Abstract
In recent years, latent semantic analysis (LSA) has reached a level of maturity at which its presence is ubiquitous in technology as well as in simulation of cognitive processes. In spite of this, in recent years there has been a trend of subjecting LSA to some criticisms, usually because it is compared to other models in very specific tasks and conditions and sometimes without having good knowledge of what the semantic representation of LSA means, and without exploiting all the possibilities of which LSA is capable other than the cosine. This paper provides a critical review to clarify some of the misunderstandings regarding LSA and other space models. The historical stability of the predecessors of LSA, the representational structure of word meaning and the multiple topologies that could arise from a semantic space, the computation of similarity, the myth that LSA dimensions have no meaning, the computational and algorithm plausibility to account for meaning acquisition in LSA (in contrast to others models based on online mechanisms), the possibilities of spatial models to substantiate recent proposals, and, in general, the characteristics of classic vector models and their ease and flexibility to simulate some cognitive phenomena will be reviewed. The review highlights the similarity between LSA and other techniques and proposes using long LSA experiences in other models, especially in predicting models such as word2vec. In sum, it emphasizes the lessons that can be learned from comparing LSA-based models to other models, rather than making statements about “the best.”
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The construction–integration model proposed by Kintsch is a spreading activation algorithm. First, a net is constructed with the neighbors of the words in a text. That net is expressed in a matrix which contains the similarities between each neighbor with the others. This matrix is iteratively multiplied by a vector that represents a meaning hypothesis. This process is carried out until the net is stable, in other words, until the change in the mean of the vector activation is lower than a parameterized value. The number of cycles is then the cycle when that value is reached (see Kintsch and Welsch 1991 for details of the original conception).
LSA usually requires more RAM than other models, but math libraries use to implement sparse matrices classes (with no zero entries) to perform the SVD calculations. This makes it possible to analyze big corpora in ordinary computers. Modern engines for large-scale data processing such as Spark allow for larger corpora as well. We assume that Gamallo and Bordag did not use high-performance techniques in that study.
The context unit in LSA is usually misunderstood. Influenced by the information retrieval field and the constrictions of the formats of some software packages, many researchers consider that LSA uses only whole documents (reports, chapters, sections, books, etc.) as a unit of analysis. For this reason, many studies use only that kind of document as context in the initial word-context matrix. This is not accurate. Paragraphs could be a better alternative for cognitive studies. The classical work of Landauer and Dumais (1997) already used paragraphs.
In David Marr’s levels of analysis, the computational level specifies what the system does, that is, the calculations that it performs. The algorithmic level describes how the system performs the calculations at the computational level, that is, it describes the formal representation for the input and output, and the algorithm (functions) for the transformation. The implementational/physical level describes how the representation and algorithm can be realized physically. However, the difference between computational and algorithmic levels is not too clear. Sometimes, computational descriptions are close to algorithmic ones and vice versa.
To calculate Sim(Jamaica, Russia) and Sim(Russia, Jamaica) in Tversky’s (1977) assumption, we must to adjust a set of parameters in its mathematical formula. To do that, we must to identify a priori which word has more features, Russia or Jamaica (if we know more about Russia or about Jamaica) and in what proportion. We think that identifying such parameters values in that formula using an LSA space representation of words would be automatic, because the vector length provides information about word familiarity (an indirect measure of features in a word).
However, note that arbitrary parameterization could result in an over-fitting situation, where modelers pick some parameters that result in a big adjustment to the cognitive process they are interested in, but the same parameters perform badly when accounting for more general cognitive phenomena. This is an open debate about modularization and generalization.
The fact that distributional models as LSA are currently textl-based does not mean that distributional models must be by definition exclusively linguistic. Lenci (2008) remarks that the contextual hypothesis that defines distributional models is not restricted to features extracted from linguistic context alone and could contain extralinguistic features as context (visual, emotional, communicative situations, etc). Probably, something similar to LSA can be applied to perceptual realities, as has been done with SVD or principal components for face and gesture recognition (Chin et al. 2006; Turk and Pentland 1991). Nonetheless, in this paper, to follow the argumentation of the presented studies, we consider that distributional models are exclusively textual-based only.
