Suppr超能文献

语义记忆再探讨:层次类别表征的实验测试

Semantic Memory Redux: An Experimental Test of Hierarchical Category Representation.

作者信息

Murphy Gregory L, Hampton James A, Milovanovic Goran S

机构信息

New York University.

出版信息

J Mem Lang. 2012 Nov 1;67(4):521-539. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.005.

Abstract

Four experiments investigated the classic issue in semantic memory of whether people organize categorical information in hierarchies and use inference to retrieve information from them, as proposed by Collins & Quillian (1969). Past evidence has focused on RT to confirm sentences such as "All birds are animals" or "Canaries breathe." However, confounding variables such as familiarity and associations between the terms have led to contradictory results. Our experiments avoided such problems by teaching subjects novel materials. Experiment 1 tested an implicit hierarchical structure in the features of a set of studied objects (e.g., all brown objects were large). Experiment 2 taught subjects nested categories of artificial bugs. In Experiment 3, subjects learned a tree structure of novel category hierarchies. In all three, the results differed from the predictions of the hierarchical inference model. In Experiment 4, subjects learned a hierarchy by means of paired associates of novel category names. Here we finally found the RT signature of hierarchical inference. We conclude that it is possible to store information in a hierarchy and retrieve it via inference, but it is difficult and avoided whenever possible. The results are more consistent with feature comparison models than hierarchical models of semantic memory.

摘要

四项实验研究了语义记忆中的一个经典问题,即人们是否像柯林斯和奎利恩(1969)所提出的那样,以层次结构组织分类信息并通过推理从中检索信息。过去的证据主要集中在对诸如“所有鸟类都是动物”或“金丝雀呼吸”等句子进行确认的反应时上。然而,诸如熟悉度和术语之间的关联等混杂变量导致了相互矛盾的结果。我们的实验通过向受试者教授新材料避免了此类问题。实验1测试了一组被研究对象特征中的隐含层次结构(例如,所有棕色物体都很大)。实验2向受试者教授了人工昆虫的嵌套类别。实验3中,受试者学习了新类别层次结构的树形结构。在这三个实验中,结果均与层次推理模型的预测不同。在实验4中,受试者通过新类别名称的配对联想学习了一个层次结构。在此我们最终发现了层次推理的反应时特征。我们得出结论,将信息存储在层次结构中并通过推理检索是可能的,但这很困难,并且只要有可能就会被避免。这些结果与语义记忆的特征比较模型比层次模型更为一致。

相似文献

1
Semantic Memory Redux: An Experimental Test of Hierarchical Category Representation.
J Mem Lang. 2012 Nov 1;67(4):521-539. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.005.
2
The hippocampal-entorhinal system represents nested hierarchical relations between words during concept learning.
Hippocampus. 2021 Jun;31(6):557-568. doi: 10.1002/hipo.23320. Epub 2021 Mar 6.
3
Conceptual Hierarchies in a Flat Attractor Network: Dynamics of Learning and Computations.
Cogn Sci. 2009;33(4):665-708. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01024.x.
4
A Bayesian generative model for learning semantic hierarchies.
Front Psychol. 2014 May 20;5:417. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00417. eCollection 2014.
5
The impact of category structure and training methodology on learning and generalizing within-category representations.
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2017 Aug;79(6):1777-1794. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1345-2.
7
Structure shapes the representation of a novel category.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Mar;50(3):458-483. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001257. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
8
Distributed representations of semantic knowledge in the brain.
Brain. 1995 Apr;118 ( Pt 2):441-53. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.2.441.
9
The Role of Shape in Semantic Memory Organization of Objects: An Experimental Study Using PI-Release.
Exp Psychol. 2015;62(3):181-97. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000284. Epub 2015 Jan 1.
10
Semantic categorisation of novel objects in frontotemporal dementia.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2006;23(4):541-62. doi: 10.1080/02643290542000094.

引用本文的文献

2
RealPic: Picture norms of real-world common items.
Behav Res Methods. 2021 Aug;53(4):1746-1761. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01523-z. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
3
The Representation of Coordinate Relations in Lexical Semantic Memory.
Front Psychol. 2020 Feb 11;11:98. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00098. eCollection 2020.
5
Contrasting Semantic versus Inhibitory Processing in the Angular Gyrus: An fMRI Study.
Cereb Cortex. 2019 Jun 1;29(6):2470-2481. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhy118.
6
Complexity, Training Paradigm Design, and the Contribution of Memory Subsystems to Grammar Learning.
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 8;11(7):e0158812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158812. eCollection 2016.
7
Is there an exemplar theory of concepts?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1035-42. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0834-3.
8
The organization of words and environmental sounds in memory.
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Mar;69:67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.035. Epub 2015 Jan 24.

本文引用的文献

1
"Object categorization: reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage" (Rogers & Patterson, 2007): a simplicity account.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(8):1615-32. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.660963. Epub 2012 Apr 23.
2
The timing of visual object categorization.
Front Psychol. 2011 Jul 15;2:165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00165. eCollection 2011.
3
The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition.
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Apr;4(4):310-22. doi: 10.1038/nrn1076.
4
Interactive memory systems in the human brain.
Nature. 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):546-50. doi: 10.1038/35107080.
5
A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning.
Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):442-81. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.3.442.
6
Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories.
Cognition. 1998 Jan;65(2-3):137-65. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00042-5.
7
Associative and similarity-based processes in categorization decisions.
Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):625-40. doi: 10.3758/bf03211304.
8
Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning.
Psychol Rev. 1994 Jan;101(1):53-79. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.1.53.
9
Studies of inference from lack of knowledge.
Mem Cognit. 1981 Jul;9(4):434-43. doi: 10.3758/bf03197569.
10
The role of familiarity in determining typicality.
Mem Cognit. 1982 Jan;10(1):69-75. doi: 10.3758/bf03197627.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验