Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Similarity Shapes Diagrams

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Spatial Cognition III (Spatial Cognition 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2685))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1164 Accesses

Abstract

Most diagrams communicate effectively despite the fact that diagrams as a group have a minium of conventions and a high tolerance for novelty. This paper proposes that the diversity and felicity of diagrammatic representation is based on three kinds of similarity between semantic propositions and spatial representations that allow people to interpret diagrams consistently with a minimum of effort and training. Iconicity is similarity of physical appearance, polarity is similarity in the positive and negative structure of dimensions, and relational similarity aligns structures so that elements correspond to elements, relations correspond to relations, and so on. In diagrammatic reasoning detected similarities are used to create correspondences between the visual characteristics of a diagram and its semantic meaning, and those correspondences are in turn used to make inferences about unknown or underspecified meanings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauer, M. I., Johnson-Laird, P. N. How Diagrams can Improve Reasoning. Psychological Science 4 (1993) 372–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertin, J. Semiology of graphics (second edition). (W. J. Berg, Trans.). The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Emmorey, K. The Confluence of Space and Language in Signed Languages. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, M. Garrett (eds.): Language and Space. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996) 171–209.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Emmorey, K. Space on Hand: The Exploitation of Signing Space to Illustrate Abstract Thought. In M. Gattis (ed.): Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA (2001a) 147–174.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. An Introduction to Language (sixth edition). Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gattis, M. Mapping Conceptual and Spatial Schemas. In M. Gattis (ed.): Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA (2001a) 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gattis, M. Structure Mapping in Spatial Reasoning. Cognitive Development (in press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gattis, M. Space as a Basis for Reasoning. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Purcell (eds.): Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Sydney (2001b) 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gattis, M. Perceptual and Linguistic Polarity Constrain Reasoning with Spatial Representations. Manuscript in Preparation (2001c).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gattis, M. Mapping Relational Structure in Spatial Reasoning. Manuscript under Review (2001d).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gilpin, A. R., Allen, T. W. More Evidence for Psychological Correlates of Lexical Marking. Psychological Reports 34 (1974) 845–846.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton, H. W., Deese, J. Does Linguistic Marking Have a Psychological Correlate? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10 (1971) 707–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huer, M. B. Examining Perceptions of Graphic Symbols Across Cultures: Preliminary Study of the Impact of Culture/Ethnicity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 16 (2000) 180–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kotovsky, L., Gentner, D. Comparison and Categorization in the Development of Relational Similarity. Child Development 67 (1996) 2797–2822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koul, R. K., Lloyd, L. Comparison of Graphic Symbol Learning in Individuals with Aphasia and Right Hemisphere Brain Damage. Brain and Language 62 (1998) 398–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Markman, A. B., Gentner, D. Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25 (1993) 431–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marzolf, D. P., DeLoache, J. S., Kolstad, V. The Role of Relational Similarity in Young Children’s Use of a Scale Model. Developmental Science 2 (1999) 296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morford, J.P. Insights to Language from the Study of Gesture: A Review of Research on the Gestural Communication of Non-signing Deaf People. Language & Communication 16 (1996) 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers, Volume II: Elements of Logic (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, eds.). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (1960/Original work published 1903).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. John Wiley, New York (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tversky, A. Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84 (1977) 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tversky, B. Cognitive Origins of Graphic Conventions. In F. T. Marchese (ed.). Understanding Images. Springer-Verlag, New York (1995) 29–53.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tversky, B. Spatial Schemas in Depictions. In M. Gattis (ed.): Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001) 79–112.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A. (eds.) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wertheimer, M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt, II. Psychologische Forschung 4 (1923) 301–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TP, UK

    Merideth Gattis

Authors
  1. Merideth Gattis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. FB 3 - Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Bremen, Bibliothekstr. 1, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Christian Freksa

  2. Fakultät für Informatik, Technishe Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748, Garching bei München, Germany

    Wilfried Brauer

  3. Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Str. 30, 22527, Hamburg, Germany

    Christopher Habel

  4. FB 1 - Psychologie, Universität Trier, 54286, Trier, Germany

    Karl F. Wender

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gattis, M. (2003). How Similarity Shapes Diagrams. In: Freksa, C., Brauer, W., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds) Spatial Cognition III. Spatial Cognition 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2685. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45004-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45004-1_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40430-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45004-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation