Structure mapping in the comparison process.

Carrying out similarity and analogy comparisons can be modeled as the alignment and mapping of structured representations. In this article we focus on three aspects of comparison that are central in structure-mapping theory. All three are controversial. First, comparison involves structured representations. Second, the comparison process is driven by a preference for connected relational structure. Third, the mapping between domains is rooted in semantic similarity between the relations that characterize the domains. For each of these points, we review supporting evidence and discuss some challenges raised by other researchers. We end with a discussion of the role of structure mapping in other cognitive processes.

[1]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Two Forces in the Development of Relational Similarity , 2002 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[3]  D. Gentner,et al.  Comparison in the Development of Categories , 1999 .

[4]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1998 .

[5]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Constraints on Analogical Inference , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNABILITY ON MEMORY , 2022 .

[7]  Mark T. Keane What makes an analogy difficult? The effects of order and causal structure on analogical mapping. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[9]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Comparison and the Development of Cognition and Language , 1997 .

[10]  A. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different : The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

[11]  D. Gentner,et al.  Comparison and Categorization in the Development of Relational Similarity , 1996 .

[12]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatics in Analogical Mapping , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  A. Markman,et al.  Structural alignment in similarity and difference judgments , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[15]  Lila R. Gleitman,et al.  Similar, and similar concepts , 1996, Cognition.

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

[17]  G Lindemann Patricia,et al.  Alignability and attribute importance in choice , 1996 .

[18]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[19]  D. Medin,et al.  Similarity and Alignment in Choice , 1995 .

[20]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Robert L. Goldstone The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork , 1994, Cognition.

[22]  Mark T. Keane Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  C. Clement,et al.  The Effects of Manifest Relational Similarity on Analog Retrieval , 1994 .

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

[25]  Laura R. Novick,et al.  Component processes in analogical transfer: Mapping, pattern completion, and adaptation. , 1994 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32]  L. Rips Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

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

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

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

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

[37]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[39]  D. Gentner Metaphor as Structure Mapping: The Relational Shift. , 1988 .

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

[41]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  The Incremental Analogy Machine: A Computational Model of Analogy , 1988, EWSL.

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

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

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

[45]  R. Nosofsky Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[46]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine * , 2003 .

[47]  Douglas L Medin,et al.  Linear separability and concept learning: Context, relational properties, and concept naturalness , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

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

[51]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[52]  Keith J. Holyoak,et al.  The Pragmatics of Analogical Transfer , 1985 .

[53]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[55]  Moshe Burstein,et al.  Concept formatio n by incremental analogica l reasoning and debugging , 1983 .

[56]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Are Scientific Analogies Metaphors , 1981 .

[57]  D. Gentner Verb semantic structures in memory for sentences: Evidence for componential representation , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[58]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[60]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[61]  D. Gentner Evidence for the psychological reality of semantic components: The verbs of possession , 1975 .

[62]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Explorations in Cognition , 1975 .