Semantic significance: a new measure of feature salience

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Maria Montefinese (1)
  Ettore Ambrosini (2) (3)
  Beth Fairfield (1)
  Nicola Mammarella (1)
  
• 关键词：Conceptual organization ; Feature verification task ; Significance ; Accessibility ; Order of production
• 刊名：Memory & Cognition
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：April 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：42
• 期：3
• 页码：355-369
• 全文大小：427 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ashcraft, M. H. (1978). Property dominance and typicality effects in property statement verification. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 155-64. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90119-6 CrossRef
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2007). / Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Baayen, R. H. (2011). / languageR: Data sets and functions with “analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics (Version 1.4). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. / Journal of memory and language, 59, 390-12. CrossRef
  5. Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-57. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.3.340
  6. Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-49.
  7. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), / Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245-83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
  8. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Software] (R Package Version 0.999999-0). Retrieved from CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  9. Bertinetto, P. M., Burani, C., Laudanna, A., Marconi, L., Ratti, D., Rolando, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2005). Corpus e lessico di frequenza dell’italiano scritto (CoLFIS) [Corpus and frequency lexicon for written Italian]. Retrieved from www.istc.cnr.it/material/database/colfis
  10. Bourne, L. E., Jr., & Restle, F. (1959). Mathematical theory of concept identification. / Psychological Review, 66, 278-96. doi:10.1037/h0041365 CrossRef
  11. Casey, P. J. (1992). A reexamination of the roles of typicality and category dominance in verifying category membership. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 823-34. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.823
  12. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. / Psychological Review, 82, 407-28. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 CrossRef
  13. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-47. CrossRef
  14. Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 643-58. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643
  15. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163-01. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.163 CrossRef
  16. Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. / Cognitive Science, 23, 371-14. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00005-1
  17. De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Network and semantic properties. / Behavior Research Methods, 40, 213-31. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.213 CrossRef
  18. Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account. / Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 77-4. doi:10.1162/089892998563798 CrossRef
  19. Duncan, C. P. (1977). Effects of frequency on retrieval from a semantic category. / Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 10, 57-9. CrossRef
  20. Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627-35. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80042-8 CrossRef
  21. Funnell, E. (1995). Objects and properties: A study of the breakdown of semantic memory. / Memory, 3, 497-18. doi:10.1080/09658219508253162 CrossRef
  22. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-81. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256 CrossRef
  23. Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., Devlin, J. T., Kempler, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer’s disease. / Brain and Language, 57, 254-79. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1752 CrossRef
  24. Graves, W. W., Grabowski, T. J., Mehta, S., & Gordon, J. K. (2007). A neural signature of phonological access: Distinguishing the effects of word frequency from familiarity and length in overt picture naming. / Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 617-31. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.4.617 CrossRef
  25. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441-61. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90246-9 CrossRef
  26. Hampton, J. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. / Cognitive Science, 31, 355-84. doi:10.1080/15326900701326402 CrossRef
  27. Hampton, J. A., & Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. / British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491-16. CrossRef
  28. Harrell, F. E., Jr., & Dupont, M. C. (2012). / R package Hmisc. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  29. Izura, C., Hernández-Mu?oz, N., & Ellis, A. W. (2005). Category norms for 500 Spanish words in five semantic categories. / Behavior Research Methods, 37, 385-97. doi:10.3758/BF03192708 CrossRef
  30. Laisney, M., Giffard, B., Belliard, S., de la Sayette, V., Desgranges, B., & Eustache, F. (2009). When the zebra loses its stripes: Semantic priming in early Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia. / Cortex, 47, 35-6. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2009.11.001 CrossRef
  31. Larochelle, S., & Pineau, H. (1994). Determinants of response times in the semantic verification task. / Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 796-23. CrossRef
  32. López-Chávez, J., & Strassburger Frías, C. (1987). Otro cálculo del índice de disponibilidad léxica [Another index for calculating lexical availability]. In / Presente, y perspectiva de la investigación computacional en México: Actas del IV Simposio de la Asociación Mexicana de Lingüística Aplicada. Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM.
  33. Marques, J. F. (2005). Naming from definition: The role of feature type and feature distinctiveness. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58A, 603-11. doi:10.1080/02724980443000106 CrossRef
  34. Marques, J. F. (2007). The general/specific breakdown of semantic memory and the nature of superordinate knowledge: Insights from superordinate and basic-level feature norms. / Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 879-03. doi:10.1080/02643290701789436 CrossRef
  35. McCloskey, M. E. (1980). The stimulus familiarity problem in semantic memory research. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 485-02. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90330-8 CrossRef
  36. McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: Some insights from feature-based connectionist attractor networks. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), / The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 45, pp. 41-6). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  37. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Cho, M. J., & McNorgan, C. (2003, September). / Distinguishing knowledge of living and nonliving things is computed quickly from concept names, and vice versa. Poster presented at the Thirteenth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Granada, Spain.
