Upload
ngonguyet
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Lure of “Semantics”
• Semantic Features• Semantic Relatedness• Semantic Clustering• Semantic Networks• Semantic vs Episodic Memory• Semantic NodesSemantic Nodes• Latent Semantic Analyses• Etc• Etc….
Is this a Red Herring?• Many researchers have attempted to draw a distinction
between the effects of association and meaning by creating materials that are semantically but, ostensibly notmaterials that are semantically but, ostensibly not associatively related. However, given the small world nature of associative links, such attempts will be difficult if not futile. If only a few associative links separate mostnot futile. If only a few associative links separate most words, how can it be said that two words are not associated? The problem is not in showing that pairs of words are meaningfully related in some semanticwords are meaningfully related in some semantic classification, but in showing that meaningfully related pairs are not associated (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 2004 page 402-403)2004, page 402 403).
Outline
• Explore “Semantics” vs Associate Effects in Standard tasks
• Pit associative level information against deeper LSA estimates in predicting semantic priming
• Is “associative” information really implicitly activated, as PIER would predict?
• Importance of Large-Scale Databases for progress in the field.
• “Semantic” Priming in Naming and LDT
Reaction timeD C 500• Dog-Cat 500
• Chair-Cat 550
• Does this effect involve Meaning???Does this effect involve Meaning???
A i i d/ M iAssociations and/or Meaning
• Associative Co-occurrence• DOG-CAT
• Meaning/featural Overlap • DOG-CAT
Thank God, this Problem has been solved! Semantic Priming really reflects Semantics
• For example:• Thompson-Schill et al. (1998)Thompson Schill et al. (1998)• Hines, et al. (1986)
D M D i (1998)• De Mornay-Davies (1998)• Lucas (2000) review paper concludes that
– priming is indeed semantic and not associatively mediated
Wh t’ th id ?What’s the evidence?
• When associative strength is presumablyequated one finds more priming for words that q p gare also semantically related (Hines, et al., 1986; de Mornay-Davies, 1998; Thompson-y pSchill, et al, 1998)
But Remember what Nelson et alBut, Remember what Nelson et al. said….
• “The problem is not in showing that pairs of words are meaningfully related in some g ysemantic classification, but in showing that meaningfully related pairs are not g y passociated” (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 2004, page 402-403)., p g )
OOPs!
• Hutchison (2003) noted that each of these studies used items that were reliably more yassociated in the “semantic” condition based on the Nelson et al. norms.
Evidence for associative activation inEvidence for associative activation in “semantic” priming
• Mediated Priming Effects:• Mediated Priming Effects:(Balota & Lorch, 1986; McNamara & Altarriba, 1988)
“li ” “ i ” i “ i ”– “lion” “stripes” via “tiger”
– What are the semantic features overlapping between LION and STRIPES?
Balota and Paul (1996)Balota and Paul (1996)Semantic vs Lexical Level Priming
• Unambiguous Targets• Ambiguous Targets
• RR lion-stripes-TIGER• UR fuel-stripes-TIGER• RU lion shutter TIGER
• RR kidney-piano-ORGAN• UR wagon-piano-ORGAN
RU kid d ORGAN • RU lion-shutter-TIGER• UU fuel-shutter-TIGER
• RU kidney-soda-ORGAN• UU wagon-soda-ORGAN
Lexical-Level Association
Unambiguous lion TIGER stripes
P1 P2Target
Unambiguous lion TIGER stripes
P1 P2Target
Ambiguous kidney ORGAN piano
Semantic Level Representations
Unambiguous lion TIGER stripes
P1 P2Target
Unambiguous lion TIGER stripes
P1 P2Target
Ambiguous kidney ORGAN 1 ORGAN 2 piano
Prediction:
• If Semantic Priming reflects “Semantics” then one should find different patterns when pprimes converge on the same meaning (e.g., LION-TIGER-STRIPES) compared to ) pwhen primes diverging onto different meanings (e.g., KIDNEY-PIANO-g ( g ,ORGAN).
Short SOA (133 ms) NamingAmbiguous Unambiguous
Prime Type Mean Priming Mean PrimingPrime Type Mean Priming Mean Priming
UU 525 520
RU 519 6 512 8
UR 514 11 509 11
RR 510 15 507 13
P di t d 17 19Predicted
Difference
17
-2
19
-6
Across 4 experiments (N = 208) varying SOA, Task, and Stimulus
DegradationDegradation
A bi U biAmbiguous UnambiguousPred Obs Diff Pred Obs Diff22 23 +1 30 29 -1
Conclusion
• Unnecessary to assume that Semantic Priming Effects engage semantics, and g g g ,hence, Doug’s Pretty Cool!
What happens if now we forceWhat happens if now we force Meaning Selection?
• Relatedness DecisionsRelatedness Decisions
I th thi d d l t d i t th fi tIs the third word related in any way to the first two primes?
Short Duration Relatedness DecisionsAmbiguous Unambiguous
Prime Type Mean Priming Mean PrimingPrime Type Mean Priming Mean Priming
UU 1028 980
RU 844 184 839 141
UR 865 163 858 122
RR 828 200 718 262
P di t d 347 263Predicted
Difference
347
-147***
263
-1
C l iConclusions
• “Semantic” priming effects in word naming and lexical decision can be accommodated by ysimple lexical co-activation.
• Additional effects of “meaning” require theAdditional effects of meaning require the direction of attention to semantic-based representations, such as in relatednessrepresentations, such as in relatedness decisions.
What about Memory Performance?
• Memory researchers have historically argued that semantics is critical in guiding g g gretrieval during free recall tests
• This has become even more central inThis has become even more central in recent False Memory Studies
Semantics in the DRM Paradigm
Study List Recall
BED BEDREST TIREDAWAKE WAKEAWAKE WAKETIRED .DREAM .WAKE SLEEP—non-presentedSNOOZEBLANKETBLANKET...
RELAXDOZESHEET
BED
REST
DOZESHEET
BLANKET
BEDTIRED
SNOOZE
PILLOW
SLEEPAWAKE
SNOOZE
NAP
DREAM
SLUMBERSNORE
NOSE
WAKESNORE
ASSOCIATIVE STRENGTH IS CLEARLY A STRONG PREDICTOR OF FALSE MEMORYPREDICTOR OF FALSE MEMORY
(Deese, 1959; Roediger et al., 2001).
BUT, SAME OLE PROBLEM
CO-OCCURRENCE
SEMANTIC OVERLAPSEMANTIC OVERLAP
Hutchison & Balota (2005):A bi d U biAmbiguous and Unambiguous
Critical Items in DRMCritical Items in DRM• Replicate Summation Studies with False Memory y
Paradigm• List items related to either one meaning or two
i f bi dmeanings of an ambiguous word
6 Item List construction6 Item List constructionDRM Homograph• Snooze• Wake• Bedroom
• Wrong• Correct• Accurate
• Unconscious• Deep• Blanket
Accurate• Proper• Exact
A• Blanket• ---OR----• Slumber
• Answer• ----OR-----• Left
• Lay• Motel• Trance
• Starboard• Clockwise• Turn
• Lazy• Nightmare
Turn• Direction• Handed
12 Item List construction12 Item List constructionDRM Homograph• Snooze• Wake• Bedroom
• Wrong• Correct• Accurate
• Unconscious• Deep• Blanket
Accurate• Proper• Exact
A• Blanket• Slumber• Lay
l
• Answer• Left• Starboard
• Motel• Trance• Lazy
• Clockwise• Turn• Directiony
• NightmareDirection
• Handed
E i t 1Experiment 150
404550 6-rel
12-rel
253035
nt R
ecal
l
101520
Perc
en
05
10
drm hom drm homdrm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
E i t 1Experiment 150
404550 6-rel
12-rel
253035
nt R
ecal
l
101520
Perc
en
05
10
drm hom drm homdrm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
12 Item List construction12 Item List constructionDRM Homograph• Snooze• Wake• Bedroom
• Wrong• Correct• Accurate
• Unconscious• Deep• Blanket
Accurate• Proper• Exact
A• Blanket• Slumber• Lay
l
• Answer• Left• Starboard
• Motel• Trance• Lazy
• Clockwise• Turn• Directiony
• NightmareDirection
• Handed
Experiment 2:Mi d LiMixed List
DRM Homographg p• Snooze• Slumber • Wake
WrongLeftCorrect
• Lay • Bedroom• Motel
CorrectStarboardAccurateCl k i• Motel
• Unconscious• Trance
ClockwiseProperTurn
• Deep• Lazy • Blanket
ExactDirectionAnswer
• NightmareAnswerHanded
Experiment 2pe eMixed List
60
50
60 6-rel12-rel
30
40
nt R
ecal
l
10
20Perc
en
0
10
drm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
Experiment 3pe eMixed, 200 ms presentation
40
30
35
40 6-rel12-rel
20
25
30
nt R
ecal
l
10
15
Perc
en
0
5
drm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
Experiment 4pe eMixed, 80 ms presentation
30
25
30 6-rel12-rel
15
20
nt R
ecal
l
5
10Perc
en
0
5
drm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
What if one again forces selection?
