1 Markman, AB. Knowledge representation
. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
2 Clement, CA, Gentner, D. Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science 1991, 15:89–132.
3 Gentner, D, Kurtz, K. Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:609.
4 Spellman, BA, Holyoak, KJ. If Saddam is Hitler then who is George Bush? Analogical mapping between systems of social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, 62:913–933.
5 Gentner, D, Sagi, E. %22Does “different” imply a difference? A comparison of two tasks.%22 In: Sun, R, Miyake, N, eds. Proceedings of the Twenty‐eighth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2006.
6 Goldstone, RL, Medin, DL, Gentner, D. Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science 1990, 1:64–69.
7 Love, BC, Rouder, JN, Wisniewski, EJ. A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology 1999, 38:291–316.
8 Markman, AB, Gentner, D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25:431–467.
9 Gentner, D. Structure‐mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 1983, 7:155–170.
10 Goldstone, RL, Medin, DL. Time course of comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, %26 Cognition 1994, 20:29–50.
11 Cheng, PW, Holyoak, KJ. Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology 1985, 17:391–416.
12 Gentner, D, Medina, J. Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 1998, 65:263–297.
13 Kuehne, SE, Gentner, D, Forbus, KD. %22Modeling infant learning via symbolic structural alignment.%22 In: Gleitman, L, Joshi, AK, eds. Proceedings of the Twenty‐Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2000, 286–291.
14 Gentner, D, Rattermann, MJ, Forbus, KD. The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25:524–575.
15 Holyoak, KJ, Koh, K. Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory %26 Cognition 1987, 15:332–340.
16 Ross, BH. Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1989, 15:456–468.
17 Gentner, D. %22The mechanisms of analogical learning.%22 In: Vosniadou, S, Ortony, A, eds. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning London: Cambridge University Press
; 1989, 199–241.
18 Gentner, D. %22Why we’re so smart.%22 In: Gentner, D., Goldin‐Meadow, S., eds. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
; 2003, 195–236.
19 Gentner, D, Markman, AB. Defining structural similarity. The Journal of Cognitive Science 2006, 6:1–20.
20 Forbus, KD, Gentner, D, Law, K. MAC/FAC: A model of similarity‐based retrieval. Cognitive Science 1995, 19:141–205.
21 Gentner, D. %22Are scientific analogies metaphors?.%22 In: Miall, DS, ed. Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives. Brighton, England: Harvester Press
; 1982, 106–132.
22 Gentner, D, Clement, C. %22Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor.%22 In: Bower, GH, ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press
; 1988, 307–358.
23 Spellman, BA, Holyoak, KJ. Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology 1996, 31:307–346.
24 Markman, AB. Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science 1997, 21:373–418.
25 Krawczyk, DC, Holyoak, KJ, Hummel, JE. The one‐to‐one constraint in analogical mapping and inference. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:797–806.
26 Falkenhainer, B. Learning from physical analogies
, Technical report no. UIUCDCS‐R‐88‐1479. Ph.D. thesis. Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois; 1988.
27 Larkey, LB, Love, BC. CAB: Connectionist Analogy Builder. Cognitive Science 2003, 27:781–794.
28 Mitchell, M. Analogy‐making as perception: A computer model
. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
29 Hofstadter, DH. Fluid concepts and creative analogies
. New York: Basic Books
30 French, RM. The subtlety of similarity
. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
31 Holyoak, KJ, Thagard, PR. %22A computational model of analogical problem solving.%22 In: Vosniadou, S, Ortony, A, eds. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press
; 1989, 242–266.
32 Ramscar, MJA, Pain, HG. Can a real distinction be made between cognitive theories of analogy and categorization?. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. San Diego: University of California; 1996.
33 Winston, PH. Learning and reasoning by analogy. Communications of the ACM 1980, 23:689–703.
34 Burstein, MH. A model of learning by incremental analogical reasoning and debugging. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 1983, 45–48.
35 Greiner, R. %22Learning by understanding analogies.%22 In: Prieditis, A, ed. Analogica. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann
; 1988, 1–36.
36 Keane, MT. %22On order effects in analogical mapping: predicting human error using IAM.%22 In: Moore, JD, Lehmann, JF, eds. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
37 Hummel, JE, Holyoak, KJ. LISA: A computational model of analogical inference and schema induction. Psychological Review 1997.
38 Winston, PH. %22Learning by augmenting rules and accumulating censors.%22 In: Michalski, RS, Carbonell, JG, Mitchell, TM, eds. Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Los Altos, CA: MorganKaufmann
; 1986, 45–61.
39 Falkenhainer, B, Forbus, K, Gentner, D. The Structure‐Mapping Engine. Proceedings of AAAI‐86, Philadelphia, PA, August 1986.
40 Falkenhainer, B, Forbus, KD, Gentner, D. The structure‐mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 1989, 41:1–63.
41 Loewenstein, J, Gentner, D. Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology 2005, 50:315–353.
42 Forbus, KD, Ferguson, RW, Gentner, D. Incremental structure mapping In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1994.
43 Kokinov, BN, Petrov, AA. In: %22Integrating memory and reasoning in analogy‐making: the AMBR model.%22 Gentner, D, Holyoak, KJ, Kokinov, BN, eds. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives Prom Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
; 2001, 161–196.
