基于相似性信息激活的相似表征形成及年龄差异
|
摘要
相似性服务于各种具体的认知加工，是各种认知理论必不可少的组成部分，相似性信息的加工在人们的现实生活中也具有重要意义。人们从新旧问题之间的相似出发寻找到成功地解决新问题的途径，依赖事物之间的相似，把他们归入不同的类别，依靠线索的相似来提取记忆中的信息，归纳推理也把事物之间的相似作为前提，要对以上的研究领域做出根本性的解释都依赖相似性研究的进展。相似性是可变和灵活的，相似比较是涉及多种加工的复杂活动。个体对情境与任务的理解和对长时记忆中某些表征的一致性程度的评价是相似性的关键，这种一致性评价的实质就是相似表征，相似表征是不同事物相似比较的中介和标准。
相似性信息在知觉的早期加工中就获得了较高的激活水平，早期加工中注意就倾向于把事物置于与其他事物“比较”和“匹配”的加工模式之中。特定情境中，项目的激活与头脑中对该项目的表征是相互对应的，然后通过竞争实现有意识的知觉和主动的行为，不同表征之间的竞争同时受自上而下和自下而上加工因素的影响而具有倾向性。早期加工中注意的改变，本质上是知觉性的，而不是由被试策略性的选择所造成的。这种注意分配的变化，是由于知觉能力的变化，而不是由于被试改变知觉的策略而导致的变化，在信息加工的早期阶段，注意就选择性地分配到刺激的“相似性”上。
本研究的四个实验可以分为两部分。第一部分，包括实验一和实验二，主要通过对不同相似性信息影响下的视觉搜索的绩效的考察，研究了注意引导下，事物知觉信息的激活和相似性信息在事物情境性表征中地位与作用。第二部分，包括实验三和实验四，通过启动刺激提供的相似表征线索，考察了相似表征的情境性和建构性。
实验结果表明：
1、任务方式对视觉搜索和再认加工有显著影响。在限时和不限时“视觉搜索——再认”中，视觉搜索任务是否限时对成人和儿童的视觉搜索和再认的准确性没有显著影响。但是，视觉搜索任务是否限时对被试视觉搜索和再认的反应时有显著影响，不限时任务使被试视觉搜索和再认的反应时明显延长。不同任务条件、搜索项目性质及年龄的对视觉搜索和再认加工均有影响。儿童，特别是6岁和9岁儿童在完成视觉搜索和后继的再认任务中的绩效低于成人，即，准确性
Attention is a central topic in psychology that is essential to partial information processing. Attention enables limited psychological resource concentrate on the most important information at the specific time. Selection of incoming sensory information can be guided by many criteria. In humans, object similarity information process is one of primary tasks of the early process. Sensory processing of visual stimuli, along with prior visual experience, leads to categorization judgments that can ultimately be used for cognition.
According to some models of visual selective attention, objects in a scene activate corresponding neural representations, which compete for perceptual awareness and motor behavior. During a visual search for a target object, top-down control exerted by working memory representations of the target's defining properties resolves competition in favor of the target. People must have conceptual knowledge that would constrain which perceptual correspondences would be detected and which would be ignored. Most importantly, the similarity-based approach does not assume the existence of conceptual knowledge at the beginning of development; rather, it attempts to explain the development of this knowledge from simpler processes operating on simpler components. There are multiple correlations in the environment and that humans have perceptual and attention mechanisms capable of extracting these regularities and establishing correspondences among correlated structures. Mature representation is that inductive generalization is grounded in perceptual and attention mechanisms capable of detecting multiple correspondences or similarities. The similarity approach does not assume the existence of conceptual knowledge at the beginning of development; rather, it attempts to explain the development of this knowledge from simpler processes operating on simpler components. In particular, linguistic labels presented as count nouns are claimed to be central properties, whereas appearances are claimed to be peripheral properties. There is evidence that
相似性信息在知觉的早期加工中就获得了较高的激活水平，早期加工中注意就倾向于把事物置于与其他事物“比较”和“匹配”的加工模式之中。特定情境中，项目的激活与头脑中对该项目的表征是相互对应的，然后通过竞争实现有意识的知觉和主动的行为，不同表征之间的竞争同时受自上而下和自下而上加工因素的影响而具有倾向性。早期加工中注意的改变，本质上是知觉性的，而不是由被试策略性的选择所造成的。这种注意分配的变化，是由于知觉能力的变化，而不是由于被试改变知觉的策略而导致的变化，在信息加工的早期阶段，注意就选择性地分配到刺激的“相似性”上。
本研究的四个实验可以分为两部分。第一部分，包括实验一和实验二，主要通过对不同相似性信息影响下的视觉搜索的绩效的考察，研究了注意引导下，事物知觉信息的激活和相似性信息在事物情境性表征中地位与作用。第二部分，包括实验三和实验四，通过启动刺激提供的相似表征线索，考察了相似表征的情境性和建构性。
实验结果表明：
1、任务方式对视觉搜索和再认加工有显著影响。在限时和不限时“视觉搜索——再认”中，视觉搜索任务是否限时对成人和儿童的视觉搜索和再认的准确性没有显著影响。但是，视觉搜索任务是否限时对被试视觉搜索和再认的反应时有显著影响，不限时任务使被试视觉搜索和再认的反应时明显延长。不同任务条件、搜索项目性质及年龄的对视觉搜索和再认加工均有影响。儿童，特别是6岁和9岁儿童在完成视觉搜索和后继的再认任务中的绩效低于成人，即，准确性
Attention is a central topic in psychology that is essential to partial information processing. Attention enables limited psychological resource concentrate on the most important information at the specific time. Selection of incoming sensory information can be guided by many criteria. In humans, object similarity information process is one of primary tasks of the early process. Sensory processing of visual stimuli, along with prior visual experience, leads to categorization judgments that can ultimately be used for cognition.
