In Defense of Spatial Models of Lexical Semantics

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 3444-3449

  Jones, Michael N ^a   Gruenenfelder, Thomas M ^a   Recchia, Gabriel ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

latent semantic analysis; metric axioms; semantic networks; Semantic space model; word association

Indexed keywords

SEMANTICS; VECTOR SPACES;

FREE ASSOCIATIONS; LATENT SEMANTIC ANALYSIS; LEXICAL SEMANTICS; METRIC AXIOMS; SEMANTIC SPACE; SEMANTIC SPACE MODEL; SEMANTICS NETWORKS; SPACE MODELS; SPATIAL MODELLING; WORD-ASSOCIATION;

SEMANTIC WEB;

EID: 84940240071     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Estes, W.K. (1975). Some targets for mathematical psychology. Journal of Math. Psyc., 12, 263-282.
2. Griffiths, T.L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211-244.
3. Holman, E. W. (1979). Monotonic models for asymmetric proximities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 20, 1-15.
4. Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2007). Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114, 1-37.
5. th Meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
6. Kanerva, P. (2009). Hyperdimensional computing: An introduction to computing in distributed representations with high-dimensional random vectors. Cognitive Computation, 1, 139-159.
7. Krumhansl, C. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85, 450-463.
8. 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.
9. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.
10. Maki, W.S., & Buchanan, E. (2008). Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic, and thematic knowledge. Psyc Bulletin & Review, 15, 598-603.
11. Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. JEP: General, 115, 39-57.
12. Nosofsky, R.M. (1991). Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 94-140.
13. Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197-237.
14. Recchia, G. L., & Jones, M. N. (2009). More data trumps smarter algorithms: Comparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 657-663.
15. Shepard, R. N., (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
16. Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41-78.
17. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
18. Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89, 123-154.