LSA and Meaning: In Theory and Application

Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 467-479

  Kintsch, Walter ^a   McNamara, Danielle S ^b   Dennis, Simon ^c   Landauer, Thomas K ^d  

^a Universtiy of Colorado   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^d Pearson Knowledge Technologies   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950533764     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936399-32     Document Type: Chapter

References (23)

1. Anderson J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Dennis, S. (2005). A memory-based theory of verbal cognition. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 145-193.
3. Dennis, S. and Kintsch, W. (in press). Text mapping and inference rule generation problems in text comprehension: Evaluating a memory-based account. In F. Schmalhofer and C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). Lexical entries for verbs. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
5. Forbus, K., Gentner, D., and Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: Amodel of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19, 141-205.
6. Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., and Johnson, N. (2005). Summary Street®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 53-80.
7. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston:Houghton Mifflin
8. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., and Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
9. Griffiths, T. L., and Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5228-5235.
10. Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., Blei, D. M., andTenenbaum, J. B. (2005). Integrating topics and syntax. In L. K. Saul, Y.Weiss, and L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing system 17 (pp. 537-544). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Holyoak, K., and Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
12. Jones, M. N., and Mewhort, D. (in press). Representing semantic and syntactic information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review.
13. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173-202.
16. Kintsch, W. (in press). Howthe mind computes the meaning of metaphor:Asimulation based on LSA. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Landauer, T., andDumais, S. (1997). Asolution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
18. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., and Foltz, P.W. (2003). Automated essay assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 10, 295-308.
19. Lenat, D. B. (1995). Cyc:Alarge-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38, 33-38.
20. Mangalath, P., Quesada, J., andKintsch, W. (2004). Analogy-making as predication using relational information and LSA vectors. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, and T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Chicago: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Simon, H. A. (1969) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
22. Wade-Stein, D., andKintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333-362.
23. Wolfe, M.B.W., Schreiner, M. E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., et al. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and text by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.