References
Abad FJ, Olea J, Ponsoda V, García C (2011) Medición en ciencias del comportamiento y de la salud. Editorial Síntesis, Madrid
Altszyler E, Mariano S, Fernández-Slezak F (2016) Comparative study of LSA versus Word2vec embeddings in small corpora: a case study in dreams database. CoRR abs/1610.01520
Andrews M, Vigliocco G, Vinson D (2009) Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychol Rev 116:463–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016261
Anguera MT (1977) Construcción de modelos en Psicología. Anuario de Psicología 16:35–60
Balbi S, Esposito V (1998) Comparing advertising campaigns by means of textual data analysis with external information. In: Mellet S (ed) Actes des 4es Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. UPRESA, Nice, pp 39–47
Balbi S, Misuraca M (2006) Rotated canonical correlation analysis for multilingual corpora JADT’06: Actes Des 8es Journées Internationales D’analyse Statistique Des Données Textuelles, pp 99–106
Balkenius C, Gärdenfors P (2016) Spaces in the brain: from neurons to meanings. Front Psychol 7:1820
Ballesteros S (1993) Representaciones analógicas en percepción y memoria: imágenes, transformaciones mentales y representaciones estructurales. Psicothema 5(1):5–17
Banjade R, Maharjan N, Gautam D, Rus V (2017) Pooling word vector representations across models. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, Budapest, Hungary
Baroni M, Lenci A (2009) One distributional memory, many semantic spaces. In: Proceedings of the workshop on geometrical models of natural language semantics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–8
Baroni M, Dinu G, Kruszewski G (2014) Don’t count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting versus context-predicting semantic vectors. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, ACL 2014, pp 238–247
Barque-Duran A, Pothos EM, Yearsley JM, Hampton JA, Busemeyer JR, Trueblood JS (2016) Similarity judgments: from classical to complex vector psychological spaces. In: Contextuality from Quantum Physics to Psychology, pp. 415–448
Barsalou LW, Santos A, Simmons WK, Wilson CD (2008) Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In: De Vega M, Glenberg AM, Graesser AC (eds) Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Beckage N, Smith L, Hills T (2011) Small worlds and semantic network growth in typical and late talkers. PLoS ONE 6(5):e19348
Bergamaschi S, Po L (2014) Comparing LDA and LSA topic models for content-based movie recommendation systems. In: International conference on web information systems and technologies. Springer, pp 247–263
Bestgen Y, Vincze N (2012) Checking and bootstrapping lexical norms by means of word similarity indices. Behav Res Methods 44:998–1006
Bhatia S (2017) Associative judgment and vector space semantics. Psychol Rev 124(1):1
Biemiller A, Rosenstein M, Sparks R, Landauer TK, Foltz PW (2014) Models of vocabulary acquisition: direct tests and text-derived simulations of vocabulary growth. Sci Stud Read 18(2):130–154
Binder JR, Westbury CF, McKiernan KA, Possing ET, Medler DA (2005) Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. J Cogn Neurosci 17:905–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929054021102
Biro I, Benczur A, Szabo J, Maguitman A (2008) A comparative analysis of latent variable models for web page classification. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Latin American web conference. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 23–28
Bolukbasi T, Chang KW, Zou, JY, Saligrama VK, Adam T (2016) Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 4349–4357
Burgess C, Nobel K (2017) Avoiding the comparing apples to oranges problem in model comparison. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the society for computers in psychology (SCiP). Vancouver
Cederberg S, Widdows D (2003) Using LSA and noun coordination information to improve the precision and recall of automatic hyponymy extraction. In: Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language learning at HLT-NAACL 2003-Volume 4. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 111–118
Chen RC, Lee YC, Pan RH (2006) Adding new concepts on the domain ontology based on semantic similarity. In: International conference on business and information, pp 12–14
Chen PN, Chen KY, Chen B (2011) Leveraging relevance cues for improved spoken document retrieval. In Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association
