Literature DB >> 28900903

The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics.

Jon-Frederick Landrigan1, Daniel Mirman2.   

Abstract

Current models and theories of semantic knowledge primarily capture taxonomic relationships (DOG and WOLF) and largely do not address the role of thematic relationships in semantic knowledge (DOG and LEASH). Recent evidence suggests that processing or representation of thematic relationships may be distinct from taxonomic relationships. If taxonomic and thematic relations are distinct, then there should be a cost associated with switching between them even when the task remains constant. This hypothesis was tested using two different semantic-relatedness judgment tasks: Experiment 1 used a triads task and Experiment 2 used an oddball task. In both experiments, participants were faster to respond when the same relationship appeared on consecutive trials than when the relationship types were different, even though the task remained the same and the specific relations were different on each trial. These results are consistent with the theory that taxonomic and thematic relations rely on distinct processes or representations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Semantic memory; Taxonomic; Thematic

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28900903      PMCID: PMC5811322          DOI: 10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  42 in total

1.  One cow does not an animal make: young children can extend novel words at the superordinate level.

Authors:  J Liu; R M Golinkoff; K Sak
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec

2.  Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects.

Authors:  Laurel J Buxbaum; Eleanor M Saffran
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Naming disorders and semantic representations.

Authors:  C Semenza; P S Bisiacchi; L Romani
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1992-09

4.  Neural mechanisms of object naming and word comprehension in primary progressive aphasia.

Authors:  Robert S Hurley; Ken A Paller; Emily J Rogalski; M Marsel Mesulam
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Integrating conceptual knowledge within and across representational modalities.

Authors:  Chris McNorgan; Jackie Reid; Ken McRae
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2010-11-19

6.  Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors.

Authors:  Daniel Mirman; James S Magnuson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

8.  Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification.

Authors:  Chia-lin Lee; Erica Middleton; Daniel Mirman; Solène Kalénine; Laurel J Buxbaum
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Predicting brain activation patterns associated with individual lexical concepts based on five sensory-motor attributes.

Authors:  Leonardo Fernandino; Colin J Humphries; Mark S Seidenberg; William L Gross; Lisa L Conant; Jeffrey R Binder
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Extracommunicative functions of language: verbal interference causes selective categorization impairments.

Authors:  Gary Lupyan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-08
View more
  1 in total

1.  Knowing what you need to know in advance: The neural processes underpinning flexible semantic retrieval of thematic and taxonomic relations.

Authors:  Meichao Zhang; Dominika Varga; Xiuyi Wang; Katya Krieger-Redwood; Andre Gouws; Jonathan Smallwood; Elizabeth Jefferies
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 6.556

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.