According to some models of visual selective attention, objects in a scene activate corresponding neural representations, which compete for perceptual awareness and motor behavior. During a visual search for a target object, top-down control exerted by working memory representations of the target's defining properties resolves competition in favor of the target. People must have conceptual knowledge that would constrain which perceptual correspondences would be detected and which would be ignored. Most importantly, the similarity-based approach does not assume the existence of conceptual knowledge at the beginning of development; rather, it attempts to explain the development of this knowledge from simpler processes operating on simpler components. There are multiple correlations in the environment and that humans have perceptual and attention mechanisms capable of extracting these regularities and establishing correspondences among correlated structures. Mature representation is that inductive generalization is grounded in perceptual and attention mechanisms capable of detecting multiple correspondences or similarities. The similarity approach does not assume the existence of conceptual knowledge at the beginning of development; rather, it attempts to explain the development of this knowledge from simpler processes operating on simpler components. In particular, linguistic labels presented as count nouns are claimed to be central properties, whereas appearances are claimed to be peripheral properties. There is evidence that
引文
● Annette Karmiloff-Smi似著)．缪小春(译)．《超越模块性——认知科学的发展观》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2001．11，16-24．
● Best，J．B．(著)．黄希庭(译)．《认知心理学》．北京：中国轻工业出版社 2000．5，177-183．
● Flavell，J．H．，Miller，P．H．，Miller，S．A．(著)．邓赐平，刘明(译)．《认知发展》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2002．7，132-156．
● Kantardzic，M．(著)．闪四清，陈茵，程雁(译)．《数据挖掘》．北京：清华大学出版社．2003，223．
● Roberson，S．I．(著)．张奇(译)．《问题解决心理学》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2004．9，111．
● Steinberg~1，R．J．(著)．杨炳钧等(译)．《认知心理学(第三版)》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2006．1，64-65．
● Steinberg~2，R．J．(著)．杨炳钧等(译)．《认知心理学(第三版)》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2006．1，170．
● M．W．艾森克~1，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，416-418．
● M．W．艾森克~2，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，128-142．
● M．W．艾森克~3，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，192．
● 常建芳，Markman，A．B．，莫雷．归类的相似性对比模型研究综述．心理科学，2004，27(2)：423-425．
● 陈安涛，李红．信息加工的中介状态．贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2002，(2)：99-103．
● 陈彩琦，刘志华，金志成．特征捆绑机制的理论模型．心理科学进展，2003，11(6)：616-622．
● 丁锦红，林仲贤．图形颜色、形状及质地表征特性的研究．心理学报，2000，32(3)：253-257．
● 郭秀艳，杨治良．内隐学习研究的核心方法——人工语法范式．应用心理学，2001，3：45-50．
● 胡平，陈文锋，焦书兰．国外知觉学习研究的若干进展．心理学动态，2001，9(4)：302-310．
● 刘志雅，莫雷．类别学习中的分类和推理．心理科学进展，2004，12(5)：774-783．
● 沈政．《认知神经科学导论》．北京：教育出版社，1995，22-30．
● 施建农，恽梅，翟京华，李新兵．7—12岁儿童视觉搜索能力的发展．心理与行为研究，2004，2(1)：337-341．
● 王瑞明，莫雷，李利，王穗苹，吴俊．言语理解中的知觉符号表征与命题符号表征．心理学报2005，37(2)：143-150．
● 阎国利．《眼动分析法在心理学研究中的应用》．天津：天津教育出版社，2004，第二版，319-322．
● 阴国恩，安蓉，郑金香．分类中相似性的理论与模型．心理学探新，2005，25(1)：41-46．
● 张阔，阴国恩．评介一种新的知觉分类模型：EGCM．心理科学，2003，26(1)：124-126．
● 张述祖，沈德立．《基础心理学》．北京：教育科学出版社，1987，313-314．
● 赵冬梅，刘志雅，刘鸣．归类的解释观和跨范畴分类．心理科学，2002，5：608-609．
● 周国梅 傅小兰 鞠实儿．相似性比较的诊断性原则与文化的影响作用．中山大学学报(社会科学版)，2002，42(4)：10-17．
● Amabile, T. A., Rovee-Collier, C. Contextual variation and memory retrieval at six months. Child Development, 1991, 62(5): 1155-1166.
● Anderson, J R., Fincham, J. M. Learning to program in LISP. Cognitive Science, 1984, 8: 87-129.
● Anderson, J R., Reder, L. M., Lebiere, C. Working memory: activation limitation on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology: I996, 30: 221-256.
● Ashby, F. G, Maddox, W. T., Bohil, C. J. Observational venus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 2002 30: 666-677.
● Barsalou, L. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory and Cognition, 1982, 10: 82-93.
● Barsalou, L. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 1983, 11: 211-238.
● Barsalou, L. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, U. Neisser(ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 101-140.
● Barasalon~1, L. W. Perceptual symbolsystem. Behavioral and BrainScience, 1999, 22: 577-660.
● Barasalou~2, L, W. Language comprehension: archival memory orpreparation for situatedaction?. Discourse Processes, 1999, 28: 61-80.
● Bassok, M., Holyoak, K. J. Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1989, 15: 153-166.
● Bassok, M. Transfer of domain-specific problem solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1990, 16(3): 522-533.
● Bassok, M., Medin, D. Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 1997, 36: 311-336.
● Bassok, M. Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1990 (16): 522-533.
● Becker, J. Similarity and distinction across Scheme-Scheme and Scheme-Object actions. Human Development, 2004, 47: 100-102.
● Boster, J. S., Johnson, J. C. Form or function: a comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist. 1989, 91: 866-899.
● Bundesen, C. A. A theory of visual attention. Psychology Review, 1990, 97: 523-547.
● Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., Beni, R. D., Palladino, P. What happens to information to be suppressed in working-memory tasks? Short and long term effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 2004 57(6): 1059-1084.
● Cave, K. R., Wolfe, J. M. Modeling the role of parallel processing im visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 1990, 22(2): 225-271.
● Ceraso, J, Unit formation in perception and memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, I985, 19(1): 179-210.
● Chamber, D., Reisberg, D. Can mental images be ambiguous? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1985, 11: 317-328.
● Chater, N., Oaksford, M. Logicism mental models and everyday reasoning: reply to Garnham. Mind and Language, 1993 8: 72-89.
● Chawarski, M. C., Steinberg, R. J. Negative priming in word recognition: a context effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1993, 122(2): 195-206.
● Chclazzi, L., Duncan, J., Miller, E. K., Desimone, R. Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search. Journal of Neurophysiology, 1998, 80: 2918-2940.
● Collins, A. M., Quillian, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8: 240-248,
● Collins, A. M., Loflus, E. F. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82: 407-429.
● Conway A. R. A., Engle, R. W. Working memory and retrieval: a resource-dependent inhibition models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1994, 123(4): 354-373.
● Cortese, J. M., Dyre, B. P. Perceptual similarity of shapes generated from Fourier descriptors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1996, 22: 133-143.
● Davenport, J., Keane, M. T. Similarity and structural alignment: you can have one without the other. In Proceeding of the Twenty-First Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 1999.
● Deak, G. O., Bauer, P. J. The dynamics of preschoolers' categorization choices. Child Development, 1996, 67: 740-767.
● Deloache, J. S., Miller, K. F., Rosengren, K. The credible shrinking room: very young children's performance in symbolic and non-symbolic tasks. Psychological Science, 1997 8: 308-313.
● Diesendruck G. Hammer R., Catz O. Mapping the Similarity space of children and adults' artifact categories. Cognitive Development, 2003, 18: 217-231.
● Duncan, J, Humphreys, G. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychology Review, 1989, 96: 433-458.
● Duncan, J., Humphreys, G. W. Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1992, 18: 578-588.
● Egly, R., Driver, J., Rafal, R. Shifting visual attention between objects and locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1994, 123: 161-177.
● Erickson, M. A.,. Kruschke, J. K. Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1998, 127: 107-140.
● Fincher-Kiefer, R. Perceptual components of situation models. Memory and Cognition, 2001, 29: 336-343.
● Finke, R. A., Pinker, S., Farah, M. J. Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental imagery. Cognitive Science, 1989, 13(3): 252-257.
● Fox, E. Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: a review. Psychonomual Bulletin Review, 1995, 2: 145-173.
● Gentner, D., Stevens, A. L. Mental Models. Hillsdale: NJ: LEA. 1983.
● Gentner, D., Markman, A. B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997. 52: 45-56.
● Gentner, D. Structure-mapping: a framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 1983, 7: 155-225.
● Gentner, D, Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychology Science, 1994, 5(3): 152-158.
● Glenberg, A. M., Robertson, D. A. Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 1999, 28: 1-26.
● Glenherg, A. M., Robertson, D. A. Symbol grounding and meaning: acomparison of high dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 2000, 43: 379-401.
● Goldstone, R. The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork. Cognition, 1994, 52: 125-182.
● Goldstone, R. L. The role of similarity in categorizarion: providing a groundwork. 1994, Cognition, 52: 125-157.
● Goldstone, R., Medin, D., Halberstadt, J. Similarity in context. Memory and Cognition, 1997, 25(2): 237-255.
● Gotdstone, R. L., Mardin, D. L., Gentner, D. Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 1991, 23: 222-262.
● Goldstone, R. L. Similarity,. interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 1994, 20: 3-28.
● Goodman, N. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merill, 1972.
● Gopnik, A., Rosati, A. Duck or rabbit? Reversing abignous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science, 2001, 4(2): 175-183.
● Hahn, U., Chater, N., Richardson, L. Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 2003, 87: 1-32.
● Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., Phillips, S. Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1998, 21: 803-831.
● Hayes, B. K., Heit, E. Why learning and development can lead to poorer recognition memory?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2004, 8(8): 337-339.
● Henderson, J. M. Object identification in context: the visual processing of natural scenes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1992, 46: 319-341.
● Hintzman, D. L. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review. 1986, 93: 411-428.
● Hummel, J. E., Holyoak, K. J. Distributed representstions of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 1997, 104: 427-466.
● Humphrey, G. W., Cinel, C., Wolfe, J. Fractionating the binding process. Vision Research, 2000, 40: 1569-1596.
● Jacoby, L. L. Remember the data: analyzing interactive processes in reading Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1983, 22: 485-508.
● Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., Toth, J. P. Unconscious in fluences revealed: attention, awareness, and control. American Psychologist, 1992, 47: 802-809.
● Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983.
● Kane M. J., Engle R. W. Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000, 26: 336-358.
● Kaplan, A., Medin, D. The coincidence effect in similarity and choice. Memory and Cognition, 1997, 25(4): 570-576.
● Kathleen, C., Chen R. A mental space similarity group model of shape constancy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1999, 43: 410-432.
● Keil, F. C. Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: implications for hybrid models ofthe structure of knowledge. Cognition, 1998, 65: 103-135.
● Klein, M., Shapiro E., Kandel E. R. Synaptic plasticity and the modulation of the Ca++ current. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1980, 89: 117-157.
● Klaver, P., Smid, H. G., Heinze, H. J. Representations in human visual short-term memory: an event-related brain potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 1999, 268(2): 65-68.
● Klir, G J., Yuan, B. Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: NJ, 1995.
● Lamberts, K., Shanks, D. Knowledge Concepts and Categories Psychology Press, 1997, 43-8.
● Lamberts, K., Shanks, D. Knowledge Concepts and Categories Psychology press, 1997, 43-45.
