Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations

Rips, Lance J.; Shoben, Edward Joseph; Smith, Edward E.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80056-8

Cited by 767 publications

(574 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

516

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This assumption limits the content domains to which the theories as implemented here can be expeditiously applied, since only semantic fields seem to yield clean, interpretable, and replicable dimensions. 8 Previous research has shown that theory testing can be carried quite far through the use of semantic fields (e.g., Rips, Shoben, ~ Smith , 1973;Rumelhart G Abrahamson, 1973;Shepard, 1964;Shepard, Kilpatric, Cunningham, 1975;Smith, Shoben, Rips, 1974;Sternberg, Tourangeau, ~ Nigro, 1979;Tourangeau ~ Sternberg, in press). Nevertheless, the constraint of using a semantic field must be seen as limiting the generality of the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unities in inductive reasoning.

Sternberg¹,

Gardner²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments sought to discover sources of communalities in performance on three inductive reasoning tasks: analogies, series completions, and classifications. In Experiment 1, 30 subjects completed an untuned pencil-and-paper test in Which they were asked to solve 90 induction items with names of mammals as content. Items were equally divided among the three kinds of induction tasks noted above. The subjects' task was to rank order four response options in terms of their goodness of fit as completions for each particular item. Data sets for the three tasks were highly intercorrelated, and a single exponential model of response choice provided a good fit to each data set. In Experiment 2,36 subjects completed a timed test in which they, too, were asked to solve 90 mammal-name induction items. Items were again equally divided among the three kinds of induction tasks noted above. The subjects' task was to choose the better of two response options as a completion for each particular item. Data sets for the three tasks were again highly intercorrelated, and a single linear model of response times provided a good fit to each data set. In Experiment 3, 18 subjects were timed while solving 1,440 induction items with schematic picture, verbal, and geometric content. Items were apprpximately equally divided among the three kinds of induction tasks noted above. Both analysis of stimulus and of subject variance supported the notion of highly related performance algorithms on the three tasks. It was concluded that a common or highly similar model of response choice and of information processing can account for at least some of the previously observed relationships in performance across induction tasks. The implications of these findings for psychometric and information-processing accounts of induction and intelligence are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unities in inductive reasoning.

Sternberg¹,

Gardner²

1983

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

223

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The differentiation theory is appealing for several reasons: It can explain why basic-level advantages are not observed for atypical category members (Murphy & Brownell, 1985) and why, for some concepts (e.g., chicken), participants may be faster to categorize at both subordinate and superordinate levels than at the basic level (Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973). Furthermore its basic tenets have been tested in artificial category-learning experiments, in which the structural properties of the to-be-learned categories were ma-nipulated by the experimenters, with results generally supporting the theory (Mervis & Crisafi, 1982;Murphy, 1991;Murphy & Smith, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Object categorization: Reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage.

Rogers

Patterson²

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

166

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are generally faster and more accurate to name or categorize objects at the basic level (e.g., dog) relative to more general (animal) or specific (collie) levels, an effect replicated in Experiment 1 for categorization of object pictures. To some, this pattern suggests a dual-process mechanism, in which objects first activate basic-level categories directly and later engage more general or specific categories through the spread of activation in a processing hierarchy. This account is, however, challenged by data from Experiment 2 showing that neuropsychological patients with impairments of conceptual knowledge categorize more accurately at superordinate levels than at the basic level-suggesting that knowledge about an object's general nature does not depend on prior basic-level categorization. The authors consider how a parallel distributed processing theory of conceptual knowledge can reconcile the apparent discrepancy. This theory predicts that if healthy individuals are encouraged to make rapid categorization responses, the usual basic Ͼ general advantage should also reverse, a prediction tested and confirmed in Experiment 3. Implications for theories of visual object recognition are discussed.

show abstract

“…As has been emphasized by Woollams (2012), typicality effects are considered to originate from the semantic processing level. This proposal is supported by findings on response time modulations in various semantic tasks: Typicality effects with faster response times for typical than for less typical members of a category have been found in various offline semantic classification or category-verification tasks (Holmes & Ellis, 2006;Kiran, Ntourou, & Eubank, 2007;Kiran & Thompson, 2003;Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973;Rosch & Mervis, 1975;Sandberg, Sebastian, & Kiran, 2012;E. E. Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974), in animacy decision tasks (Morrison & Gibbons, 2006), and in tasks requiring spoken responses such as picture naming (Dell'Acqua, Lotto, & Job, 2000;Holmes & Ellis, 2006) or category fluency (Hernández-Muñoz et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

Judging the Animacy of Words: The Influence of Typicality and Age of Acquisition in a Semantic Decision Task

Räling

Hanne

Schröder

et al. 2017

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The age at which members of a semantic category are learned (age of acquisition), the typicality they demonstrate within their corresponding category, and the semantic domain to which they belong (living, non-living) are known to influence the speed and accuracy of lexical/semantic processing. So far, only a few studies have looked at the origin of age of acquisition and its interdependence with typicality and semantic domain within the same experimental design. Twenty adult participants performed an animacy decision task in which nouns were classified according to their semantic domain as being living or non-living. Response times were influenced by the independent main effects of each parameter: typicality, age of acquisition, semantic domain, and frequency. However, there were no interactions. The results are discussed with respect to recent models concerning the origin of age of acquisition effects.

show abstract

Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations

Cited by 767 publications

References 18 publications

Unities in inductive reasoning.

Unities in inductive reasoning.

Object categorization: Reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage.

Judging the Animacy of Words: The Influence of Typicality and Age of Acquisition in a Semantic Decision Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About