Hidden processes in structural representations: A reply to Abbott, Austerweil, and Griffiths (2015).

In recent work exploring the semantic fluency task, we found evidence indicative of optimal foraging policies in memory search that mirror search in physical environments. We determined that a 2-stage cue-switching model applied to a memory representation from a semantic space model best explained the human data. Abbott, Austerweil, and Griffiths demonstrate how these patterns could also emerge from a random walk applied to a network representation of memory based on human free-association norms. However, a major representational issue limits any conclusions that can be drawn about the process model comparison: Our process model operated on a memory space constructed from a learning model, whereas their model used human behavioral data from a task that is quite similar to the behavior they attempt to explain. Predicting semantic fluency (e.g., how likely it is to say cat after dog in a sequence of animals) from free association (how likely it is to say cat when given dog as a cue) should be possible with a relatively simple retrieval mechanism. The 2 tasks both tap memory, but they also share a common process of retrieval. Assuming that semantic memory is a network from free-association behavior embeds variance due to the shared retrieval process directly into the representation. A simple process mechanism is then sufficient to simulate semantic fluency because much of the requisite process complexity may already be hidden in the representation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).