Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Gentner

Publications and source records attributed to D Gentner.

15 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↗
PubMed2001

Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences.

High-similarity concept pairs that elicit many commonalities also elicit many related differences (Gentner & Markman, 1994; A. B. Markman & Gentner, 1993a, 1993b, 1996; A. B. Markman & Wisniewski, 1997). This finding has been used to support the claim that the comparison process is one of structural alignment. However, it is possible that the difference advantage results from some other property of high-similarity pairs, such as a greater number of stored differences. The present experiments demonstrate that the comparison process itself leads to the greater psychological availability of differences. In three experiments, participants listed commonalities for word pairs and then listed differences under a time pressure for these old pairs and new pairs. In Experiment 1, participants listed more differences for old than for new pairs, consistent with the claim that the comparison process facilitates noticing differences. In Experiment 2, we showed that the difference-listing advantage is specific to the comparison process: Mere coprocessing of the pairs (specifically, providing thematic relations) does not facilitate, and in fact appears to inhibit, difference listing. In Experiment 3, pairs with deeper common systems elicited a larger number of specific alignable differences than did pairs with shallow sets of commonalities. Overall, the results support the structural alignment claim that the comparison process promotes the noticing of both commonalities and related differences.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors.

Two models of metaphor processing are contrasted. The structure-mapping model postulates an initially role-neutral alignment process, followed by directional projection of inferences. The attributive categorization model postulates role-specific processing throughout comprehension. To test between these models, the early stages of metaphor comprehension were probed using a technique based on S. Glucksberg, P. Gildea, and H. Bookin's (1982) finding that metaphorical meaning interferes with literal truthfulness judgments. In Experiment 1, interference effects did not differ between normal metaphors and metaphors with reversed terms, suggesting that initial processing is role-neutral. In Experiment 2, we again found no role dependence in interference effects, even for highly conventional metaphors. In Experiment 3, it was verified that (a) full comprehension is role-sensitive and (b) full comprehension reaction times (RTs) are far longer than interference RTs, buttressing the claim that interference is an early-stage effect. Overall, the results support the structure-mapping model of metaphor processing.

Adult↗
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↗
PubMed1999

Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation.

Information learned in one situation often fails to transfer to a similarly structured situation. However, prior findings suggest that comparing two or more instances that embody the same principle can promote abstraction of a schema that can be transferred to new situations. In two lines of research, we examined the effects of analogical encoding on knowledge transfer in negotiation situations. In Experiment 1, undergraduates were more likely to propose optimal negotiation strategies and less likely to propose compromises (a suboptimal strategy) when they received analogy training. In Experiment 2, graduate management students who drew an analogy from two cases were nearly three times more likely to incorporate the strategy from the training cases into their negotiations than were students given the same cases separately. For both novices and experienced participants, the comparison process can be an efficient means of abstracting principles for later application.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Similarity and the development of rules.

Similarity-based and rule-based accounts of cognition are often portrayed as opposing accounts. In this paper we suggest that in learning and development, the process of comparison can act as a bridge between similarity-based and rule-based processing. We suggest that comparison involves a process of structural alignment and mapping between two representations. This kind of structure-sensitive comparison process--which may be triggered either by experiential or symbolic juxtapositions--has a twofold significance for cognitive development. First, as a learning mechanism, comparison facilitates the grasp of structural commonalities and the abstraction of rules; and, second, as a mechanism for the application and extension of previously acquired knowledge, comparison processes facilitate the application of abstract knowledge to new instances.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Informativity and asymmetry in comparisons.

We propose an account of comparison asymmetries based on viewing comparison as a process of structural alignment and mapping. Specifically, we hypothesize that (1) comparison asymmetries result from directional differences in informativity, and that (2) asymmetries can therefore be predicted from the relative degree of systematicity or conceptual coherence of the items being compared. In Experiment 1, we found a clear preference for placing the more systematic of two passages in the base position of a comparison. Experiments 1 and 2 further showed that structural alignability is crucial in obtaining such asymmetries. In Experiment 3, we found that asymmetries are predicted by the relative systematicity of the comparisons items rather than by the relative size of the distinctive feature sets. These results are inconsistent with accounts of asymmetry based on feature contrast or stimulus bias. In Experiments 4 through 6, we tested the functional implications of our account by examining inference projection and perceived informativity across asymmetric comparisons. Critically, comparisons having the more systematic item as the base were more likely to result in inference projection and other forms of target modification and were rated as more informative than reverse comparisons. We conclude by demonstrating that this account can explain comparison asymmetries without positing underlying asymmetries in subjective similarity, and that it offers a unified approach to the directionality of literal comparisons, analogies, and metaphors.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence.

