In order to interpret the current state of a design, designers possess the powerful, spontaneous ability to restructure shapes in terms of emergent subshapes. In this paper a theoretical model of restructuring shapes is presented, one that aims to recognize explicit and implicit emergent subshapes computationally and to explain cognitively some critical phenomena of designers' visual behaviors. A computing procedure using two neuron-like connectionist networks and two attentional techniques serves as the vehicle to mimic some critical empirical phenomena. By a comparison of the computational and empirical variables embedded in the subshape viewing processes, the internal behavior of the model has been further clarified, and some hypothetical viewpoints have been cross-validated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CoyneR D, 1991, “Modelling the emergence of design descriptions across schemata”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design18427–458.
2.
CoyneR DNewtonS, 1990, “Design reasoning by association”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design1739–56.
3.
DinsmoreJ, 1992, “Thunder in the gap”, in Symbolic and Connectionist Paradigms: Closing the Gap Ed. DinsmoreJ, (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 1–23.
4.
FodorJPylyshynZ W, 1988, “Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis”, in Connections and Symbols Eds PinkerSMehlerJ, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 3–72.
5.
GeroJ SYanM, 1993, “Discovering emergent shapes using a data-driven symbolic model”, in CAAD Futures '93 Eds FlemmingUVan WykS, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 3–17.
6.
GregoryR L, (Ed.), 1987The Oxford Companion to the Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
7.
HintonG E, 1981, “Shape representation in parallel systems”, in Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (The Association of Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, BC) pp 1088–1096.
8.
KoslynS MKoenigO, 1992Wet Mind (Free Press, New York).
9.
LiuY T, 1993a, “A connectionist approach to shape recognition and transformation”, in CAAD Futures '93 Eds FlemmingUVan WykS, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 19–36.
10.
LiuY T, 1993b, “Recognizing emergent subshapes in design problem solving: A connectionist investigation”, in Education and Practice: The Critical Interface Eds MorganFPohlmanR W, (Association for Computer-aided Design in Architecture) pp 131–139.
11.
LiuY T, 1994a, “Encoding explicit and implicit emergent subshapes based on empirical findings about human vision”, in Artificial Intelligence in Design '94 Eds GeroJ SSudweeksF, (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 401–418.
12.
LiuY T, 1994b, “Symbolic CAAD versus connectionist CAAD”, in Languages of Design2325–346.
13.
LiuY T, 1995a, “A neuronlike model for encoding multiple shapes and overcoming the binding problem”Neural Network World5341–352.
14.
LiuY T, 1995b, “Some phenomena of seeing shapes in design”Design Studies16367–385.
15.
LiuY T, 1995c, “Problem decomposition on restructuring shapes in terms of emergent subshapes”, in Proceedings of the CAAD Futures '95 Conference Ed. TanM, (National University of Singapore, Singapore).
16.
McClellandJ LRumelhartD E, 1981, “An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account for basic findings”Psychological Review88375–407.
17.
MinskyM, 1963, “Steps toward artificial intelligence”, in Computers and Thought Eds FeigenbaumE AFeldmanJ, (McGraw-Hill, New York) pp 406–450.
18.
MinskyM, 1985The Society of Mind (Simon and Schuster, New York).
19.
MinskyM, 1991, “Logical versus analogical or symbolic versus connectionist or neat versus scruffy”AI Magazine (Summer) pp 34–51.
20.
MitchellW J, 1990The Logic of Architecture (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
21.
MitchellW J, 1992, “The uses of inconsistency in design”, in Principles of Computer-Aided Design: Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance Ed. KalayY E, (John Wiley, New York) pp 1–13.
22.
MitchellW J, 1993, “A computational view of design creativity”, in Modelling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design Eds GeroJ SMaherM L, (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 145–153.
23.
NagakuraT, 1990, “Shape recognition and transformation: A script-based approach”, in The Electronic Design Studio Eds McCulloughMMitchellW JPurcellP, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 149–171.
24.
NeisserU, 1967Cognitive Psychology (Meredith, New York).
25.
PalmerJAmesC TLindseyD T, 1993, “Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance19108–130.
26.
PoirsonA BWandellB A, 1990, “Task-dependent color discrimination”Journal of the Optical Society7776–782.
27.
Rumelhart D E, McClelland J L, the PDP Research Group (Eds), 1986Parallel Distributed Processing (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
28.
SimonH A, 1981The Sciences of the Artificialsecond edition (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
29.
SimonH ANewellA, 1962, “Computer simulation of human thinking and problem solving”, in Thought in the Young Child Eds KessenWKuhlmanC, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 113–131.
30.
StinyG, 1980, “Introduction to shape and shape grammars”Environment and Planning B7343–351.
31.
StinyG, 1990, “What designers do that computers should”, in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 17–30.
32.
StinyG, 1992, “Weights”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design19413–430.
33.
StinyG, 1993, “Emergence and continuity in shape grammars”, in CAAD Futures '93 Eds FlemmingUVan WykS, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 37–54.
34.
TanM, 1990, “Closing in on an open problem: Reasons and a strategy to encode emergent subshapes”, in ACADIA '90 Proceedings: From Research to Practice Ed. JordanJ P, School of Architecture, Montana State University, Big Sky, Montana, pp 5–19.
