David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):34-35 (2005)
There is a continuum between prototypical cases of rule use and prototypical cases of similarity use. A prototypical rule: (1) is explicitly represented, (2) can be verbalized, and (3) requires that the user selectively attend to a few features of the object, while ignoring the others. Prototypical similarity-use requires that: (1) the user should match the object to a mental representation holistically, and (2) there should be no selective attention or inhibition. Neural evidence supports prototypical rule-use. Most models of categorization fall between the two prototypes.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Tom Verguts & Wim Fias (2009). Similarity and Rules United: Similarity‐ and Rule‐Based Processing in a Single Neural Network. Cognitive Science 33 (2):243-259.
Similar books and articles
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.
Evan Heit & Brett K. Hayes (2005). Illuminating Reasoning and Categorization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):27-27.
Ulrike Hahn (2005). Is This What the Debate on Rules Was About? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):25-26.
Christopher Gauker (2007). A Critique of the Similarity Space Theory of Concepts. Mind and Language 22 (4):317–345.
Rolf Reber (2005). Rule Versus Similarity: Different in Processing Mode, Not in Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):31-32.
James A. Hampton (2005). Rules and Similarity – a False Dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):26-26.
Emmanuel M. Pothos (2005). The Rules Versus Similarity Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):1-14.
Tokuyasu Kakuta, Makoto Haraguchi & Yoshiaki Okubo (1997). A Goal-Dependent Abstraction for Legal Reasoning by Analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):97-118.
Gregory Ashby & Michael B. Casale (2005). Empirical Dissociations Between Rule-Based and Similarity-Based Categorization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):15-16.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #201,718 of 1,098,628 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #285,836 of 1,098,628 )
How can I increase my downloads?