Biomedical subjects

A B Markman

Publications and source records attributed to A B Markman.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Thinking.

Reasoning processes allow the human cognitive system to go beyond the information readily available in the environment. This review focuses on the processes of human thinking, including deductive reasoning, induction, mental simulation, and analogy. We survey recent trends across several areas, including categorization, mental models, cognitive development, and decision making. Our chief organizing principle is the contrast between traditional approaches that focus on abstract logical reasoning and a number of current approaches that posit domain-specific, knowledge-intensive cognition. We suggest that some instances of domain-specific cognition result from domain-general processes operating on domain-specific representations. Another theme is the link between reasoning and learning. We suggest that learning typically occurs as a byproduct of reasoning, rather than as an end in itself.

Cognition↗

PubMed2000

In defense of representation.

The computational paradigm, which has dominated psychology and artificial intelligence since the cognitive revolution, has been a source of intense debate. Recently, several cognitive scientists have argued against this paradigm, not by objecting to computation, but rather by objecting to the notion of representation. Our analysis of these objections reveals that it is not the notion of representation per se that is causing the problem, but rather specific properties of representations as they are used in various psychological theories. Our analysis suggests that all theorists accept the idea that cognitive processing involves internal information-carrying states that mediate cognitive processing. These mediating states are a superordinate category of representations. We discuss five properties that can be added to mediating states and examine their importance in various cognitive models. Finally, three methodological lessons are drawn from our analysis and discussion.

Cognition↗

PubMed2000

Inference using categories.

How do people use category membership and similarity for making inductive inferences? The authors addressed this question by examining the impact of category labels and category features on inference and classification tasks that were designed to be comparable. In the inference task, participants predicted the value of a missing feature of an item given its category label and other feature values. In the classification task, participants predicted the category label of an item given its feature values. The results from 4 experiments suggest that category membership influences inference even when similarity information contradicts the category label. This tendency was stronger when the category label conveyed class inclusion information than when the label reflected a feature of the category. These findings suggest that category membership affects inference beyond similarity and that category labels and category features are 2 different things.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Learning categories composed of varying instances: the effect of classification, inference, and structural alignment.

The members of a natural category are not usually identical in their appearance, although at some level they can be described as having features in common. For example, birds have wings, but the actual appearance of their wings varies from one bird to another. To examine the effect of this feature variation on category acquisition, subjects in three experiments were asked to learn categories in which individual features were depicted with several different instances. The results of the experiments indicated that subjects had significant difficulty learning these categories when they were given a standard classification learning task. In contrast, subjects were able to acquire the same categories when they were given an inference learning task, in which they learned the categories by predicting a missing feature of a stimulus given the category label and information about the other features. Finally, subjects who were allowed to compare stimuli during learning were able to learn the categories. These results suggest that a common description of different instances emerges in the process of aligning stimuli.

Attention↗

PubMed2000

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.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Referential communication and category acquisition.

Explanations of category coherence include that categories reflect feature correlations in the world, that the human conceptual system is designed to create systematic categories, and that people have theories about the world that bind together seemingly unrelated features. The authors have suggested that the need to establish reference in communication also influences category coherence. This proposal was tested in 2 studies involving a referential communication task. In these studies, consistency was promoted between individuals by communication, which synchronized the category structures of different people. Further, people were focused on the commonalities of objects and on the differences related to the commonalities by communication--a pattern that is compatible with what has been observed in existing categories. These results suggest that categorization research must incorporate communication tasks into the canon of methodologies used to study category structure.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons.

Similarity is a central component of many cognitive processes. Current research suggests that similarity is well characterized as a comparison of structured representations. This process yields commonalities, differences related to the commonalities (alignable differences), and differences not related to the commonalities (nonalignable differences). In the first study, further evidence for this tripartite distinction is provided in a commonality and difference listing study involving pairs of pictures. This study indicates that alignable differences rather than nonalignable differences are central to the comparison process by virtue of their connection to the commonalities. The second study further demonstrates that alignable differences count more against the similarity of a pair than do nonalignable differences. We end by discussing implications of the distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences for other cognitive processes involving comparisons.

Adult↗