● Kolodner, J. L. An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1992, 6: 3-34.
● Kolodner, J. L. Case-based Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufinann. 1993.
● Komatsu, L. K. Recent view of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112: 500-526.
● Kruschke, J. K. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 1992, 99: 22-44.
● Kunda, Z. Concepts: Representing Social Knowledge. Social Cognition. London: The MIT Press, 1998, 15-52.
● Lamberts, K. Flexible turning of similarity in exemplar-based categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1994, 20: 1003-1021.
● Lamberts, K. Categorization under time pressure. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 1995, 124: 80-161.
● Lamberts, K. Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization. Psychological Review, 2000, 107(2): 227-260.
● Li, M., Vitanyi, P. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications. New York: Springer, 1993.
● Lockhart, R., Lamon, M., Gick, M. Conceptual transfer in simple insight problems. Memory and Cognition, 1988, 16(1): 36-44.
● Love, B. C. Similarity and Categorization: A Review. AI Magazine, 2002, Book Reviews: 103-105.
● Maddox, W. T. Learning and attention in multidimensional identification, and categorization: separating low-level perceptual processes and high-level decisional processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2002, 28: 99-115.
● Maddox, W. T., Dodd, J. L. Separating perceptual and decisional attention processes in the identification and categorization of integral-dimension stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2003, 29(3): 467-480.
● Mak, B. S. K., Vera, A. H. The role of motion in children's categorization of objects. Cognition, 1999, 71: 11-21.
● Markman, A., Medin, D. Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 1995, 63(2): 117-130.
● Markman, A. B. Knowledge Representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1999
● Markman, A. B., Wisniewsld, E. J. Same and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 1997, 23: 54-70.
● Markman, A. B., Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 431-467.
● Markman A. B., Ross B. Category use and category Learning. Psychological Bulletin. 2003, 129(4): 592-613.
● Markman, A. B. Structure alignment in similarity and difference judgement. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1996, 3: 227-230.
● Markman, A. B. Structure alignment, similarity, and the internal structure of category representations. U. Hahn & M. Ramscar (Eds.) Simitarity and Categorization. Oxford University Press, 2000, 1-42.
● Marr, D. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982.
● McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1985, 114(2): 159-188.
● McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R. Spreading activation versns compound cue accounts of priming: mediated priming revisited. Journal of Exparimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1992, 18(6): 1155-1172.
● McNamara, T. P. Theories of priming: associative-distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1992, 18(6): 1173-1190.
● Medin, D. L. Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 1989, 44: 1469-1481.
● Medin, D. L., Schaffer, M. M. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 1978, 85: 207-238.
● Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 110(2): 254-278.
● Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., Markman, A. B. Comparison and choice: relations between similarity processes and decision processes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1995, 2(1): 1-19.
● Medin, D., Wattenmaker, W. Category cohesiveness, theories, and cognitive archaeology. In Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. U. Neisser(ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 25-62.
● Medin, D., Coley, J. Concepts and categorization. In J. Hochberg (Ed.), Perception and Cognition at Century's End. New York: Academic Press. 1998, 403-430.
● Medin, D., Lynch, E., Coley, J, Atran, S. Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: do all roads lead to Rome?. Cognitive Psychology 1997, 32: 49-96.
● Medin, D., Goldstone, R,, Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 100: 254-832.
● Medin D. L., Goldstone R. L., Gentne D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgment of similarity and difference and not inverses, Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 64-69.
● Medin D. L., Goldstone R. L., Gentne D. Pespects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 100: 78-254.
● Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 90(2): 227-234.
● Moores, E., Laiti, L., Chelazzi, L. Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention: Nature Nenroscience, 2003, 6(2): 182-189.
● Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J. R., Price, C. J. Functional neuroantomy of the semantic system: Divisible by what?. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 10(6): 766-777.
● Murdock, B. B. Similarity in a distributed memory model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1995, 39: 251-264.
● Murphy, G. L., Wright, J. C. Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: differences between real-world experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1984, 10: 144-155.
● Navon, D. Forest before trees: the precedence of global feathers in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9: 353-383.
● Nosofsky, R. M. Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1998, 14: 700-708.
● Novick, L. R. Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1988, 14: 510-520.
● Novick, L. R. Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 128-132.
● Oaksford, M. R., Chater, N. Against logicist cognitive science. Mind and Language, 1991, 6:1-38.
● Oberauer, K. S. H., Wilhelm, O., Wittmann, W. W. The multiple faces of working memory: storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 2003, 31: 167-193.
● Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., Shafir, E. Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 1990, 97(2): 185-200.
● Peterson, M. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., Rose, P. M., Glisky, M. L. Mental images can be ambiguous: reconstruals and reference-frnme reversals. Memory and Cognition, 1992, 20(2): 107-123.
● Phillips, F., Todd, J. T. Perception of local three-dimensional shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1996, 22: 230-244.
● Porter B., Bareiss R., Holte, R. Concept learning and heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 1990, 45: 63-229.
● Posner, M. I., Keele, S. W. On the genesis of abstract idea. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77: 353-363.
● Posner, M I. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1980, 32: 3-25.
● Price, C. J., Mummery, C. J., Moore, C. J., Frackowiak, R. J., Friston, K. J. Delineating necessary and sufficient neural systems with functional imaging studies of neuropsychological patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 11(4): 371-382.
● Pylyshyn, Z. W. Theimagery debate: analogue media versustacit knowledge. Psychological Review,. 1981, 88: 16-45.
● Raffone, A., Wolters, G. A. Cortical mechanism for binding in visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2001, 13(6): 766-785.
● Rasmussen, J. Mental models and the control of action in complex environments. D. Ackermann and M. J. Tauber (Eds.) Mental Models and Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1990.
● Reed, S. K. Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3: 382-407.
● Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., Desimone, R. Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 1999, 19: 1736-1753.
● Reynolds, J. H., Pasternak, T., Desimone, R. Attention increases sensitivity of V4 neurons. Neuron, 2000, 26: 703-714.
● Rips, L. J. Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Rissanen, J. Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquiry. New Jersey: World Scientific, 1989.
● Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B. Family resemblance: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7: 573-605.
● Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Braisby, N. Similarity and categorization: neuropsychological evidence for a dissociation in explicit categorization tasks. Cognition, 1999, 7: 11-42.
● Ropar, D., Mitchell, P., Ackroyd, K. Dochildren with autism find it difficult toof feralternative interpretations to ambiguous figures?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2003, 21: 387-395.
● Rosen, N. M., Engle, R. W. The role of working capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997, 126: 211-227.
● Ross, B. H. Category representations and the effects of interacting with instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1996, 22: 1249-1265.
● Ross, B., Murphy, G Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology 1999, 38: 495-535.
● Roth, E., Shoben, E. The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1983, 15: 346-424.
● Sadler, D., Shoben, E. Context effects on semantic domains as seen in analogy solution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1993, 19: 128-175.
● Schyns, P. G, Rodet, L. Categorization creates functional features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1997, 23: 681-696.
● Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Part Ⅰ. Psychometrika, 1962, 27(2): 125-140.
● Shepard, R. N. Multidimensional scaling tree-fitting, and clustering. Science, 1980, 210: 390-397.
● Shiffrin, R. M., Schneider, W. Controlled and antomatic human information processing: Ⅱ perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 1977, 84: 127-190.
● Sloman, S., Rips, L. Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 1998, 65: 87-100.
● Sloutsky, V. M., Lo, Y-F. How much does a shared name make thing similar? Pert 1, linguistic labels and the development of similarity judgment. Developmemtal Psychology, 1999, 35(6): 1478-1492.
● Sloutsky, V. M. How much does a shared name make thing similar? Linguistic labels, similarity and the development of inductive inference. Child Decelopment, 2001, 72: 1695-1710.
● Slontsky, V. M. The rote of similarity in the development of categorization. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(6): 246-251.
● Theenwes, J. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception and Psychophysics. 1992, 51 (6): 599-606.
● Tipper, S. P. Selection for action: the role of inhibitory mechanisms. Current direction of Psychological Science, 1992, 1: 105-109.
● Tomasello, M., Barton, M. Acquiring words in non-ostensive contexts. Developmental Psychology, 1994, 30: 639-650.
● Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84: 327-352.
● Vervaeke, J. Insight and the Problem of Transfer: Intuition, Incubation, and Ineffability. PSY 370 H1F. University of Toronto, Toronto. 2000.
● Wallace, C., Boulton D. An information measure for classification. Computing Journal, 1968, 11: 95-185.
● Wickens, D. D., Dalezman, R. E., Eggemeier, F. T. Multiple encoding of word attributes in memory. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4(3): 307-310.
● Wisniewski, E., Bassok, M. What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 1999, 39: 208-238.
Xu, F. The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy. Cognition, 2002, 85: 223-250.
Xu, Y. Limitations of object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2002,28(2): 458-468.
Yamauchi, T., Markman, A. Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000,26(3): 776 - 795.
Yantis, S. Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Current Directions. Psychology Science, 1993,2(5): 156-161.
● Best，J．B．(著)．黄希庭(译)．《认知心理学》．北京：中国轻工业出版社 2000．5，177-183．
● Flavell，J．H．，Miller，P．H．，Miller，S．A．(著)．邓赐平，刘明(译)．《认知发展》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2002．7，132-156．
● Kantardzic，M．(著)．闪四清，陈茵，程雁(译)．《数据挖掘》．北京：清华大学出版社．2003，223．
● Roberson，S．I．(著)．张奇(译)．《问题解决心理学》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2004．9，111．
● Steinberg~1，R．J．(著)．杨炳钧等(译)．《认知心理学(第三版)》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2006．1，64-65．
● Steinberg~2，R．J．(著)．杨炳钧等(译)．《认知心理学(第三版)》．北京：中国轻工业出版社．2006．1，170．
● M．W．艾森克~1，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，416-418．
● M．W．艾森克~2，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，128-142．
● M．W．艾森克~3，M．T．基恩(著)．高定国，肖晓云(译)．《认知心理学(第四版)》．上海：华东师范大学出版社．2004．2，192．
● 常建芳，Markman，A．B．，莫雷．归类的相似性对比模型研究综述．心理科学，2004，27(2)：423-425．
● 陈安涛，李红．信息加工的中介状态．贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2002，(2)：99-103．
● 陈彩琦，刘志华，金志成．特征捆绑机制的理论模型．心理科学进展，2003，11(6)：616-622．
● 丁锦红，林仲贤．图形颜色、形状及质地表征特性的研究．心理学报，2000，32(3)：253-257．
● 郭秀艳，杨治良．内隐学习研究的核心方法——人工语法范式．应用心理学，2001，3：45-50．
● 胡平，陈文锋，焦书兰．国外知觉学习研究的若干进展．心理学动态，2001，9(4)：302-310．
● 刘志雅，莫雷．类别学习中的分类和推理．心理科学进展，2004，12(5)：774-783．
● 沈政．《认知神经科学导论》．北京：教育出版社，1995，22-30．
● 施建农，恽梅，翟京华，李新兵．7—12岁儿童视觉搜索能力的发展．心理与行为研究，2004，2(1)：337-341．
● 王瑞明，莫雷，李利，王穗苹，吴俊．言语理解中的知觉符号表征与命题符号表征．心理学报2005，37(2)：143-150．
● 阎国利．《眼动分析法在心理学研究中的应用》．天津：天津教育出版社，2004，第二版，319-322．
● 阴国恩，安蓉，郑金香．分类中相似性的理论与模型．心理学探新，2005，25(1)：41-46．
● 张阔，阴国恩．评介一种新的知觉分类模型：EGCM．心理科学，2003，26(1)：124-126．
● 张述祖，沈德立．《基础心理学》．北京：教育科学出版社，1987，313-314．
● 赵冬梅，刘志雅，刘鸣．归类的解释观和跨范畴分类．心理科学，2002，5：608-609．
● 周国梅 傅小兰 鞠实儿．相似性比较的诊断性原则与文化的影响作用．中山大学学报(社会科学版)，2002，42(4)：10-17．
● Amabile, T. A., Rovee-Collier, C. Contextual variation and memory retrieval at six months. Child Development, 1991, 62(5): 1155-1166.