Chin TJ, Schindler K, Suter D (2006) Incremental kernel SVD for face recognition with image sets. In: 7th International conference on automatic face and gesture recognition. FGR 2006. IEEE, pp 461–466
Chiru CG, Rebedea T, Ciotec S (2014) Comparison between LSA-LDA-Lexical chains. In: WEBIST (2), pp 255–262
Chwilla DJ, Kolk HH (2002) Three-step priming in lexical decision. Mem Cogn 30(2):217–225
Cooper RP, Peebles D (2018) On the relation between marr’s levels: a response to blokpoel (2017). Top Cogn Sci 10(3):649–653
Dascalu M, McNamara DS, Crossley S, Trausan-Matu S (2016) Age of exposure: a model of word learning. In: Thirtieth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence
Denhière GY, Lemaire B (2004) A computational model of children’s semantic memory. In: Forbus K, Gentner D, Regier YT (eds) Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Chicago, pp 297–302
Edelman S (1995) Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes. Mind Mach 5(1):45–68
Elman JL (1993) Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition 48(1):71–99
Elvevåg B, Foltz PW, Rosenstein M, DeLisi LE (2010) An automated method to analyze language use in patients with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives. J Neurolinguist 23(3):270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.05.002
Evangelopoulos NE (2013) Latent semantic analysis. Cogn Sci 4:683–692
Evangelopoulos N, Visinescu L (2012) Text-mining the voice of the people. Commun ACM 55:62–69
Evangelopoulos N, Zhang X, Prybutok VR (2012) Latent semantic analysis: five methodological recommendations. Eur J Inf Syst 21(1):70–86
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4(3):272
Feyerabend P (1974) Contra el método. Ensayo de una teoría anarquista del conocimiento. Ariel Quincenal
Field AP, Schorah H (2007) The verbal information pathway to fear and heart rate changes in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 48(11):1088–1093
Furnas GW, Gomez LM, Landauer TK, Dumais ST (1982) Statistical semantics: How can a computer use what people name things to guess what things people mean when they name things? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 251–253
Gamallo P, Bordag S (2011) Is singular value decomposition useful for word similarity extraction? Lang Resour Eval 45(2):95–119
García-Palacios A, Costa A, Castilla D, del Río E, Casaponsa A, Duñabeitia JA (2018) The effect of foreign language in fear acquisition. Sci Rep 8:1157
Gärdenfors P (1996) Conceptual spaces as a basis for cognitive semantics. In: Philosophy and cognitive science: categories, consciousness, and reasoning. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 159–180
Gärdenfors P (2000) Conceptual spaces: on the geometry of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge
Glenberg AM, Mehta S (2008) Constraint on covariation: it’s not meaning. Italian J Linguist 20:33–53
Goldberg Y, Levy O (2014) word2vec Explained: deriving Mikolov et al.’s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722
Griffiths TL, Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB (2007) Topics in semantic representation. Psychol Rev 114(2):211
Günther F, Dudschig C, Kaup B (2016) Latent semantic analysis cosines as a cognitive similarity measure: evidence from priming studies. Quart J Exp Psychol 69(4):626–653
Günther F, Dudschig C, Kaup B (2018) Symbol grounding without direct experience: Do words inherit sensorimotor activation from purely linguistic context? Cogn Sci. 42:336–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12549
Günther F, Rinaldi L, Marelli M (2019) Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspect Psychol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861372
Hadley RF (2004) On the proper treatment of semantic systematicity. Mind Mach 14:145–172
Haig BD (2013) Analogical modeling: a strategy for developing theories in psychology. Front Psychol 4:348
Harnad S (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42:335–346
Hauk O, Johnsrude I, Pulvermüller F (2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41(2):301–307
Hintzman DL (1984) MINERVA 2: a simulation model of human memory. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 16(2):96–101
Hoffman P, Rogers TT, Lambon Ralph MA (2011) Semantic diversity accounts for the “missing” word frequency effect in stroke aphasia: insights using a novel method to quantify contextual variability in meaning. J Cogn Neurosci 23(9):2432–2446
Hoffman P, Ralph MAL, Rogers TT (2013) Semantic diversity: a measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behav Res Methods 45(3):718–730
Hoffman P, McClelland JL, Lambon Ralph MA (2018) Concepts, control and context: a connectionist account of normal and disordered semantic cognition. Psychol Rev 125(3):293–328
Hofmann MJ, Biemann C, Westbury C, Murusidze M, Conrad M, Jacobs AM (2018) Simple co-occurrence statistics reproducibly predict association ratings. Cogn Sci 42(7):2287–2312. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12662
Hollis G, Westbury C (2016) The principals of meaning: extracting semantic dimensions from co-occurrence models of semantics. Psychon Bull Rev 23(6):1744–1756. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1053-2
Hollis G, Westbury C, Lefsrud L (2016) Extrapolating human judgments from skip-gram vector representations of word meaning. Quart J Exp Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195417
Hu X, Cai Z, Wiemer-Hastings P, Graesser AC, McNamara DS (2007) Strengths, limitations, and extensions of LSA. The handbook of latent semantic analysis, pp 401–426
Huang P, He X, Gao J, Deng L, Acero A, Heck L (2013) Learning deep structured semantic models for web search using clickthrough data. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on information and knowledge management
Huettig F, Quinlan PT, McDonald SA, Altmann GT (2006) Models of high-dimensional semantic space predict language-mediated eye movements in the visual world. Acta Physiol 121(1):65–80
Jacobs Am, Kinder A (2018) Features of word similarity. arXiv:1808.07999
Jones MN, Mewhort DJK (2007) Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychol Rev 114:1–37
Jones M, Gruenfelder T, Recchia G (2011) In defense of spatial models of lexical semantics. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, vol 33, p 33
Jones MN, Willits J, Dennis S (2015) Models of semantic memory. In: Busemeyer JR, Wang Z, Townsend JT, Eidels A (eds) Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jones MN, Gruenenfelder TM, Recchia G (2018) In defense of spatial models of semantic representation. New Ideas Psychol 50:54–60
Jorge-Botana G, Olmos R (2014) How lexical ambiguity distributes activation to semantic neighbors: some possible consequences within a computational framework. Mental Lexicon 9(1):67–106
Jorge-Botana G, León JA, Olmos R, Hassan-Montero Y (2010a) Visualizing polysemy using LSA and the predication algorithm. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 61(8):1706–1724
Jorge-Botana G, Leon JA, Olmos R, Escudero I (2010b) Latent semantic analysis parameters for essay evaluation using small-scale corpora. J Quant Linguist 17(1):1–29
Jorge-Botana G, León JA, Olmos R, Escudero I (2011) The representation of polysemy through vectors: some building blocks for constructing models and applications with LSA. Int J Contin Eng Educ Life Long Learn 21(4):328–342
Jorge-Botana G, Olmos R, Sanjosé V (2017a) Predicting word maturity from frequency and semantic diversity: a computational study. Discourse Process 54(8):682–694
Jorge-Botana G, Olmos R, Luzón JM (2017b) Word maturity indices with LSA: Why, when, and where is procrustes rotation applied? Cognit Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1457
Jorge-Botana G, Olmos R, Luzón JM (2019) Could LSA become a “Bifactor” model? Towards a model with general and group factors. Experts Syst Appl 131(1):71–80
Kaiser HF (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23(3):187–200
Kakkonen T, Myller N, Sutinen E (2006) Applying latent dirichlet allocation to automatic essay grading. In: Salakoski T, Ginter F, Pyysalo S, Pahikkala T (eds) Advances in natural language processing, vol 4139. FinTAL 2006. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin
Karanam S, Jorge-Botana G, Olmos R, van Oostendorp H (2017) The role of domain knowledge in cognitive modeling of information search. Inf Ret J 20(5):456–479
Kenett YN, Wechsler-Kashi D, Kenett DY, Schwartz RG, Ben-Jacob E, Faust M (2013) Semantic organization in children with cochlear implants: computational analysis of verbal fluency. Front Psychol 4:543
Kintsch W (1998) Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kintsch W (2000) Metaphor comprehension: a computational theory. Psychon Bull Rev 7(2):257–266
Kintsch W (2001) Predication. Cognit Sci 25(2):173–202
Kintsch W (2007) Meaning in context. In: Landauer TK, McNamara D, Dennis S, Kintsch W (eds) Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 89–105
Kintsch W (2008) Symbol systems and perceptual representations. In: De Vega M, Glenberg A, Graesser A (eds) Symbols and embodiment. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, pp 145–164
Kintsch W (2014) Similarity as a function of semantic distance and amount of knowledge. Psychol Rev 121(3):559
Kintsch W, Bowles AR (2002) Metaphor comprehension: What makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Metaphor Symbol 17(4):249–262
Kintsch W, Mangalath P (2011) The construction of meaning. Top Cognit Sci 3(2):346–370
Kintsch W, Welsch D (1991) The construction-integration model: a framework for studying memory for text. In: Hockley WE, Lewandowsky S (eds) Relating theory and data: essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 367–385
Kireyev K, Landauer TK (2011) Word maturity: computational modeling of word knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 299–308
Kivisaari SL, van Vliet M, Hulten A, Lindh-Knuutila T, Faisal A, Salmelin R (in press) Reconstructing meaning from bits of information bioRxiv 401380
Krumhansl CL (1978) Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: the interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychol Rev 85:445–463
Kuhlmann M, Hofmann MJ, Jacobs AM (2017) If you don’t have valence, ask your neighbor: evaluation of neutral words as a function of affective semantic associates. Front Psychol 8(343):1–7
Kundu A, Jain V, Kumar S, Chandra C (2015) A journey from normative to behavioral operations in supply chain management: a review using latent semantic analysis. Expert Syst Appl 42(2):796–809
Kwantes PJ (2005) Using context to build semantics. Psychon Bull Rev 12(4):703–710
Landauer T (1999) Latent semantic analysis (LSA), a disembodied learning machine, acquires human word meaning vicariously from language alone. Behav Brain Sci 22(4):624–625
Landauer TK, Dumais ST (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol Rev 104(2):211
Landauer TK, Foltz PW, Laham D (1998) An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process 25(2–3):259–284
Landauer TK, Kireyev K, Panaccione C (2011) Word maturity: a new metric for word knowledge. Sci Stud Read 15(1):92–108
Lebret R, Collobert R (2015) Rehabilitation of count-based models for word vector representations. In: Gelbukh AF (ed) CICLing (1), vol 9041. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, New York, pp 417–429
Lemaire B, Denhière G, Bellissens C, Jhean-Larose S (2006) A computational model for simulating text comprehension. Behav Res Methods 38(4):628–637
Lenci A (2008) Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Ital J Linguist 20(1):1–31
Levy O, Goldberg Y (2014) Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. In: Ghahramani Z, Welling M, Cortes C, Lawrence ND, Weinberger KQ (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 27. Curran Associates Inc, New York, pp 2177–2185
Levy O, Goldberg Y, Dagan I (2015) Improving distributional similarity with lessons learned from word embeddings. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 3:211–225
Littman ML, Jiang F, Keim GA (1998) Learning a language-independent representation for terms from a partially aligned corpus. In: ICML, pp 314–322
Lofi C (2016) Measuring semantic similarity and relatedness with distributional and knowledge-based approaches. Database Soc Japan J 14:1–9
Louwerse MM (2011) Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Top Cognit Sci 3:273–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x
Louwerse M (2018) Knowing the meaning of a word by the linguistic and perceptual company it keeps. Top Cognit Sci 10(3):573–589
Louwerse M, Hutchinson S (2012) Neurological evidence linguistic processes precede perceptual simulation in conceptual processing. Front Psychol 3:385
Louwerse MM, Zwaan RA (2009) Language encodes geographical information. Cognit Sci 33:51–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01003.x
Lund K, Burgess C (1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 28(2):203–208
Lund K, Burgess C, Atchley RA (1995) Semantic and associative priming in high-dimensional semantic space. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the cognitive science society, vol 17, pp 660–665
Mandera P, Keuleers E, Brysbaert M (2017) Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: a review and empirical validation. J Mem Lang 97:57–78
Mandl T (1998) Tolerant and adaptative information retrieval with neural networks. Technical report. Information Science-University of Hildesheim
Mandl T (1999) Efficient preprocessing for information retrieval with neural networks. In: Zimmermann HJ (ed) EUFIT ‘99. 7th European congress on intelligent techniques and soft computing. Aachen, Germany
Marr (1982) Vision, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, pp 18–38, 54–61
Martínez-Huertas JÁ, Jastrzebska O, Mencu A, Moraleda J, Olmos R, León JA (2018) Analyzing two automatic assessment LSA methods (Inbuilt Rubric versus Golden Summary) in summaries extracted from expository texts. Psicología Educativa 24(2):85–92
McGregor S, Agres K, Rataj K, Purver M, Wiggins G (2019) Re-representing metaphor: modeling metaphor perception using dynamically contextual distributional semantics. Front Psychol 10:765. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00765
McNamara DS (2011) Computational methods to extract meaning from text and advance theories of human cognition. Top Cognit Sci 3(1):3–17
Mehler A, Sichelschmidt L (2006) Reconceptualizing latent semantic analysis in terms of complex network theory. Presented at the second international conference of the german cognitive linguistics association. Munich, Germany
Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781
Millis K, Larson M (2008) Applying the construction-integration framework to aesthetic responses to representational artworks. Discourse Process 45(3):263–287
Mitchell TM, Shinkareva SV, Carlson A, Chang KM, Malave VL, Mason RA, Just MA (2008) Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science 320(5880):1191–1195
Nastase SA, Haxby JV (2017) Structural basis of semantic memory. In: Byrne JH (ed) Learning and memory: a comprehensive reference, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York, pp 133–151
Nicodemus KK, Elvevåg B, Foltz PW, Rosenstein M, Diaz-Asper C, Weinberger DR (2014) Category fluency, latent semantic analysis and schizophrenia: a candidate gene approach. Cortex 55:182–191
Olmos R, Jorge-Botana G, León JA, Escudero I (2014) Transforming selected concepts into dimensions in latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process 51(5–6):494–510
Olmos R, Jorge-Botana G, Luzón JM, Martín-Cordero JI, León JA (2016) Transforming LSA space dimensions into a rubric for an automatic assessment and feedback system. Inf Process Manag 52(3):359–373
Ozcan R, Aslandogan YA (2005) Concept-based information access. In: International conference on information technology: coding and computing. ITCC 2005, vol 1. IEEE, pp 794–799
Paivio A (1971) Imagery and language. In: Segal SJ (ed) Imagery: current cognitive approaches. Academic, New York, pp 7–32
Palmiero M, Piccardi L, Giancola M, Nori R, D’Amico S, Belardinelli MO (2019) The format of mental imagery: from a critical review to an integrated embodied representation approach. Cognit Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00908-z
Pexman PM (2017) The role of embodiment in conceptual development. Lang Cognit Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1303522
Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR (2013) Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav Brain Sci 36:255–327
Quesada JF, Kintsch W, Gomez E (2001) A computational theory of complex problem solving using the vector space model: latent semantic analysis, through the path of thousands of ants. Cognit Res Microworlds 2001:117–131
Recchia RG, Louwerse MM (2015) Reproducing affective norms with lexical co-occurrence statistics: predicting valence, arousal, and dominance. Quart J Exp Psychol 68(8):1584–1598
Riordan B, Jones MN (2011) Redundancy in perceptual and linguistic experience: comparing feature-based and distributional models of semantic representation. Top Cognit Sci 3(2):303–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01111.x
Rogers TT, McClelland JL (2004) Semantic cognition: a parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press, Cambridge
Sainz J (1991) Conceptos naturales y conceptos artificiales. In: En Mayor J, Pinillos J (eds) Pensamiento e inteligencia Tratado de Psicología General. Alhambra, España, pp 181–302
Salton G, Wong A, Yang C-S (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620
Schlaggar BL, McCandliss BD (2007) Development of neural systems for reading. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:475–503
