Title: Semantic organization
1Semantic organization
- Rosch and others have argued that our
categorization of the world is not an arbitrary
historical accident, but reflects our
psychological makeup, and hence is subject to
investigation
2Semantic organization
- Berlin Kay (1969) investigated colour names
across 100 different languages - order and frequency of colours used is consistent
across cultures - black white
- red
- green yellow
- blue
- brown
- purple pink orange grey
3Semantic organization
- I.e. If there are two words for colours they tend
to be black and white three black, white, and
red etc.
4Semantic organization
- Rosch-Heider (1972) experiment with
American-speaking subjects and members of the
Dani, a stone-age New Guinea tribe - Dani only had words for black and white
5Semantic organization
- Rosch built on a study by Brown Lenneberg
- Brown Lenneberg showed that the Zuni, whose
language categorizes colours different from
English-speakers, and North American English
speakers tend to remember focal colours (e.g.,
pure green) better than nonfocal (e.g., purple) - Focal colours are colours that are selected to be
good exemplars of particular colours
6Semantic organization
- Experiment 1.
- showed a single coloured chip, and were required
to recognize it from a set of 160 chips - both U.S. and Dani subjects performed better with
focal colours
7Semantic organization
- Experiment 2
- Dani required to associate different colours with
clan names did better with focal colours than
with non-focal colours - Conclusion
- same colours were focal for Dani as for US
subjects - therefore it is not language that makes certain
colours easier to remember, but their perceptual
salience
8Semantic organization
- Why do people form categories? (Rosch,1978)
- Cognitive economy want to obtain as much
information from the environment as possible with
the least effort - the perceived world is a structured world our
perceptions shape the concepts that we form
9Semantic organization
- Structure of categories
- categories have a horizontal and a vertical
dimension - horizontal--segmentation of categories at the
same level of inclusiveness (e.g., sugar maple,
silver maple) - vertical--different levels of inclusiveness
10Semantic organization
11Semantic organization
- Rosch argues that the basic level of organization
is the most useful level for many purposes
because it provides the most information for the
least effort
12Semantic organization
- evidence to support hierarchical distinction
- common attributes experiment
- presented 9 taxonomies (e.g., tree, bird, fish,
fruit, musical instruments, furniture, vehicle)
at 3 levels - participants were instructed to list all of the
attributes they could think of that were true of
the items listed - few attributes at the superordinate level
significantly more at the basic and subordinate
levels
13Semantic organization
- evidence to support hierarchical distinction
- motor movements
- subjects were presented same materials as in
previous study, and were asked to describe motor
movements - basic objects were the most general classes to
have motor sequences in common - similarity of shape and identifiability of
averaged shape were other lines of evidence to
support hierarchical distinction
14Semantic organization
- How should concepts be represented?
- Classical theory
- what specifies a concept is some combination of
semantic features (e.g., bird -- has feathers,
wings, lays eggs, has a beak, etc.) - this model has been formally developed by Collins
Quillian, and Smith
15Semantic organization
- How should concepts be represented?
- Classical theory
- problem is that many naturalistic concepts
(birds, fruits, games, tools, etc.) are not
rigidly defined - not all birds fly, not all games involve more
than one person, are competitive etc. - Wittgenstein argued that family resemblance may
be a more useful way to think about category
membership
16Semantic organization
- How should concepts be represented?
- The idea of family resemblance leads to the idea
that category membership is not determined by
rigidly defined categories but by resemblance to
a typical member - Rosch asked subjects to rate basic level words as
being typical or atypical of a category (e.g.,
robin, ostrich, chicken)
17Semantic organization
- How should concepts be represented?
- results subjects were very consistent in their
responses (i.e, robin rated as typical) - subsequent study showed that verification was
faster as well (robin is a bird is faster than
chicken is a bird) for typical than for atypical
categories - Rosch showed that typical instances had many
features in common with other members of the
category
18Semantic organization
- Semantic relatedness is a general finding in this
literature - prototypical members of a category are verified
quickly - related negative instances of a category are
verified more slowly (e.g., potato is a tree
takes longer to verify than does rifle is a tree)
Kintsch, 1980 - comparison process seems to be critical not a
simple category search
19Semantic organization
20Semantic organization
- Feature comparison models--Smith, Shoben, Ripps
(1974) - model assumes that concepts are represented by
bundles of features, separated into those that
are defining, and those that are characteristic - e.g., bird -- defining -- feathers, lays eggs
- characteristic -- flies, two legs, migrates
21Semantic organization
- Verify a sentence e.g., a robin is a bird
- model postulates that subject retrieves features
associated with robin and with bird if there is
a high degree of overlap respond yes - if there is less overlap begin a second slower
stage in which the defining features are
compared if there is overlap respond yes if
there is a mismatch respond no
22Semantic organization
- Semantic network theories
- Collins Quillian
- hierarchical memory structure model (see page 203
Radvansky) - critical assumptions cognitive economy and a
hierarchical model - features that are true of all animals such as
eating and breathing are stored at the highest
level
23Semantic organization
- Semantic network theories
- prediction takes longer to respond to a true
false question the further away the two types of
information are stored
24Collins Quillian 1969
25Collins Quillian, 1969
26Collins Quillian, 1969
- Results were consistent with the hierarchical
model with cognitive economy - However, Conrad (1972) showed that if you control
for relatedness, the level effect disappears - also model has difficulty accounting for
typicality effects of Rosch
27More recent semantic networks
- Spreading activation model of Collins and Loftus
- see your text
28More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- in 1932 Bartlett proposed that people remember
new material in terms of existing structures of
knowledge that he dubbed schemas or schemata - schemas represent some aspect of the environment,
or our experience, or beliefs - learning was conceptualized as an active process
in which people attempted to make sense of what
they had experienced - effort after meaning
29More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- Bartlett studied effects of schemas on memory by
investigating memory for a North American folk
tale (structured but unfamiliar material) - showed that the students tended omit material
that was strange to them or to distort it in ways
that fit their expectations - criticism--model too vague to be testable
30More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- with the advent of computers and the cognitive
approach to psychology scientists have begun to
actively investigate these knowledge structures - Minsky, Rumelhart, Schank, Abelson, Kintsch,
Anderson
31More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- characteristics of this approach
- this type of knowledge structure enables people
to make sense of partially observed or described
situations - e.g., the man bought a candy bar. People
typically would infer that in money was given in
exchange for the candy bar - e.g., the man drove in a nail
32More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- characteristics of this approach
- schemas have variables buying something in a
store knowledge structure represents that it
entails an exchange of money for a good however,
the amount of money or the good is left
unspecified - hammering there is a tool (hammer), an object or
recipient of the action (nail), an action
(hammering motion), and an agent or person
33More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- characteristics of this approach
- schemas can embed within each other
- schemas operate at many levels of abstraction
- schemas represent knowledge or belief
- schemas are active recognition devices
34More recent semantic representations
- Schemas, frames, and scripts
- Thorndyke (1977) studied the role of story
structure on recall - original version had a theme and then a narrative
that elaborated the theme - version 2 narrative then theme (after theme)
- version 3 narrative no theme
- version 4 randomly ordered
35Thorndyke 1977
36Thorndyke (1977)
- Conclusions
- level of recall depends upon
- degree of structure provided in the story
- level of importance of the information (hierarchy
level) - these two factors interact. Importance of
information is evident only in structured stories
37Schank scripts
- Schank and Abelson hypothesized that we have
developed scripts that represent commonly
experienced social events - e.g., going to a restaurant
- e.g., going to a bank, taking a bus
38Schank scripts
- Restaurant script
- Props restaurant, tables, menu, food, bill,
money, tip - Agents customer, waiter, cook, cashier, owner
- Entry conditions customer hungry, customer has
money - Results customer has less money, owner has more
money, customer is not hungry
39Schank scripts
- Restaurant script
- Scene 1 entering
- customer enters restaurant
- customer looks for table
- customer decides where to sit
- customer goes to table
- customer sits down
- Scene 2 ordering
- Scene 3 eating
- Scene 4 exiting
40Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- Visual agnosia (Lissauer, 1888)
- GL sustained a blow to the head
- complained of difficulty seeing
- examination showed normal visual acuity
- normal ability to copy objects
- recognition of objects was severely impaired but
it was not a general deficit e.g., unable to
recognize a whistle when presented visually, but
able to recognize a whistle from its sound
41Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- Tactile agnosia (Beauvais, 1978)
- patient unable to recognize objects to touch, but
could recognize objects when they were presented
visually - also patient was able to use objects
appropriately - these results suggest that semantic memory is not
a single unitary system, but has a number of
subcomponents associated with the modality of
input
42Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- Warrington Taylor (1978) showed that subjects
with brain injury made two types of semantic
errors in the visual modality - access disorder--some subjects had difficulty
recognizing a picture of an object (e.g., tennis
racquet) - degraded semantic store--other subjects
recognized the object, but had difficulty
recognizing which object was commonly associated
with the object (e.g., a tennis ball)
43Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- Warrington Shallice (1979) proposed the
following criteria to distinguish access versus
degraded semantic store impairments - consistency--if deficit is degraded semantic
store, there should be consistency across test
sessions (and type of test, Bayles) - On the other hand if the problem is one of
access, then one might expect that different
types of retrieval cues might lead to retrieval
of the item - priming--patient should not show priming effects
if there is a degraded store however, certain
primes might facilitate access to items if the
problem is one of access
44Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- Structure of semantic memory modality
specificity or a single semantic store? - one view holds that semantic memory consists of a
single amodal system - second view hypothesizes that there are separate
systems for verbal, visual, and other types of
information - the evidence at this point is not yet entirely
clear on this point
45Neuropsychology of semantic memory
- How are other types of information represented in
semantic memory? - Some evidence suggests that evaluative
information is processed and stored in a
different location than denotative information
46Case Description of AM
- Successful businessman prior to TBI
- Average to very superior general intellectual
functioning - Normal academic, attention, and executive
function abilities - Generally intact memory abilities
- Poor social judgment everything is positive
Park et al. (2001) Neuropsychologia
47(No Transcript)
48R. Temporal
Temporal
L. Amygdala
b
a
Amygdala
Frontal
c
d
49Attitude Priming Study of AM
- Purpose to investigate AMs evaluative rating of
words - Hypothesis impaired automatic evaluation of
negative but not positive evaluative stimuli
Park et al. (2001) Neuropsychologia
50Attitude Priming (continued)
- Method attitude priming paradigm
- Participants AM and 8 age - and education
-matched controls - Procedure
- Phase 1 rate single words as good or bad
- hypothesized positivity bias
Park et al. (2001) Neuropsychologia
51Rating of Words in Phase 1
52Response Latency to Phase 1 Words
53Phase 2
prime (pos or neg) 250 ms
blank screen 50 ms
target (pos or neg)
Task rate target as good or bad as quickly as
possible
54Control Priming Results Phase 2
55AM Priming Results Phase 2
56Summary of Attitude Priming
- Positivity bias in rating single words
- Slowed responses only to words rated as bad
- Priming in positive valence condition only
- Conclusion AM can automatically access positive
but not negative evaluative information
Park et al. (2001) Neuropsychologia
57Connotation Generation Study of AM
- Purpose to determine whether AM could access
negative evaluative information when directed - Task describe two positive and two negative
features of single words (e.g., coffee) - Same 92 words used as primes in Experiment 1
Park et al. (2001) Neuropsychologia
58Acceptable Good and Bad Connotations
59Semantic priming and AM
- Purpose of experiment
- to determine whether AM would show normal
semantic priming - prior research has shown that the latency to
respond to a target is facilitated when the prime
preceding the target is semantically related
compared to when it is unrelated - Method
- similar to Phase 2 of the first study
60Semantic priming and AM
- Method
- similar to Phase 2 of the first study
- task show prime-then target make a lexical
decision about target item (word/nonword)
61Semantic priming and AM
62Conclusions
- Conclusions
- AM impaired in his automatic processing of
negative evaluative information - positivity bias
- no priming for negative evaluative words
- AM not impaired in his denotative or semantic
processing of words - suggests a dissociation between these two aspects
of semantic memory