● Anderson, J R., Fincham, J. M. Learning to program in LISP. Cognitive Science, 1984, 8: 87-129.
● Anderson, J R., Reder, L. M., Lebiere, C. Working memory: activation limitation on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology: I996, 30: 221-256.
● Ashby, F. G, Maddox, W. T., Bohil, C. J. Observational venus feedback training in rule-based and information-integration category learning. Memory & Cognition, 2002 30: 666-677.
● Barsalou, L. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory and Cognition, 1982, 10: 82-93.
● Barsalou, L. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 1983, 11: 211-238.
● Barsalou, L. The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, U. Neisser(ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 101-140.
● Barasalon~1, L. W. Perceptual symbolsystem. Behavioral and BrainScience, 1999, 22: 577-660.
● Barasalou~2, L, W. Language comprehension: archival memory orpreparation for situatedaction?. Discourse Processes, 1999, 28: 61-80.
● Bassok, M., Holyoak, K. J. Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1989, 15: 153-166.
● Bassok, M. Transfer of domain-specific problem solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1990, 16(3): 522-533.
● Bassok, M., Medin, D. Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgements with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 1997, 36: 311-336.
● Bassok, M. Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1990 (16): 522-533.
● Becker, J. Similarity and distinction across Scheme-Scheme and Scheme-Object actions. Human Development, 2004, 47: 100-102.
● Boster, J. S., Johnson, J. C. Form or function: a comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist. 1989, 91: 866-899.
● Bundesen, C. A. A theory of visual attention. Psychology Review, 1990, 97: 523-547.
● Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., Beni, R. D., Palladino, P. What happens to information to be suppressed in working-memory tasks? Short and long term effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 2004 57(6): 1059-1084.
● Cave, K. R., Wolfe, J. M. Modeling the role of parallel processing im visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 1990, 22(2): 225-271.
● Ceraso, J, Unit formation in perception and memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, I985, 19(1): 179-210.
● Chamber, D., Reisberg, D. Can mental images be ambiguous? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1985, 11: 317-328.
● Chater, N., Oaksford, M. Logicism mental models and everyday reasoning: reply to Garnham. Mind and Language, 1993 8: 72-89.
● Chawarski, M. C., Steinberg, R. J. Negative priming in word recognition: a context effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1993, 122(2): 195-206.
● Chclazzi, L., Duncan, J., Miller, E. K., Desimone, R. Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search. Journal of Neurophysiology, 1998, 80: 2918-2940.
● Collins, A. M., Quillian, M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8: 240-248,
● Collins, A. M., Loflus, E. F. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82: 407-429.
● Conway A. R. A., Engle, R. W. Working memory and retrieval: a resource-dependent inhibition models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1994, 123(4): 354-373.
● Cortese, J. M., Dyre, B. P. Perceptual similarity of shapes generated from Fourier descriptors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1996, 22: 133-143.
● Davenport, J., Keane, M. T. Similarity and structural alignment: you can have one without the other. In Proceeding of the Twenty-First Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 1999.
● Deak, G. O., Bauer, P. J. The dynamics of preschoolers' categorization choices. Child Development, 1996, 67: 740-767.
● Deloache, J. S., Miller, K. F., Rosengren, K. The credible shrinking room: very young children's performance in symbolic and non-symbolic tasks. Psychological Science, 1997 8: 308-313.
● Diesendruck G. Hammer R., Catz O. Mapping the Similarity space of children and adults' artifact categories. Cognitive Development, 2003, 18: 217-231.
● Duncan, J, Humphreys, G. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychology Review, 1989, 96: 433-458.
● Duncan, J., Humphreys, G. W. Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1992, 18: 578-588.
● Egly, R., Driver, J., Rafal, R. Shifting visual attention between objects and locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1994, 123: 161-177.
● Erickson, M. A.,. Kruschke, J. K. Rules and exemplars in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1998, 127: 107-140.
● Fincher-Kiefer, R. Perceptual components of situation models. Memory and Cognition, 2001, 29: 336-343.
● Finke, R. A., Pinker, S., Farah, M. J. Reinterpreting visual patterns in mental imagery. Cognitive Science, 1989, 13(3): 252-257.
● Fox, E. Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: a review. Psychonomual Bulletin Review, 1995, 2: 145-173.
● Gentner, D., Stevens, A. L. Mental Models. Hillsdale: NJ: LEA. 1983.
● Gentner, D., Markman, A. B. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 1997. 52: 45-56.
● Gentner, D. Structure-mapping: a framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 1983, 7: 155-225.
● Gentner, D, Markman, A. B. Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychology Science, 1994, 5(3): 152-158.
● Glenberg, A. M., Robertson, D. A. Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 1999, 28: 1-26.
● Glenherg, A. M., Robertson, D. A. Symbol grounding and meaning: acomparison of high dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 2000, 43: 379-401.
● Goldstone, R. The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork. Cognition, 1994, 52: 125-182.
● Goldstone, R. L. The role of similarity in categorizarion: providing a groundwork. 1994, Cognition, 52: 125-157.
● Goldstone, R., Medin, D., Halberstadt, J. Similarity in context. Memory and Cognition, 1997, 25(2): 237-255.
