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

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 643-658

  Cree, George S ^a   McNorgan, Chris ^b   McRae, Ken ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conceptual structure theory; Connectionist attractor network; Distinctive features; Semantic memory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REACTION TIME; READING; RECALL; SEMANTICS; STUDENT;

CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 33746593396     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
2. Ashcraft, M. H. (1978). Feature dominance and typicality effects in feature statement verification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 155-164.
3. Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies. Memory & Cognition, 23, 1059-1082.
4. Bourne, L. E., Jr., & Restle, F. (1959). Mathematical theory of concept identification. Psychological Review, 66, 278-296.
5. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1-34.
6. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychological experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
7. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
8. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247.
9. Cree, G. S. (1998). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Statistical feature relationships and semantic similarity priming. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Ontario. London, Ontario, Canada.
10. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2001). A connectionist model of semantic memory: Superordinate structure without hierarchies. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. 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, 163-201.
12. Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23, 371-414.
13. Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, E. S., 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, 77-94.
14. Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychohgy, 18, 125-174.
15. 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, 254-279.
16. Harm, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: Insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 106, 491-528.
17. Harm, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
18. Hinton, G. E., & Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review, 98, 74-95.
19. Joanisse, M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology following brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 96, 7592-7597.
20. Joordens, S., Piercey, C. D., & Azerbehi, R. (2003). From word recognition to lexical decision: A random walk along the road of harmony. In F. Detje, D. Dorner, & H. Schaub (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 141-146). Bamberg, Germany: Institut für Theoretische Psychologie.
21. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
22. Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 203-208.
23. 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. 41-86). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 37, 547-559.
25. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 360-373.
26. McRae, K., de Sa, V., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-130.
27. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Devlin, J. (2002). The emergence of category-specific deficits in a distributed semantic system. In E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in brain and mind (pp. 115-148). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
28. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M., & Bunn, E. (1998). Two eyes of a see-through: Impaired and intact semantic knowledge in a case of selective deficit for living things. Neurocase, 4, 291-310.
29. Myers, J. L. (1979). Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30. Neely, J. H., & Keefe, D. E. (1989). Semantic context effects of visual word processing: A hybrid prospective-retrospective processing theory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 24, pp. 207-248). New York: Academic Press.
31. Pearlmutter, B. A. (1995). Gradient calculation for dynamic recurrent neural networks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 6, 1212-1228.
32. Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377-500.
33. Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785-794.
34. Quillian, M. R. (1962). A revised design for an understanding machine. Mechanical Translation, 7, 17-29.
35. Quillian, M. R. (1967). Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioural Science, 12, 410-430.
36. Randall, B., Moss, H. E., Rodd, J., Greer, M., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: Behavioral and computational studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 393-406.
37. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
39. Rumelhart, D. E., & Todd, P. M. (1993). Learning and connectionist representations. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110-114.
41. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Smith, E. E., & Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual combination with prototype concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 337-361.
43. Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485-527.
44. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Comparison processes in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.
45. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381-403). New York: Academic Press.
46. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
47. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, 244-252.
48. Warrington, E., & McCarthy, R. (1987). Categories of knowledge: Further fractionation and an attempted integration. Brain, 110, 1273-1296.
49. Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Grounding concepts in perceptual simulation: I. Evidmce from property generation. Manuscript submitted for publication.