The nature of categories and their acquisition is one of the central open questions in Cognitive Science. We suggest that categories are represented via structured descriptions and formed by a process of progressive abstraction, through successive comparison with incoming exemplars. This paper describes how SEQL (Skorstad, Gentner, & Medin, 1988), a computer model for category learning, which is based on SME (Falkenhainer et al 1986, 1989; Forbus et al 1994) can be used to simulate a recent categorization experiment (Ramscar & Pain, 1996), using a new algorithm, Generalization and Exemplar Learning (GEL). We demonstrate that SEQL produces behavior consistent with human subjects. Introduction Similarity is often viewed as central to categorization. For instance, prototype theories of categorization posit that categorization decisions are made on the basis of the similarity of an entity to the prototypical member of that category (Rosch 1975). However, similarity-based accou...

this article. We also thank Denise Hatton, Tisha Baldwin, Joshua Nathan, Helen Sullivan, and Julia Wenzlaff for collecting data. Some of the stimulus materials used in Experiments 1 and 2 are adapted from the stimulus materials used in Rehder and Hastie (1997) and we thank them for inspiring many of the features and objects used in these studies. This project was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (NSF-SBR 9515085) and a National Institute of Mental Health Grant (RO1 MH57737) given to Woo-kyoung Ahn, a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship to Nancy Kim, and a National Institute of Mental Health Postdoctoral Fellowship (MH10888-01A1) to Mary Lassaline

Abstract not found

Abstract: Finding a good similarity assessment algorithm for the use in ontologies is central to the functioning of techniques such as retrieval, matchmaking, clustering, data-mining, ontology translations, automatic database schema matching, and simple object comparisons. This paper assembles a catalogue of ontology based similarity measures, which are experimentally compared with a “similarity gold standard ” obtained by surveying 50 human subjects. Results show that human and algorithmic similarity predications varied substantially, but could be grouped into cohesive clusters. Addressing this variance we present a personalized similarity assessment procedure, which uses a machine learning component to predict a subject’s cluster membership, providing an excellent prediction of the gold standard. We conclude by hypothesizing ontology dependent similarity measures.

Abstract not found

This article describes the path-mapping theory of how humans integrate analogical mapping and general problem solving. The theory posits that humans represent analogs with declarative roles, map analogs by lower-level retrieval of analogous role paths, and coordinate mappings with higher-level organizational knowledge. Implemented in the ACT-R cognitive architecture, the path-mapping theory enables models of analogical mapping behavior to incorporate and interface with other problem-solving knowledge. Path-mapping models thus can include task-specific skills such as encoding analogs or generating responses, and can make behavioral predictions at the level of real-world metrics such as latency or correctness. We show that the path-mapping theory can successfully account for the major phenomena addressed by previous theories of analogy. We also describe a path-mapping model that can account for subjects’ incremental eye-movement and typing behavior in a story-mapping task. We discuss extensions and implications of this work to other areas of analogy and problem-solving research.

The authors examined cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning among East Asian (Chinese and Korean), Asian American, and European American university students. We investigated categorization (Studies 1 and 2), conceptual structure (Study 3), and deductive reasoning (Studies 3 and 4). In each study a cognitive conflict was activated between formal and intuitive strategies of reasoning. European Americans, more than Chinese and Koreans, set aside intuition in favor of formal reasoning. Conversely, Chinese and Koreans relied on intuitive strategies more than European Americans. Asian Americans' reasoning was either identical to that of European Americans, or intermediate. Differences emerged against a background of similar reasoning tendencies across cultures in the absence of conflict between formal and intuitive strategies.

Abstract not found

questions of Cognitive Science. Recently Marcus et al.

To be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (in press)