Abstract:The structural alignment theory of similarity distinguishes 2 types of difference that may occur between stimuli: Alignable differences are those related to a commonality, whereas nonalignable differences are not related to a commonality. Alignment theory predicts that alignable differences should be more heavily weighted than nonalignable differences in similarity judgment. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that, contrary to this prediction, nonalignable differences exerted a greater impact than alignable differences in similarity and difference judgments of geometric stimuli. Experiment 3 revealed that the relative weight accorded a given difference was also affected by contextual constraints. Thus, although the experiments supported the validity of the distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences, results were discordant with the specific prediction of structural alignment theory. Structural alignment theory has provided many important contributions to cognitive science over the last 2 decades. Since its introduction by Gentner (1983), alignment theory has successfully explained a broad range of cognitive phenomena in such domainssentially, alignment theory provides a unified account of comparative cognitive processes. Simply stated, structural alignment theory posits that comparison and related cognitive operations are accomplished by putting the structure of one concept into alignment or correspondence with the structure of the other concept to which it is compared. When comparing a rose and a violet, for instance, one aligns the two concepts. This alignment process may yield commonalities (e.g., both roses and violets have petals), alignable differences, which are related to commonalities (e.g., roses are red, violets are blue), and nonalignable differences, which are not related to commonal-ities (e.g., roses have thorns, violets do not). Put another way, alignable differences occur when the two concepts have different values (e.g., red v. blue) on a common dimension (i.e., color of petals). 1 Nonalignable differences occur when one concept possesses an attribute that has no correspondence in the other concept (e.g., thorns). This distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences is unique to structural alignment theory (Gentner & Markman, 1997); feature-based models of similarity (e.g., Tver-sky, 1977) distinguish only between commonalities and differences. The further distinction between alignable and nonalignable differences is critical because it provides the basis of alignment theory's predictions about how people evaluate similarity. A central claim of alignment theory is that " alignable differences are more salient than nonalignable differences " (Gentner & Markman, 1997, p. 50). As delineated below, this differential " salience " is manifest as a difference in the relative weighting …

Structural Similarity Exerts Opposing Effects on Perceptual Differentiation and Categorization: An fMRI Study

The Nature and Neural Correlates of Semantic Association versus Conceptual Similarity

The role of perceptual similarities in determining the asymmetric mixed-category advantage.

The Importance of Being Nonalignable: a Critical Test of the Structural Alignment Theory of Similarity Structural Alignment Theory

Functional Neuroanatomy of the Semantic System: Divisible by What?

Bridging the Semantic Latent Space Between Brain and Machine: Similarity is All You Need

Cognitive complexity explains processing asymmetry in judgments of similarity versus difference

Delineating Region-Specific contributions and connectivity patterns for semantic association and categorization through ROI and Granger causality analysis

Neural and behavioral similarity-driven tuning curves for manipulable objects

The Neural Basis for Spatial Relations

Similarity and categorisation: neuropsychological evidence for a dissociation in explicit categorisation tasks

Dynamic categorization rules alter representations in human visual cortex

Neural Processes Underlying the "Same"-"Different'' Judgment of Two Simultaneously Presented Objects- an Eeg Study

Where There is No Object Formation, There is No Perceptual Organization: Evidence from the Configural Superiority Effect

Is subjective perceptual similarity metacognitive?

Preserved Structure Across Vector Space Representations

Where Hypotheses Come From: Learning New Relations by Structural Alignment

A gradual transition toward categorical representations along the visual hierarchy during working memory, but not perception.

Categorization templates modulate selective attention.

EXPRESS: Effects of perceptual redundancy, conceptual redundancy and self-relatedness on categorical responses

Clarifying the Role of Alignability in Similarity Comparisons