  38. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. / Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-59.
  39. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. / Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 360-73. doi:10.1037/h0087323 CrossRef
  40. McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-30. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.99 CrossRef
  41. McRae, K., Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). On the roles of frequency and lexical access in word naming. / Journal of Memory an Language, 29, 43-5. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90009-O CrossRef
  42. Mechelli, J. F., Cappa, S. F., & Sartori, G. (2011). Naming from definition, semantic relevance and feature type: The effects of aging and Alzheimer’s disease. / Neuropsychology, 25, 105-3. doi:10.1037/a0020417 CrossRef
  43. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013). Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian. / Behavior Research Methods, 45, 440-61. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0263-4 CrossRef
  44. Perri, R., Zannino, G. D., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. A. (2011). Semantic priming for coordinate distant concepts in Alzheimer’s disease patients. / Neuropsychologia, 49, 839-47. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.035 CrossRef
  45. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161-67. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.161 CrossRef
  46. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. / Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413-25. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002 CrossRef
  47. R Development Core Team. (2012). / R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL www.R-project.org/
  48. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. / Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-05. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 CrossRef
  49. Sartori, G., Gnoato, F., Mariani, I., Prioni, S., & Lombardi, L. (2007). Semantic relevance, domain specificity and the sensory/functional theory of category specificity. / Neuropsychologia, 45, 966-76. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.08.028 CrossRef
  50. Sartori, G., & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. / Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 439-52. doi:10.1162/089892904322926773 CrossRef
  51. Sartori, G., Lombardi, L., & Mattiuzzi, L. (2005). Semantic relevance best predicts normal and abnormal name retrieval. / Neuropsychologia, 43, 754-70. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.08.001 CrossRef
  52. Sartori, G., Mameli, F., Polezzi, D., & Lombardi, L. (2006). An ERP study of low and high relevance semantic features. / Brain Research Bullettin, 69, 182-86. doi:10.1016/ j.brainresbull.2005.11.021 CrossRef
  53. Sartori, G., Polezzi, D., Mameli, F., & Lombardi, L. (2005). Feature type effects in semantic memory: An event related potentials study. / Neuroscience Letters, 390, 139-44. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.08.015 CrossRef
  54. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). / Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  55. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. / Psychological Review, 81, 214-41. doi:10.1037/h0036351 CrossRef
  56. Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2001). Representing properties locally. / Cognitive Psychology, 43, 129-69. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0754 CrossRef
  57. Taylor, K. I., Moss, H. E., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). The interplay between distinctiveness and intercorrelation in the automatic activation of word meaning. In / Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society (Vol. 9, p. 109). Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society.
  58. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. / Psychological Review, 84, 327-52. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 CrossRef
  59. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. / Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244-52. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01651-X CrossRef
  60. Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. / Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289-35. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.10.003 CrossRef
  61. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic system hypothesis. / Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422-88. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001 CrossRef
  62. Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word–nonword classification time. / Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 143-54. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90110-X CrossRef
  63. Zannino, G. D., Perri, R., Pasqualetti, P., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, A. G. (2006). Analysis of the semantic representations of living and nonliving concepts: A normative study. / Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 515-40. doi:10.1080/02643290542000067 CrossRef
  64. Zannino, G. D., Perri, R., Pasqualetti, P., Di Paola, M., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. A. (2006). The role of semantic distance in category-specific impairments for living things: Evidence from a case of semantic dementia. / Neuropsychologia, 44, 1017-028. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.006 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Maria Montefinese (1)
  Ettore Ambrosini (2) (3)
  Beth Fairfield (1)
  Nicola Mammarella (1)
  
  1. Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences, University of Chieti, Via dei Vestini 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy
  2. Department of Neuroscience and Imaging, University G. d’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
  3. Institute for Advanced Biomedical Technologies (ITAB), Foundation University G. d’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
  
• ISSN：1532-5946

文摘

According to the feature-based model of semantic memory, concepts are described by a set of semantic features that contribute, with different weights, to the meaning of a concept. Interestingly, this theoretical framework has introduced numerous dimensions to describe semantic features. Recently, we proposed a new parameter to measure the importance of a semantic feature for the conceptual representation—that is, semantic significance. Here, with speeded verification tasks, we tested the predictive value of our index and investigated the relative roles of conceptual and featural dimensions on the participants-performance. The results showed that semantic significance is a good predictor of participants-verification latencies and suggested that it efficiently captures the salience of a feature for the computation of the meaning of a given concept. Therefore, we suggest that semantic significance can be considered an effective index of the importance of a feature in a given conceptual representation. Moreover, we propose that it may have straightforward implications for feature-based models of semantic memory, as an important additional factor for understanding conceptual representation.