparative Analysis , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[32]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Recursive Distributed Representations , 1990, Artif. Intell..

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

[34]  Kim Sterelny,et al.  The Imagery Debate , 1991 .

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

[36]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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