44 Hahn, U, Chater, N. Richardson, LB. Similarity as transformation Cognition 2003, 87:1–32
45 Hodgetts, C.J. Hahn, U., Chater, N. Transformation and alignment in similarity. Cognition 2009, 113:62–79.
46 Markman, AB, Gentner, D. Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:517–535.
47 Thagard, P, Holyoak, KJ, Nelson, G, Gochfeld, D. Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 1990, 46:259–310.
48 Leech, R, Mareschal, D, Cooper, R. Analogy as relational priming: a developmental and computational perspective on the origins of a complex cognitive skill. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2008, 31:357–414.
49 Gick, ML, Holyoak, KJ. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 1983, 15:1–38.
50 Catrambone, R, Holyoak, KJ. Overcoming contextual limitations on problem‐solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1989, 15:1147–1156.
51 Loewenstein, J, Thompson, L, Gentner, D. Analogical learning in negotiation teams: Comparing cases promotes learning and transfer. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2003, 2:119–127.
52 Gust, H, Kuhnberger, KU, Schmid, U. metaphors and heuristic‐driven theory projection (HDTP). Theoretical Computer Science 2006, 354:98–117.
53 Schwering, A, Krumnack, U, Kuhnberger, KU, Gust, H. Syntactic principles of heuristic‐driven theory projection. Cognitive Systems Research 2009, 10:251–269.
54 Schmid, U, Gust, H, Kühnberger, K‐U, Burghardt, J. In: %22An algebraic framework for solving proportional and predictive analogies.%22 Schmalhofer, F, Young, R, Katz, G, eds. Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science (EuroCogSci 2003). Osnabrück, Germany: Lawrence Erlbaum
; September 10–13, 2003, 295–300.
55 Schwering, A, Gust, H, Kuhnberger, K‐U, Krumnack, U. Solving geometric proportional analogies with the analogy model HDTP, Proceedings of CogSci09
56 Gentner, D, Loewenstein, J, Thompson, L, Forbus, K. Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:1343–1382.
57 Kuehne, SE, Forbus, KD, Gentner, D, Quinn, B. %22SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping.%22 In: Gleitman, LR, Joshi, AK, eds., Proceedings of the Twenty‐Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA; 2000, 770–775.
58 Halstead, D, Forbus, KD. Transforming between propositions and features: bridging the gap. Proceedings of AAAI‐05
. Pittsburgh, PA; 2005.
59 Lockwood, K, Lovett, A, Forbus, K. Automatic Classification of Containment and Support Spatial Relations in English and Dutch. In: Proceedings of Spatial Cognition
60 Halstead, D, Forbus, K. Some Effects of a Reduced Relational Vocabulary on the Whodunit Problem. Proceedings of IJCAI‐2007
, Hyderabad, India; 2007.
61 Friedman, SE, Forbus, KD. Learning naive physics models and misconceptions. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of theCognitive Science Society
, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2009.
62 Dehghani, M, Tomai, E, Forbus, K, Iliev, R, Klenk, M. MoralDM: a computational modal of moral decision‐making. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci)
, Washington, DC; 2008.
63 Lovett, A, Tomai, E, Forbus, K, Usher, J. Solving geometric analogy problems through two‐stage analogical mapping. Cognitive Science 2009.
64 Loewenstein, J, Thompson, L, Gentner, D. Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin %26 Review 1999, 6:586–597.
65 Gentner, D, Namy, L. Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 1999, 14:487–513.
66 Falkenhainer, B. %22A unified approach to explanation and theory formation.%22 In: Shrager, J, Langley, P, eds. Computational Models of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
; 1990, 157–196.
67 Salvucci, DD, Anderson, JR. Integrating analogical mapping and general problem solving: the path‐mapping theory. Cognitive Science 2001, 25:67–110
68 Lovett, A, Gentner, D, Forbus, K, Sagi, E. Using analogical mapping to simulate time‐course phenomena in perceptual similarity Cognitive Systems Research 2009, 10:216–228.
69 Krumnack, U, Gust, H, Kuhnberger, K‐U, Schwering, A. Re‐representation in a logic‐based model for analogy‐making. Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, Aukland, New Zealand; 2008.
70 Yan, J, Forbus, KD, Gentner, D. A theory of rerepresentation in analogical matching. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
71 Chi, M, Feltovich, P, Glaser, R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 1981, 5:121–152.
72 Novick, LR. Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14:510–520.
73 Finlayson, M, Winston, PH. Intermediate features and information‐level constraint on analogical retrieval. Proceedings of CogSci05
74 Kokinov, B. %22A hybrid model of reasoning by analogy.%22 In: Holyoak, K, Barnden, J, eds. Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory. Volume 2: Analogical Connections. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994, 247–320.
75 Forbus, K, Klenk, M, Hinrichs, T. Companion cognitive systems: Design goals and lessons learned so far. IEEE Intelligent Systems vol. 2009, 24:36–46.
76 Doumas, . LAA, Hummel, JE, Sandhofer, CM. A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review 2008, 115:1–43.
77 Friedman, S, Taylor, J, Forbus, K. Learning naïve physics models by analogical generalization. Proceedings of the 2nd International Analogy Conference
, Sofia, Bulgaria; 2009.