● Gotdstone, R. L., Mardin, D. L., Gentner, D. Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 1991, 23: 222-262.
● Goldstone, R. L. Similarity,. interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 1994, 20: 3-28.
● Goodman, N. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merill, 1972.
● Gopnik, A., Rosati, A. Duck or rabbit? Reversing abignous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science, 2001, 4(2): 175-183.
● Hahn, U., Chater, N., Richardson, L. Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 2003, 87: 1-32.
● Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., Phillips, S. Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1998, 21: 803-831.
● Hayes, B. K., Heit, E. Why learning and development can lead to poorer recognition memory?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2004, 8(8): 337-339.
● Henderson, J. M. Object identification in context: the visual processing of natural scenes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1992, 46: 319-341.
● Hintzman, D. L. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review. 1986, 93: 411-428.
● Hummel, J. E., Holyoak, K. J. Distributed representstions of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 1997, 104: 427-466.
● Humphrey, G. W., Cinel, C., Wolfe, J. Fractionating the binding process. Vision Research, 2000, 40: 1569-1596.
● Jacoby, L. L. Remember the data: analyzing interactive processes in reading Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1983, 22: 485-508.
● Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., Toth, J. P. Unconscious in fluences revealed: attention, awareness, and control. American Psychologist, 1992, 47: 802-809.
● Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983.
● Kane M. J., Engle R. W. Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000, 26: 336-358.
● Kaplan, A., Medin, D. The coincidence effect in similarity and choice. Memory and Cognition, 1997, 25(4): 570-576.
● Kathleen, C., Chen R. A mental space similarity group model of shape constancy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1999, 43: 410-432.
● Keil, F. C. Two dogmas of conceptual empiricism: implications for hybrid models ofthe structure of knowledge. Cognition, 1998, 65: 103-135.
● Klein, M., Shapiro E., Kandel E. R. Synaptic plasticity and the modulation of the Ca++ current. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1980, 89: 117-157.
● Klaver, P., Smid, H. G., Heinze, H. J. Representations in human visual short-term memory: an event-related brain potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 1999, 268(2): 65-68.
● Klir, G J., Yuan, B. Fuzzy Set and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: NJ, 1995.
● Lamberts, K., Shanks, D. Knowledge Concepts and Categories Psychology Press, 1997, 43-8.
● Lamberts, K., Shanks, D. Knowledge Concepts and Categories Psychology press, 1997, 43-45.
● Kolodner, J. L. An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1992, 6: 3-34.
● Kolodner, J. L. Case-based Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufinann. 1993.
● Komatsu, L. K. Recent view of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 1992, 112: 500-526.
● Kruschke, J. K. ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 1992, 99: 22-44.
● Kunda, Z. Concepts: Representing Social Knowledge. Social Cognition. London: The MIT Press, 1998, 15-52.
● Lamberts, K. Flexible turning of similarity in exemplar-based categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1994, 20: 1003-1021.
● Lamberts, K. Categorization under time pressure. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 1995, 124: 80-161.
● Lamberts, K. Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization. Psychological Review, 2000, 107(2): 227-260.
● Li, M., Vitanyi, P. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications. New York: Springer, 1993.
● Lockhart, R., Lamon, M., Gick, M. Conceptual transfer in simple insight problems. Memory and Cognition, 1988, 16(1): 36-44.
● Love, B. C. Similarity and Categorization: A Review. AI Magazine, 2002, Book Reviews: 103-105.
● Maddox, W. T. Learning and attention in multidimensional identification, and categorization: separating low-level perceptual processes and high-level decisional processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2002, 28: 99-115.
● Maddox, W. T., Dodd, J. L. Separating perceptual and decisional attention processes in the identification and categorization of integral-dimension stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2003, 29(3): 467-480.
● Mak, B. S. K., Vera, A. H. The role of motion in children's categorization of objects. Cognition, 1999, 71: 11-21.
● Markman, A., Medin, D. Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 1995, 63(2): 117-130.
● Markman, A. B. Knowledge Representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1999
● Markman, A. B., Wisniewsld, E. J. Same and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 1997, 23: 54-70.
● Markman, A. B., Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 1993, 25: 431-467.
● Markman A. B., Ross B. Category use and category Learning. Psychological Bulletin. 2003, 129(4): 592-613.
● Markman, A. B. Structure alignment in similarity and difference judgement. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1996, 3: 227-230.
● Markman, A. B. Structure alignment, similarity, and the internal structure of category representations. U. Hahn & M. Ramscar (Eds.) Simitarity and Categorization. Oxford University Press, 2000, 1-42.
● Marr, D. Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982.
● McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1985, 114(2): 159-188.
● McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R. Spreading activation versns compound cue accounts of priming: mediated priming revisited. Journal of Exparimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1992, 18(6): 1155-1172.
● McNamara, T. P. Theories of priming: associative-distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1992, 18(6): 1173-1190.
● Medin, D. L. Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 1989, 44: 1469-1481.
● Medin, D. L., Schaffer, M. M. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 1978, 85: 207-238.
● Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 110(2): 254-278.
● Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., Markman, A. B. Comparison and choice: relations between similarity processes and decision processes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1995, 2(1): 1-19.
● Medin, D., Wattenmaker, W. Category cohesiveness, theories, and cognitive archaeology. In Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. U. Neisser(ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 25-62.
● Medin, D., Coley, J. Concepts and categorization. In J. Hochberg (Ed.), Perception and Cognition at Century's End. New York: Academic Press. 1998, 403-430.
● Medin, D., Lynch, E., Coley, J, Atran, S. Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: do all roads lead to Rome?. Cognitive Psychology 1997, 32: 49-96.
● Medin, D., Goldstone, R,, Gentner, D. Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 100: 254-832.
● Medin D. L., Goldstone R. L., Gentne D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgment of similarity and difference and not inverses, Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 64-69.