• Subjects were asked to make “gist” based responses i e “rate how closelybased responses, i.e., rate how closely the test word is in meaning to the studied words”studied words”
R l t d D i iRelatedness Decision8.5 6-rel
8.1
8.5
Rat
ing
6-rel12-rel
7 3
7.7
tedn
ess
R
6.9
7.3
Mea
n R
elat
6.5
M
drm hom drm hom
List Items Critical Items
ConclusionsConclusions1. False Recall in the DRM paradigm occurs equally for lists that converge on the same meaning and diverge on different g g gmeanings.
2. Attention to semantics is necessary to find an influence of meaning.
3. Co-occurrence associative information can take one l i l f i i f b h “ i ” i i ffrelatively far in accounting for both “semantic” priming effects
and “semantic” influences in DRM.
Associative vs LSAAssociative vs LSAAccounts for “Semantic” Priming
Is there a lot more in semantic priming than i l i ti ff t If iblsimple associative effects. If so, possibly
LSA would pick up that extra something.
Hutchison Balota Cortese &Hutchison, Balota, Cortese, & Watson (in press)
• Directly pitted estimates from LSA against Doug’s associative estimates in predicting g p g“semantic” priming in a large database of 200 subjects and 300 prime-target pairs.j p g p
• Used regression techniques to partial out item covarying variablesitem covarying variables.
Results from Regression Analyses
LDT PronunciationFAS 13* 17*FAS .13 .17BAS .14* .05LSA 02 03LSA .02 .03
Conclusions
• After Controlling for a host of other variables, via regression techniques, , g q ,Forward and Backward Associative Strength surpasses LSA in predicting g p p gsemantic priming effects.
Do Associates Really Get ImplicitlyDo Associates Really Get Implicitly Activated?
• Current models of ISOLATED word recognition emphasize the processes leading g p p gup to some threshold, and then the goodies (i.e., the semantics/associates are activated).( , )
Do Associates Really Get ImplicitlyDo Associates Really Get Implicitly Activated?
• Current models of ISOLATED word recognition emphasize the processes leading g p p gup to some threshold, and then the goodies (i.e., the semantics/associates are activated).( , )
• However, PIER emphasizes the implicit activation of associates at both encodingactivation of associates at both encoding and retrieval, which is based primarily on episodic memory performanceepisodic memory performance.
QuestionQuestion
• Is there implicit activation of associates in route to recognizing a target word as g g greflected by Lexical Decision and Pronunciation Performance?
To Answer the Question
• Used the English Lexicon Project (elexicon.wustl.edu)( )
• A web-based repository of over 40,000 words and nonwords that were collectedwords and nonwords that were collected across 6 institutions (including Doug and USF) including over 1600 subjectsUSF), including over 1600 subjects.
The Proxy for Implicit Activation isThe Proxy for Implicit Activation is Connectedness
• Connectedness was defined as the number of associates produced from a word and the number of times a word was produced in response to other associates, based on Nelson et al.’s norms.
ResultsResults(Balota et al., 2004, JEP:General)
• Connectivity predicts both naming and LDT• Connectivity predicts both naming and LDT (p < .05) via regression analyses on the English Lexicon Project data replicatingEnglish Lexicon Project data, replicating and extending an earlier observation by Steyvers & Tenenbaum (2005)Steyvers & Tenenbaum (2005).
Conclusion
• Yup, it looks like there is implicit activation of associates and these can drive even isolated word recognition, strong support for a basic tenant of PIER.
General Conclusions
• The role of “Semantics” in standard semantic tasks appears to be accommodated by associative level information
• Associative strength as measured by Nelson et al. d h b j b f di i idoes a much better job of predicting “semantic” priming effects than LSATh i l id f i li it ti ti f• There is clear evidence of implicit activation of associations even in isolated word recognition, ala PIERPIER.