@Article{Hahn1998,
  author   = {U Hahn and N Chater},
  journal  = {Cognition},
  title    = {Similarity and rules: {D}istinct? {E}xhaustive? {E}mpirically distinguishable?},
  year     = {1998},
  number   = {2-3},
  pages    = {197-230},
  volume   = {65},
  abstract = {The distinction between rule-based and similarity-based processes
	in cognition is of fundamental importance for cognitive science,
	and has been the focus of a large body of empirical research. However,
	intuitive uses of the distinction are subject to theoretical difficulties
	and their relation to empirical evidence is not clear. We propose
	a 'core' distinction between rule- and similarity-based processes,
	in terms of the way representations of stored information are 'matched'
	with the representation of a novel item. This explication captures
	the intuitively clear-cut cases of processes of each type, and resolves
	apparent problems with the rule/similarity distinction. Moreover,
	it provides a clear target for assessing the psychological and AI
	literatures. We show that many lines of psychological evidence are
	less conclusive than sometimes assumed, but suggest that converging
	lines of evidence may be persuasive. We then argue that the AI literature
	suggests that approaches which combine rules and similarity are an
	important new focus for empirical work.},
  keywords = {Cognition, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Human, Mental Recall, Problem Solving, Problem-Based Learning, Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Thinking, 9557383},
}

{"_id":"3ZCjNu7CaddFpL7Mu","bibbaseid":"hahn-chater-similarityandrulesdistinctexhaustiveempiricallydistinguishable-1998","author_short":["Hahn, U","Chater, N"],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"firstnames":["U"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hahn"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["N"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chater"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Cognition","title":"Similarity and rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable?","year":"1998","number":"2-3","pages":"197-230","volume":"65","abstract":"The distinction between rule-based and similarity-based processes in cognition is of fundamental importance for cognitive science, and has been the focus of a large body of empirical research. However, intuitive uses of the distinction are subject to theoretical difficulties and their relation to empirical evidence is not clear. We propose a 'core' distinction between rule- and similarity-based processes, in terms of the way representations of stored information are 'matched' with the representation of a novel item. This explication captures the intuitively clear-cut cases of processes of each type, and resolves apparent problems with the rule/similarity distinction. Moreover, it provides a clear target for assessing the psychological and AI literatures. We show that many lines of psychological evidence are less conclusive than sometimes assumed, but suggest that converging lines of evidence may be persuasive. We then argue that the AI literature suggests that approaches which combine rules and similarity are an important new focus for empirical work.","keywords":"Cognition, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Human, Mental Recall, Problem Solving, Problem-Based Learning, Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Thinking, 9557383","bibtex":"@Article{Hahn1998,\n author = {U Hahn and N Chater},\n journal = {Cognition},\n title = {Similarity and rules: {D}istinct? {E}xhaustive? {E}mpirically distinguishable?},\n year = {1998},\n number = {2-3},\n pages = {197-230},\n volume = {65},\n abstract = {The distinction between rule-based and similarity-based processes\n\tin cognition is of fundamental importance for cognitive science,\n\tand has been the focus of a large body of empirical research. However,\n\tintuitive uses of the distinction are subject to theoretical difficulties\n\tand their relation to empirical evidence is not clear. We propose\n\ta 'core' distinction between rule- and similarity-based processes,\n\tin terms of the way representations of stored information are 'matched'\n\twith the representation of a novel item. This explication captures\n\tthe intuitively clear-cut cases of processes of each type, and resolves\n\tapparent problems with the rule/similarity distinction. Moreover,\n\tit provides a clear target for assessing the psychological and AI\n\tliteratures. We show that many lines of psychological evidence are\n\tless conclusive than sometimes assumed, but suggest that converging\n\tlines of evidence may be persuasive. We then argue that the AI literature\n\tsuggests that approaches which combine rules and similarity are an\n\timportant new focus for empirical work.},\n keywords = {Cognition, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Human, Mental Recall, Problem Solving, Problem-Based Learning, Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Thinking, 9557383},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Hahn, U","Chater, N"],"key":"Hahn1998","id":"Hahn1998","bibbaseid":"hahn-chater-similarityandrulesdistinctexhaustiveempiricallydistinguishable-1998","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Cognition","Concept Formation","Discrimination Learning","Human","Mental Recall","Problem Solving","Problem-Based Learning","Support","Non-U.S. Gov't","Thinking","9557383"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://endress.org/publications/ansgar.bib","dataSources":["xPGxHAeh3vZpx4yyE"],"keywords":["cognition","concept formation","discrimination learning","human","mental recall","problem solving","problem-based learning","support","non-u.s. gov't","thinking","9557383"],"search_terms":["similarity","rules","distinct","exhaustive","empirically","distinguishable","hahn","chater"],"title":"Similarity and rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable?","year":1998}