This research concerns how children learn the distinction between substance names and object names. Quine (1969) proposed that children learn the distinction through learning the syntactic distinctions inherent in count/mass grammar. However, Soja et al. (1991) found that English-speaking 2-year-olds, who did not seem to have acquired count/mass grammar, distinguished objects from substances in a word extension task, suggesting a pre-linguistic ontological distinction. To test whether the distinction between object names and substance names is conceptually or linguistically driven, we repeated Soja et al.'s study with English- and Japanese-speaking 2-, 2.5-, and 4-year-olds and adults. Japanese does not make a count-mass grammatical distinction: all inanimate nouns are treated alike. Thus if young Japanese children made the object-substance distinction in word meaning, this would support the early ontology position over the linguistic influence position. We used three types of standards: substances (e.g., sand in an S-shape), simple objects (e.g., a kidney-shaped piece of paraffin) and complex objects (e.g., a wood whisk). The subjects learned novel nouns in neutral syntax denoting each standard entity. They were then asked which of the two alternatives--one matching in shape but not material and the other matching in material but not shape--would also be named by the same label. The results suggest the universal use of ontological knowledge in early word learning. Children in both languages showed differentiation between (complex) objects and substances as early as 2 years of age. However, there were also early cross-linguistic differences. American and Japanese children generalized the simple object instances and the substance instances differently. We speculate that children universally make a distinction between individuals and non-individuals in word learning but that the nature of the categories and the boundary between them is influenced by language.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Reasoning and learning by analogy.

Analogy is a powerful cognitive mechanism that people use to make inferences and learn new abstractions. The history of work on analogy in modern cognitive science is sketched, focusing on contributions from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, and philosophy of science. This review sets the stage for the 3 articles that follow in this Science Watch section.

Association Learning↗
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↗
PubMed1993

The roles of similarity in transfer: separating retrievability from inferential soundness.

Similarity is universally acknowledged to be central in transfer, but recent research suggests that its role is complex. The present research attempts to isolate and compare the determinants of similarity-based access to memory and the determinants of the subjective soundness and similarity of a match. We predicted, based on structure-mapping theory, that subjective soundness would depend on the degree of shared relational structure, particularly higher-order structure such as causal bindings. In contrast, we predicted that memory retrieval would be highly sensitive to surface similarities such as common object attributes. To assess retrievability, in three studies, subjects were asked to read a large set of stories and were later given a set of probe stories that resembled the original stories in systematically different ways; e.g., purely relational analogies, surface-similarity matches, or overall (literal similarity) matches. Subjects were told to write out any of the original stories that came to mind. To assess subjective soundness, independent subjects (and also the same reminding subjects) were asked to rate the inferential soundness of each pair; i.e., how well inferences true of one story would apply to the other. As predicted, subjective soundness was highly related to the degree of common relational structure, while retrievability was chiefly related to the degree of surface similarity. Ratings of the similarity of the pairs did not predict the retrievability ordering, arguing against the possibility that the retrieval ordering simply reflected overall similarity. Further, a fourth study demonstrated that subjects given a forced-choice recognition task could discriminate between possible matches on the basis of relational structure, ruling out the possibility that the poor relational retrieval resulted from forgetting or failing to encode the relational structure. We conclude that there is a dissociation between the similarity that governs access to long-term memory and that which is used in evaluating and reasoning from a present match. We describe a model, called MAC/FAC ("Many are called but few are chosen"), that uses a two-stage similarity retrieval process to model these findings. Finally, we speculate on the implications of this view for learning and transfer.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments.

Four experiments examined the hypothesis that simple attributional features and relational features operate differently in the determination of similarity judgments. Forced choice similarity judgments ("Is X or Y more similar to Z?") and similarity rating tasks demonstrate that making the same featural change in two geometric stimuli unequally affects their judged similarity to a third stimulus (the comparison stimulus). More specifically, a featural change that causes stimuli to be more superficially similar and less relationally similar increases judged similarity if it occurs in stimuli that already share many superficial attributes, and decreases similarity if it occurs in stimuli that do not share as many superficial attributes. These results argue against an assumption of feature independence which asserts that the degree to which a feature shared by two objects affects similarity is independent of the other features shared by the objects. The MAX hypothesis is introduced, in which attributional and relational similarities are separately pooled, and shared features affect similarity more if the pool they are in is already relatively large. The results support claims that relations and attributes are psychologically distinct and that formal measures of similarity should not treat all types of matching features equally.

Attention↗
PubMed1979

Integration of verbal and visual information as evidenced by distortions in picture memory.

Subjects were presented with a series of pictures, some of which were general (girl walking down the path) and others specific (girl hiking down the path). These pictures were matched with sentences which were either general or specific ("The girl is walking [hiking] down the path.") Subsequently, a forced-choice picture recognition test was administered in which subjects saw pairs of pictures and indicated which member of each pair they had seen before. It was found that labelling the picture with a sentence containing a specific verb substantially increased the likelihood that the specific picture corresponding to that verb would subsequently be falsely recognized. The results are discussed in terms of current theories of memorial representation.

Cues↗