Meaning in Mind and Brain Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Four types of semantics in Pulvermuller’s paper (essential reading)

A

Referential
Combinatorial
Emotional-affective
Abstract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Referential semantics

A

Establishes links between symbols and the objects/actions they refer to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Combinatorial semantics

A

Enables the learning of symbolic meaning from context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Emotional-affective semantics

A

Establishes links between signs and internal states of the body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Abstract semantics

A

Generalises over a range of instances of semantic meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The ‘standard view’ of the mechanism of meaning

A
  • Amodal, symbolic semantic system

- Separate from action/perception systems

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Grounding problem

A

A person just knowing the (syntactic) relationship between symbols cannot be said to know the (semantic) meaning of these symbols

Needs a link between sign, concept and referential information

Brought to light by Searle’s Chinese Room argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Harnad’s hybrid model

A

Attempt to solve grounding problem:

1) Perceptions lead to iconic representations of objects
2) Shared features of many iconic representations of the same thing brings a grounded categorical representation
3) Further symbolic representations are built by combining grounded ones (zebra: horse with stripes)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Two problems with Harnad’s hybrid model

A
  • Not biologically realistic

- Ignores other types of meaning apart from object reference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Types of neurocognitive models for meaning

A

Symbolic model

Distributed model

Hybrid model e.g. integrated cell assembly (CA) model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Integrated cell assembly (CA) model

A

CA = distributed circuit that ‘carries’ symbols in a network

Strengths:

  • Biologically plausible(?)
  • Solves grounding problem(?)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sensorimotor grounding of meaning?

A

Concepts and meanings need to be grounded in motor action and/or sensory perception. At least for some symbol types, an ‘amodal semantic system’ is insufficient.

Neural reuse of APCs in accordance with Hebbian learning

Could explain how cortical circuits for concepts develop and why they have specific:

  • localisation
  • temporal dynamics
  • function
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evidence for sensorimotor role in meaning

A

1) Explains otherwise puzzling (behavioural, neuroimaging, lesion) evidence for:
- Information sharing between e.g. motor, visual, auditory cortices
- Semantic (conceptual) processing reflected by actions and perceptions e.g. ACE
- SPP plus N400 paradigm

2) Biologically plausible theory given brain structure:
- APCs are distributed, long-range and multimodal, but not randomly so
- Sensorimotor and mirror neurons

3) Consistent with biologically-constrained simulation data and their ‘emergent topographies’:
- Specialised ‘semantic hubs’
- Category-specific semantic areas

4) Allows for many ways of learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Action compatibility effect (ACE)

A

People respond faster to sentences if the meaning matches the direction of the response
e.g. towards/away from something

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Grounding transfer

A

aka ‘Symbolic theft’

Word-word correlation learning (as opposed to word-world):
Previously learnt word + novel word form → new semantic circuit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Grounding kernel

A

Required for grounding transfer:

A base vocabulary learnt in context of the action/object

17
Q

Semantic prediction and resolution

A

When people hear phrases strongly predicting an upcoming ‘critical’ word:

  • ‘Semantic prediction potential’ (SPP) = anticipatory brain activity precedes the critical word, partly in sensorimotor systems relevant to the word meaning
  • N400 during and after the critical word
18
Q

Objections to sensorimotor semantic grounding

A

Allegedly, effects are:

  • not reproducible
  • epiphenomenal
  • not functional/causal
  • contradicted by evidence for ‘double dissociations’
  • incapable of explaining abstract concepts
  • restricted to only association of information, not true semantics
  • task-specific (‘flexible’), not essential
  • small
19
Q

Failed objections to sensorimotor grounding

A

Allegedly, effects are:

  • not reproducible → nope
  • epiphenomenal → effects are automatic in ‘non-attend’ paradigms(?)
  • not functional/causal → behavioural, TMS, lesion studies show causal role;
  • contradicted by evidence for ‘double dissociations’ → semantic circuits actually explain these double dissociations
  • incapable of explaining abstract concepts → there are sensorimotor models aimed at doing exactly this
20
Q

Objections to sensorimotor grounding which are actually not objections to sensorimotor grounding

A

Allegedly, effects are:

  • restricted to only association of information, not true semantics → this is necessary even though not sufficient mechanism for explaining meaning (Hebbian learning, correlation and timing drives neuronal connection strength)
  • task-specific (‘flexible’), not essential → this flexibility is actually an important feature to model (different context-dependent modes of activating a semantic circuit)
  • small → this is expected and more valuable if we (wisely) assume a many:many relationship between cognitive process and brain structure rather than 1:1