David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cognitive Science 36 (6):1019-1050 (2012)
Detecting that two images are different is faster for highly dissimilar images than for highly similar images. Paradoxically, we showed that the reverse occurs when people are asked to describe how two images differ—that is, to state a difference between two images. Following structure-mapping theory, we propose that this disassociation arises from the multistage nature of the comparison process. Detecting that two images are different can be done in the initial (local-matching) stage, but only for pairs with low overlap; thus, “different” responses are faster for low-similarity than for high-similarity pairs. In contrast, identifying a specific difference generally requires a full structural alignment of the two images, and this alignment process is faster for high-similarity pairs. We described four experiments that demonstrate this dissociation and show that the results can be simulated using the Structure-Mapping Engine. These results pose a significant challenge for nonstructural accounts of similarity comparison and suggest that structural alignment processes play a significant role in visual comparison
|Keywords||Same‐different judgments Structure‐mapping Alignable differences Perceptual comparison Structural alignment|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dedre Gentner (2001). Exhuming Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):669-669.
Daniel C. Krawczyk, Keith J. Holyoak & John E. Hummel (2004). Structural Constraints and Object Similarity in Analogical Mapping and Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (1):85 – 104.
D. L. Medin, R. L. Goldstone & D. Gentner (1990). Similarity Involving Attributes and Relations: Judgments of Similarity and Difference Are Not Inverses. Psychological Science 1:64-69.
Gil Diesendruck (2005). “Commitment” Distinguishes Between Rules and Similarity: A Developmental Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):21-22.
Earl W. Spurgin (2003). What's Wrong with Computer-Generated Images of Perfection in Advertising? Journal of Business Ethics 45 (3):257 - 268.
Gary Marcus (2005). Opposites Detract: Why Rules and Similarity Should Not Be Viewed as Opposite Ends of a Continuum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):28-29.
S. G. Sterrett (2009). Similarity and Dimensional Analysis (Preprint - Entry in Handbook of Philosophy of Science, Elsevier). In Anthonie W. M. Meijers (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science.
Oscar Vilarroya (2005). In Search of Radical Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):35-35.
Christopher Gauker (2007). A Critique of the Similarity Space Theory of Concepts. Mind and Language 22 (4):317–345.
Lee R. Brooks & Samuel D. Hannah (2005). Instantiated Rules and Abstract Analogy: Not a Continuum of Similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-17.
Alistair M. C. Isaac (2013). Objective Similarity and Mental Representation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):683-704.
Robert N. Brandon (1978). Evolution. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):96-109.
J. Gerard Wolff (2005). Integration of “Rules” and “Similarity” in a Framework of Information Compression by Multiple Alignment, Unification, and Search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):36-37.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-05-12
Total downloads4 ( #195,487 of 1,004,683 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,004,683 )
How can I increase my downloads?