Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:14:08.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part 10 - Process and content in semantic memory

from Part VI - Conceptual Models of Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2009

Phyllis Koenig
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Murray Grossman
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
John Hart
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Dallas
Michael A. Kraut
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

To identify something is to group it with like objects called by the same name; that is, to place it in a category. This process begins in our earliest days of acquiring language: the toddler who learns that his spherical rubber toy is a “ball” will spontaneously use that same word for striped beach balls and fuzzy tennis balls. Categorization allows us to make assumptions about an object at hand based on experience with related ones; without this capacity we would be first-time visitors to our own planet with every new experience, unable to understand our surroundings. Hence categorization is essential to the organization of semantic memory, that is, our long-term representation of meaningful non-episodic information.

How does categorization take place? Semantic content knowledge (e.g. appearance, specific features, and functions) and ability to process that knowledge (e.g. select appropriate features and make comparisons) are both necessary. Consider this scenario: someone describes a 45-year-old female traffic cop who strictly disciplines her grandchild as “not what one usually thinks of as a grandmother.” Presumably the speaker is referring to characteristics commonly associated with grandmothers, e.g. being elderly, sedentary, sweet-natured, and eager to spoil their grandchildren. Of course, the speaker also knows that what qualifies someone as a grandmother is being a mother of a parent, age, appearance, and lifestyle notwithstanding. This scenario illustrates two primary categorization processes: similarity-based and rule-based (Smith et al., 1998).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, S. W. and Brooks, L. R. (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, U., and Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105: 442–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappa, S. F., Binetti, G., Pezzini, A., Padovani, A., Rozzini, L., and Trabucchi, M. (1998). Object and action naming in Alzheimer's disease and Fronto-temporal dementia. Neurology, 50: 351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1998). The interpretation of semantic category-specific deficits: what do they reveal about the organization of conceptual knowledge in the brain?Neurocase, 4: 265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1999) Sources of conceptual change. In Scholnick, E. K. (ed.), Conceptual Development: Piaget's Legacy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293–325.Google Scholar
Chertkow, H. and Bub, D. N. (1990). Semantic memory loss in dementia of the Alzheimer's type: what do the various measures measure?Brain, 113: 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farah, M. J. and McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic impairment: modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120: 339–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. F., and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini Mental State.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12: 189–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Watson, P. C., Powis, J., Patterson, K., and Hodges, J. R. (2001). Longitudinal profiles of semantic impairment for living and nonliving concepts in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13: 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrard, P., Patterson, K., Watson, P. C., and Hodges, J. R. (1998). Category specific semantic loss in dementia of Alzheimer's type: functional–anatomic correlations from cross-sectional analyses. Brain, 121: 633–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., Devlin, J. T., Kempler, D., and Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 57: 254–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, K. S., Patterson, K., Pratt, K. H., and Hodges, J. R. (1999). Relearning and subsequent forgetting of semantic category exemplars in a case of semantic dementia. Neuropsychology, 13: 359–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M., D'Esposito, M., Hughes, E., Onishi, K., Biassou, N., White-Devine, T., and Robinson, K. M. (1996). Language comprehension difficulty in Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and fronto-temporal degeneration. Neurology, 47: 183–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M., Smith, E. E., Koenig, P., Glosser, G., Rhee, J., and Dennis, K. (2003). Categorization of object descriptions in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia: limitation in rule-based processing. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(2): 120–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, M. K. and Palmeri, T. J. (2002). Are there representational shifts during category learning?Cognitive Psychology, 45: 482–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowlton, B. J. and Squire, L. R. (1996). Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Leaning, Memory, and Cognition, 22: 169–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Koenig, P., Smith, E. E., Glosser, G., DeVita, C., Moore, P., McMillan, C., Gee, J., and Grossman, G. (2005). The neural basis for novel semantic categorization. NeuroImage, 24: 369–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenig, P., Smith, E. E., and Grossman, G. (2006). Semantic categorisation of novel objects in frontotemporal dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 23: 541–62.CrossRef
Koenig, P., Smith, E. E., Moore, P., Glosser, G., and Grossman, M. (2007). Categorization of novel animals by patients with Alzheimer's disease and corticobasal degeneration. Neuropsychology.CrossRef
Kramer, J. H., Jurik, J., and Sha, S. J. (2003). Distinctive neuropsychological patterns of frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and Alzheimer's Disease. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 16: 211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaFleche, D. and Albert, M. S. (1995). Executive function deficits in mild Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology, 9: 313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambon-Ralph, M. A., McClelland, J. L., Patterson, K., Galton, C. J., and Hodges, J. R. (2001). No right to speak? The relationship between object naming and semantic impairment: neuropsychological evidence and a computational model. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13: 341–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libon, D. J., Xie, S. X., Moore, P., Farmer, J., Antani, S., McCawley, G., Cross, K., and Grossman, M. (2007). Patterns of neuropsychological impairment in frontotemporal dementia: A factor analytic study.
Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., and Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1013: 333–52.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., and Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100: 254–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L. and Schaffer, M. M. (1978). A context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85: 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanes, P., Goldblum, M. C., and Boller, F. (1995). The naming impairment of living and nonliving items in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, H. E. and Tyler, L. K. (2000). A progressive category-specific deficit for non-living things. Neuropsychologia, 38: 60–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oscar-Berman, M. and Samuels, I. (1977). Stimulus preference and memory factors in Korsakoff 's syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 15 (1): 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patalano, A., Smith, E. E., Jonides, J., and Koeppe, R. (2001). PET evidence for multiple strategies of categorization. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 1: 360–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, M. B., Mack, J. L., Geldmacher, D. S., and Whitehouse, P. J. (1996). Executive functions and Alzheimer's disease: problems and prospects. European Journal of Neurology, 3: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R. J. and Hodges, J. R. (1999). Attention and executive deficits in Alzheimer's disease: a critical review. Brain, 122: 383–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reber, P. J., Stark, C. E. L., and Squire, L. R. (1998). Cortical areas supporting category learning identified using functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95: 747–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., and Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111: 205–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silveri, M. C., Daniele, A., Giustolisi, L., and Gainotti, G. (1991). Dissociation between living and nonliving things in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurology, 41: 545–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloman, S. A. and Rips, L. J. (1998). Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 65: 87–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. E. and Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E. and Sloman, S. A. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory and Cognition, 22: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. E., Langston, C., and Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E., Patalano, A. L., and Jonides, J. (1998). Alternative strategies of categorization. Cognition, 65: 167–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27: 635–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K. and Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107: 829–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×