● Medin D. L., Goldstone R. L., Gentne D. Pespects for similarity. Psychological Review, 1993, 100: 78-254.
● Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 90(2): 227-234.
● Moores, E., Laiti, L., Chelazzi, L. Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention: Nature Nenroscience, 2003, 6(2): 182-189.
● Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J. R., Price, C. J. Functional neuroantomy of the semantic system: Divisible by what?. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 10(6): 766-777.
● Murdock, B. B. Similarity in a distributed memory model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1995, 39: 251-264.
● Murphy, G. L., Wright, J. C. Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: differences between real-world experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1984, 10: 144-155.
● Navon, D. Forest before trees: the precedence of global feathers in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9: 353-383.
● Nosofsky, R. M. Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1998, 14: 700-708.
● Novick, L. R. Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1988, 14: 510-520.
● Novick, L. R. Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1990, 1: 128-132.
● Oaksford, M. R., Chater, N. Against logicist cognitive science. Mind and Language, 1991, 6:1-38.
● Oberauer, K. S. H., Wilhelm, O., Wittmann, W. W. The multiple faces of working memory: storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 2003, 31: 167-193.
● Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., Lopez, A., Shafir, E. Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 1990, 97(2): 185-200.
● Peterson, M. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., Rose, P. M., Glisky, M. L. Mental images can be ambiguous: reconstruals and reference-frnme reversals. Memory and Cognition, 1992, 20(2): 107-123.
● Phillips, F., Todd, J. T. Perception of local three-dimensional shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1996, 22: 230-244.
● Porter B., Bareiss R., Holte, R. Concept learning and heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 1990, 45: 63-229.
● Posner, M. I., Keele, S. W. On the genesis of abstract idea. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77: 353-363.
● Posner, M I. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1980, 32: 3-25.
● Price, C. J., Mummery, C. J., Moore, C. J., Frackowiak, R. J., Friston, K. J. Delineating necessary and sufficient neural systems with functional imaging studies of neuropsychological patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 11(4): 371-382.
● Pylyshyn, Z. W. Theimagery debate: analogue media versustacit knowledge. Psychological Review,. 1981, 88: 16-45.
● Raffone, A., Wolters, G. A. Cortical mechanism for binding in visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2001, 13(6): 766-785.
● Rasmussen, J. Mental models and the control of action in complex environments. D. Ackermann and M. J. Tauber (Eds.) Mental Models and Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1990.
● Reed, S. K. Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3: 382-407.
● Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., Desimone, R. Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 1999, 19: 1736-1753.
● Reynolds, J. H., Pasternak, T., Desimone, R. Attention increases sensitivity of V4 neurons. Neuron, 2000, 26: 703-714.
● Rips, L. J. Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Rissanen, J. Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquiry. New Jersey: World Scientific, 1989.
● Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B. Family resemblance: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7: 573-605.
● Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Braisby, N. Similarity and categorization: neuropsychological evidence for a dissociation in explicit categorization tasks. Cognition, 1999, 7: 11-42.
● Ropar, D., Mitchell, P., Ackroyd, K. Dochildren with autism find it difficult toof feralternative interpretations to ambiguous figures?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2003, 21: 387-395.
● Rosen, N. M., Engle, R. W. The role of working capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997, 126: 211-227.
● Ross, B. H. Category representations and the effects of interacting with instances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1996, 22: 1249-1265.
● Ross, B., Murphy, G Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology 1999, 38: 495-535.
● Roth, E., Shoben, E. The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 1983, 15: 346-424.
● Sadler, D., Shoben, E. Context effects on semantic domains as seen in analogy solution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1993, 19: 128-175.
● Schyns, P. G, Rodet, L. Categorization creates functional features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1997, 23: 681-696.
● Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Part Ⅰ. Psychometrika, 1962, 27(2): 125-140.
● Shepard, R. N. Multidimensional scaling tree-fitting, and clustering. Science, 1980, 210: 390-397.
● Shiffrin, R. M., Schneider, W. Controlled and antomatic human information processing: Ⅱ perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 1977, 84: 127-190.
● Sloman, S., Rips, L. Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 1998, 65: 87-100.
● Sloutsky, V. M., Lo, Y-F. How much does a shared name make thing similar? Pert 1, linguistic labels and the development of similarity judgment. Developmemtal Psychology, 1999, 35(6): 1478-1492.
● Sloutsky, V. M. How much does a shared name make thing similar? Linguistic labels, similarity and the development of inductive inference. Child Decelopment, 2001, 72: 1695-1710.
● Slontsky, V. M. The rote of similarity in the development of categorization. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(6): 246-251.
● Theenwes, J. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception and Psychophysics. 1992, 51 (6): 599-606.
● Tipper, S. P. Selection for action: the role of inhibitory mechanisms. Current direction of Psychological Science, 1992, 1: 105-109.
● Tomasello, M., Barton, M. Acquiring words in non-ostensive contexts. Developmental Psychology, 1994, 30: 639-650.
● Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84: 327-352.
● Vervaeke, J. Insight and the Problem of Transfer: Intuition, Incubation, and Ineffability. PSY 370 H1F. University of Toronto, Toronto. 2000.
● Wallace, C., Boulton D. An information measure for classification. Computing Journal, 1968, 11: 95-185.
● Wickens, D. D., Dalezman, R. E., Eggemeier, F. T. Multiple encoding of word attributes in memory. Memory and Cognition, 1976, 4(3): 307-310.
● Wisniewski, E., Bassok, M. What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 1999, 39: 208-238.
Xu, F. The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy. Cognition, 2002, 85: 223-250.
Xu, Y. Limitations of object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2002,28(2): 458-468.
Yamauchi, T., Markman, A. Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000,26(3): 776 - 795.
Yantis, S. Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Current Directions. Psychology Science, 1993,2(5): 156-161.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |