The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics
- 184 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSemantic memory Taxonomic Thematic
This study was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01DC010805 to D.M. and by Drexel University. We thank Allison Britt, Amanda Kraft, and Leah Friedman for help with data collection.
- Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In S.K. Newman & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia (pp. 32–60). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
- Bain, A. (1864). The senses and the intellect. London: Longman, Roberts, & Green.Google Scholar
- Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(December), 2767–2796. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology., 132(2), 163–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-34188.8.131.52 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Estes, Z., Gibbert, M., Guest, D., & Mazursky, D. (2012). A dual-process model of brand extension: Taxonomic feature-based and thematic relation-based similarity independently drive brand extension evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 86–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fernandino, L., Humphries, C. J., Seidenberg, M. S., Gross, W. L., Conant, L. L., & Binder, J. R. (2015). Predicting brain activation patterns associated with individual lexical concepts based on five sensory-motor attributes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 17–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Kalénine, S., Mirman, D., Middleton, E. L., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2012). Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1274–1295. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027626 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Landrigan, J.-F., & Mirman, D. (2016). Taxonomic and Thematic Relatedness Ratings for 659 Word Pairs. Journal of Open Pscychology Data, 4, 1–4.Google Scholar
- Lee, C., Middleton, E. L., Mirman, D., Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perceptual Performance, 39(1), 257–270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PLOS ONE, 7(8).Google Scholar
- McRae, K., & Jones, M. (2013). Semantic memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 206–219). Retrieved from http://books.google.co.il/books?id=ktFMAgAAQBAJ
- Merck, C., Jonin, P. Y., Laisney, M., Vichard, H., & Belliard, S. (2014). When the zebra loses its stripes but is still in the savannah: Results from a semantic priming paradigm in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 53(1), 221–232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mirman, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 65–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73184.108.40.206 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A, Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004a). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205–235. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.205 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O. K., Dell, G. S., . . . Coslett, H. B. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 8520–8524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014935108