Levi B. Larkey [3]Levi Larkey [1]
  1.  33
    CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder.Levi B. Larkey & Bradley C. Love - 2003 - Cognitive Science 27 (5):781-794.
    The ability to make informative comparisons is central to human cognition. Comparison involves aligning two representations and placing their elements into correspondence. Detecting correspondences is a necessary component of analogical inference, recognition, categorization, schema formation, and similarity judgment. Connectionist Analogy Builder (CAB) determines correspondences through a simple iterative computation that matches elements in one representation with elements playing compatible roles in the other representation while simultaneously enforcing structural constraints. CAB shows promise as a process model of comparison as its performance (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  2.  37
    Processes of Similarity Judgment.Levi B. Larkey & Arthur B. Markman - 2005 - Cognitive Science 29 (6):1061-1076.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3.  67
    Digging beneath rules and similarity.Arthur B. Markman, Sergey Blok, Kyungil Kim, Levi Larkey, Lisa R. Narvaez, C. Hunt Stilwell & Eric Taylor - 2005 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):29-30.
    Pothos suggests dispensing with the distinction between rules and similarity, without defining what is meant by either term. We agree that there are problems with the distinction between rules and similarity, but believe these will be solved only by exploring the representations and processes underlying cases purported to involve rules and similarity.
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  16
    One alignment mechanism or many?Arthur B. Markman, Kyungil Kim, Levi B. Larkey, Lisa Narvaez & C. Hunt Stilwell - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):204-205.
    Pickering & Garrod (P&G) suggest that communicators synchronize their processing at a number of linguistic levels. Whereas their explanation suggests that representations are being compared across individuals, there must be some representation of all conversation participants in each participant's head. At the level of the situation model, it is important to maintain separate representations for each participant. At other levels, it seems less crucial to have a separate representation for each participant. This analysis suggests that different mechanisms may synchronize representations (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation