Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge

Tyler, Lorraine K.; Moss, Helen E.

doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01651-x

Cited by 413 publications

(373 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

328

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tyler and Moss (2001) argued that there are key differences in how correlated and distinctive features are related in living and nonliving things. They argued that there are few correlations among the distinctive properties of living things.…”

Section: Why Might Distinctive Features Have a Privileged Status?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Might Distinctive Features Have a Privileged Status?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gonnerman, Andersen, Devlin, Kempler, and Seidenberg (1997) used a con-nectionist attractor network to demonstrate how correlated and distinctive features might be lost at different rates during the progression of degenerative dementia, giving rise to different patterns of impairment at different times. The conceptual structure account builds on these claims (see Tyler & Moss, 2001, for a review).Distinctive features have an especially important status in the conceptual structure account of semantic organization. Tyler and Moss (2001) argued that there are key differences in how correlated and distinctive features are related in living and nonliving things.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, the conceptual structure account (Tyler & Moss, 2001), and the domainspecific hypothesis (Caramazza & Shelton, 1998). Theories of semantic processing have also been proposed, often framed in terms of connectionist networks, and include the work of Plaut and Shallice (1993), Rumelhart and Todd (1993), Rogers and McClelland (2004), and McRae, de Sa, and Seidenberg (1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.

Cree¹,

McNorgan²,

Masamune³

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

118

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present data from 2 feature verification experiments designed to determine whether distinctive features have a privileged status in the computation of word meaning. They use an attractor-based connectionist model of semantic memory to derive predictions for the experiments. Contrary to central predictions of the conceptual structure account, but consistent with their own model, the authors present empirical evidence that distinctive features of both living and nonliving things do indeed have a privileged role in the computation of word meaning. The authors explain the mechanism through which these effects are produced in their model by presenting an analysis of the weight structure developed in the network during training.Keywords semantic memory; distinctive features; connectionist attractor network; conceptual structure theory The issue of how word meaning is stored in the mind, and computed rapidly when needed, is central both to theories of language comprehension and production and to understanding knowledge deficits in patients with neural impairments. Although we are far from a complete understanding, significant progress has been made since Tulving (1972) first introduced the term "semantic memory." Much of this progress can be attributed to the implementation and development of semantic memory models and the advancement of tools (e.g., semantic feature production norms and word co-occurrence statistics) that enable the rigorous testing of predictions generated from these models.The first models of semantic memory were hierarchical network theory (Collins & Quillian, 1969) and spreading activation theory (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Although both have been extremely influential and have provided predictions for numerous behavioral studies, both have lost favor owing to a number of well-understood and documented flaws (see Rogers & McClelland, 2004, for a recent review). A number of theories of semantic structure have been proposed as alternatives, including the sensory/functional theory (Warrington & Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to George S. Cree, Department of Life Sciences (Psychology), University of Toronto at Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada. gcree@utsc.utoronto.ca. McCarthy, 1987), the conceptual structure account (Tyler & Moss, 2001), and the domainspecific hypothesis (Caramazza & Shelton, 1998). Theories of semantic processing have also been proposed, often framed in terms of connectionist networks, and include the work of Plaut and Shallice (1993), Rumelhart and Todd (1993), Rogers and McClelland (2004), and McRae, de Sa, and Seidenberg (1997). Current research focuses on discriminating among these models, integrating the structural and processing components, and developing them to account for behavioral data. NIH Public AccessOne way in which these models are being tested concerns whether concept-feature and feature-feature statistical relations are embedded in the semantic sys...

show abstract

Section: Why Might Distinctive Features Have a Privileged Status?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Might Distinctive Features Have a Privileged Status?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.

Cree¹,

McNorgan²,

Masamune³

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

118

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The key distinction between the two models is that the former further proposes that the semantic system is organized by types of knowledge, visual, or functional, whereas the latter assumes that the system is organized in relation to knowledge about categories of objects. In contrast to these models, other authors defend the existence of a single conceptual system not divided into categories and domains (Tyler and Moss, 2001;Tyler et al, 2003a,b). According to this view, semantic categories and domains emerge as the result of the similarity between the features of the concepts rather than as a result of explicit divisions of conceptual knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological evidence for a natural/artifactual dissociation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to test whether the differences usually found between the processing of visual stimuli corresponding to natural and artifactual domains reflect the different ways in which these domains are organized in the brain or are rather due to varying tasks demands. For this purpose, we designed two tasks in which subjects had to classify a series of line drawings. In one task (semantic categorization), the subjects were asked to categorize the stimuli as corresponding either to the natural or the artifactual class, and in the other (gender decision), the subjects had to decide if the names of the stimuli corresponded to either the masculine or the feminine gender. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and reactions times (RTs) were registered during the two tasks. We found both quantitative and topographical differences between ERPs elicited by natural stimuli and those by artifactual stimuli. In the 50-to 200-ms period, ERPs were more positive for the natural stimuli in the categorization task, but more positive for the artifactual stimuli in the gender decision task. In addition, natural stimuli elicited larger P600 and were associated with shorter RTs than artifactual stimuli in the categorization task. These results likely reflect differences concerning the relative difficulty of processing the stimuli of each domain in each task. In the N400 range, in contrast, there were differences between the two domains which were independent of task. In the two tasks, natural and artifactual stimuli elicited IntroductionThe organization of knowledge and its representation in the brain have been the subject of considerable interest in recent years. It is widely accepted that knowledge is grouped into semantic categories, and the division between the natural and artifactual (or living and nonliving) domains is one of the most obvious and traditionally studied distinctions. There is evidence suggesting that this distinction is not only cognitive but also has a neurological basis. Data from studies of braindamaged patients suggest that the two domains are processed, at least partially, in different areas of the brain. For example, patients with lesions in the left frontal area present more problems with images of inanimate objects, whereas B R A I N R E S E A R C H 1 0 6 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 1 8 9 -2 0 0 ⁎ Corresponding author.

show abstract

Neurolinguistics

Caplan¹

2017

The Handbook of Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge

Cited by 413 publications

References 56 publications

Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.

Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory.

Electrophysiological evidence for a natural/artifactual dissociation

Neurolinguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About