Abstract
In the present study we examined whether semantic relations are atomistic unitary associations, or are complex concepts consisting of a number of relational elements. The complexity of the ownership relation was assessed by combining a relation verification task (“Many people own [cars/ comets]”) with the speed-accuracy decomposition procedure (Meyer, Irwin, Osman, & Kounios, 1988). The latter permits one to determine whether subjects achieve their final state of response accuracy in a single, discrete all-or-none transition, or whether the relevant processes yield partial information representing intermediate states of knowledge. The rationale was that the retrieval of a unitary relational link from a classical associative network should be an all-or-none affair. In contrast, a set of relational elements need not be processed as a unitary bundle, thereby allowing partial response-information states. In two experiments, we found evidence of such partial information (i.e., sensitivity in units ofd′), lending support to the notion that relations are complex. Furthermore, the results suggest that the accumulation of guessing sensitivity was linear over time, weighing against alternate theoretical interpretations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1990).Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brooks, L. T. (1987). Decentralized control of categorization: The role of prior processing episodes. In U. Neisser (Ed.),Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 141–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaffin, R., &Herrmann, D. J. (1988). The nature of semantic relations: A comparison of two approaches. In M. Evens (Ed.),Relational models of the lexicon (pp. 289–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, T. M. (1986). Semantic memory: Facts and models.Psychological Bulletin,99, 199–220.
Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
Collins, A. M., &Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,8, 240–247.
Crowder, R. G. (1976).Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Jong, R. (1991). Partial information or facilitation? Different interpretations of results from speed-accuracy decomposition.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 333–350.
Francis, W. N., &Kučera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glass, A. L., &Holyoak, K. J. (1975). Alternative conceptions of semantic memory.Cognition,3, 313–319.
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., &O’Dell, C. (1974). Production frequency and the verification of quantified statements.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 237–254.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 77–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hollan, J. D. (1975). Features and semantic memory: Set-theoretic or network model?Psychological Review,82, 154–155.
Jordan, M. I. (1986). An introduction to linear algebra in parallel distributed processing systems. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 365–422). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kounios, J. (1985).A new approach to the study of human semantic memory: Analyzing the intermediate products of rapid semantic processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Kounios, J. (1993). Process complexity in semantic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 338–351.
Kounios, J. (1994).On the continuity of thought and the representation of knowledge: RT, SAT, SAD, and ERPs reveal levels of structure in semantic memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kounios, J., &Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 459–479.
Kounios, J., &Holcomb, P. J. (1994). Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,121, 459–479.
Kounios, J., Osman, A. M., &Meyer, D. E. (1987). Structure and process in semantic memory: New evidence based on speed-accuracy decomposition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 3–25.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCloskey, M. (1980). The stimulus familiarity problem in semantic memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 485–502.
McCloskey, M., &Glucksberg, S. (1979). Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: Implications for models of semantic memory research.Cognitive Psychology,3, 313–339.
Meyer, D. E., & Irwin, D. E. (1994).Speed-accuracy decomposition based on intersensory facilitation, illusory temporal correlation, and extrasensory premonition: A reply to De Jong. Manuscript in preparation.
Meyer, D. E., Irwin, D. E., Osman, A. M., &Kounios, J. (1988).The dynamics of cognition and action: Mental processes inferred from speed-accuracy decomposition.Psychological Review,95, 183–237.
Miller, J. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results.Acta Psychologica,67, 191–257.
Ratcliff, R. (1988). Continuous versus discrete information processing: Modeling accumulation of partial information.Psychological Review,95, 238–255.
Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1982). Speed and accuracy in the processing of false statements about semantic information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 16–36.
Rips, L. J., Smith, E. E., &Shoben, E. J. (1975). Set-theoretic and network models reconsidered: A comment on Hollan’s “Features and semantic memory”.Psychological Review,82, 156–157.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., &Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions.Psychological Review,81, 214–241.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by NIMH Grant CEP 1 R29 MH45447-01A3 to the first author. The article is based, in part, on a master’s thesis by the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kounios, J., Montgomery, E.C. & Smith, R.W. Semantic memory and the granularity of semantic relations: Evidence from speed-accuracy decomposition. Memory & Cognition 22, 729–741 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209258
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209258