Schunn CD (1999) The presence and absence of category knowledge in LSA. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the cognitive science society. Erlbaum, Mahwah
Shepard RN, Chipman S (1970) Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: shapes of states. Cognit Psychol 1(1):1–17
Shultz TR (2003) Computational developmental psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge
Sierra-Vázquez V (1986) Procesamiento visual temprano: Aspectos psicofísicos del análisis espacial de imágenes. In: Peraita H (ed) Psicología cognitiva y ciencia cognitiva. UNED, Madrid, pp 42–126
Simmons W Kyle, Hamann SB, Harenski CL, Hu XP, Barsalou LW (2008) fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. J Physiol 102(1–3):106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.014
Skoyles JR (2011) Autism, context/noncontext information processing, and atypical development. Autism Research Treat 2011:681627. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/681627
Squire LR (1987) Memory and brain. Oxford University Press, New York
Steyvers M, Griffiths T (2006) Probabilistic topic models. In: Landauer T, Mcnamara D, Dennis S, Kintsch W (eds) Latent semantic analysis: a road to meaning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Milton Park
Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB (2005) The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognit Sci 29(1):41–78
Thurstone LL (1931) The measurement of social attitudes. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 26(3):249
Tonta Y, Darvish HR (2010) Diffusion of latent semantic analysis as a research tool: a social network analysis approach. J Informetr 4(2):166–174
Turk MA, Pentland AP (1991) Face recognition using eigenfaces. In: Proceedings of IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, CVPR’91. IEEE, pp 586–591
Turney PD, Littman M (2003) Measuring praise and criticism: inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Trans Inf Syst 21:315–346
Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84(4):327–352
Van Dijk TA, Kintsch W, Van Dijk TA (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press, New York, pp 11–12
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature 393(6684):440
Wierzbicka A (1996) Semantics: primes and universals: primes and universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Macmillan, Oxford
Yan X, Li X, Song D (2004) A correlation analysis on LSA and HAL semantic space models. In: International conference on computational and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 711–717
Yeari M, van den Broek P (2015) The role of textual semantic constraints in knowledge-based inference generation during reading comprehension: a computational approach. Memory 23:1193–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.968169
Yeari M, van den Broek P (2016) A computational modeling of semantic knowledge in reading comprehension: integrating the landscape model with latent semantic analysis. Behav Res Methods 48(3):880–896
Yearsley JM, Pothos EM, Hampton JA, Duran AB (2015) Towards a quantum probability theory of similarity judgments. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8951:132–145
Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2003) Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychon Bull Rev 10(4):954–958
Acknowledgements
Some ideas of this paper were presented orally in the Psychology of Thinking and Comprehension: International Meeting in Honor of Prof. Juan Antonio García Madruga. We want to thank to the organization and to Prof. García Madruga for inviting us to debate these ideas. The presentation (Spanish) is in: https://canal.uned.es/video/5a6fa16eb1111f636a8b45bc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
The research involved no human participants or animals.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editor: Markus Kiefer (University of Ulm).
Reviewers: Markus Hofmann (University of Wuppertal) and a second researcher who prefers to remain anonymous.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jorge-Botana, G., Olmos, R. & Luzón, J.M. Bridging the theoretical gap between semantic representation models without the pressure of a ranking: some lessons learnt from LSA. Cogn Process 21, 1–21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00934-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00934-x