Week 8 - Semantic Memory Flashcards
Semantic Memory
semantic vs.. autobiographical (episodic memory)
Semantic memory
• Knowledge about the world
• What we know
Cognitive Neuropsychology – patients show
category specific problems
Hillis & Caramazza (1991)
• Task – name line drawings
• JJ - left temporal lobe and basal ganglia damage
– animals 91% correct
– other categories 20% correct
• PS – damage left temporal lobe and smaller
damaged areas in the right temporal lobe and
frontal lobes
– animals 39% correct vegies 25% correct
– other categories 95% correct
Category deficits = differences in
processing difficulty?
Greater number patients reported with living thing
category deficit
Possible explanation – living things less familiar and
usually more visually complex than non-living things
Processing Difficulty Hypothesis
Supporting evidence for this explanation:
Cognitive Neuropsychology patients
Normal participants – elderly and young participants –
living things harder even when items matched for
frequency, familiarity and prototypicality
Not all category deficits explained like this…
• JJ – greater problem with non-living than living things
• Number other studies demonstrated differences even
after controlling for processing difficulty between living
and non-living thing items
Some patients do show category specific deficits
Theories of Semantic Memory
Neural-structure principle Sensory/functional theory Domain specific hypothesis Correlated-structure principle Organised unitary content hypothesis Conceptual-structural account
Sensory/functional theory
Adheres to neural-structure principle
Information in brain segregated based on types of
information (perceptual vs. non-perceptual)
Information about an object represented in a
distributed fashion in brain depends on modality of
input
Allport (1985): each type of sensory information
represented in separate interconnected nodes
Nodes specific information: action-oriented
elements, kinaesthetic elements, visual elements,
tactile elements, and auditory elements
Sensory/functional theory
Warrington and Colleagues
Sensory/functional theory assumes
1) Organisation of semantic system based on modality
specific sub-systems
─ Visual/perceptual
─ Functional/associative
2) Naming living things – visual/ perceptual information
Naming non-living things – functional/ associative
information
Patient evidence in support of
Sensory/functional theory
Warrington & Shallice (1984)
• SBY – 75% correct non-living things – 0% correct living things • JBR – 94% correct non-living things – 4% correct living things – JBR – problem musical instruments, gem stones, metals, fabrics, food
Sensory/functional theory predictions
• 1) recognition of all living things depends
representations in the same semantic sub-system
(visual/ perceptual) therefore….
– Specific deficits within the living things category
should not be observed
• Patients show deficit for
– fruits/vegetables relative to animals
– Animals relative to fruits/vegetables
Warrington & Shallice - ok to have deficits outside the
living/ non-living things if these things have an
emphasis on the perceptual properties of an object
Fruits/ vegetables emphasis on colour
Sensory/functional theory predictions
2)
2) patients with category specific deficits (living vs..
non-living) will also have deficits for the modality or
type of information tapped into via the impaired
category
Problems providing information or knowledge about
visual/perceptual characteristics or
functional/associative characteristics
Initially patient data was consistent with the perdition
but more recent patient cases do not support this
prediction
Sensory/functional theory predictions
3)
3) patients with a deficit for visual/ perceptual or
functional/ associative knowledge should show a
categorical deficit that is most dependent on that type
of knowledge.
Living vs.. non-living things deficits.
Patients have shown greater deficit for visual/
perceptual knowledge than functional/ associative
knowledge but they do not show any performance
differences in naming living and non-living things.
Sensory/functional theory Argued that
Visual/ perceptual and functional/ associative
representations are interdependent so damage to
one would effect the other to some degree
Both living and non-living things have perceptual
and functional elements
Damage to one type of information will have some
type of impact on the other type of features
Evidence against the Sensory/functional
theory
Not well substantiated by patient data
Damage to perceptual or non-perceptual properties
damage categories most reliant on this type of
information
Not always the case
– Patient EW – problem with animals BUT ok fruits,
vegies, food, musical instruments
– Patients problems processing visual information
but do not have any category specific processing
deficit
Evidence against the Sensory/functional
theory
Lambon-Ralph et al (1998) – patient IW
– Select name from 5 choices given
– IW worse given perceptual than non-perceptual
information about an object
– IW – equivalent performance for living and nonliving
things (no category deficit)
– When asked questions about items – better at
providing non-perceptual information and provided
greater amounts of non-perceptual information
about an item when asked to provide a definition
– Number patient cases no longer show the living
vs. non-living thing deficit when familiarity is
controlled
`Evidence against the Sensory/functional
theory
Normals
Flores d’Arcais et al (1984; 1985) two studies
• Priming word pairs perceptually but not conceptually
related
• Paintbrush-carrot = priming
Fundamentally flawed
Pecher et al (1998) – using correct methodology – no
priming for perceptually but not conceptually related
items e.g., pizza-coin vs. pizza- hotdog
Problems with the Sensory/functional theory
Sensory/functional theory of semantics cannot
account for patients with sub-category specific
deficits
Early supporting studies (normals and patients)
methodological problems
Domain-specific hypothesis
Assumes evolutionary pressures resulted in
specialized and functionally distinct neural circuits
that process perceptually and conceptually distinct
categories of objects
Semantic knowledge is organised into categories
(domains) that reflect evolutionary salient distinctions
Specialised neural mechanisms for recognising
and understanding certain categories of
knowledge
Categories are those which require rapid and
efficient identification for survival and reproduction
Animals, fruits/vegetables, conspecifics and possibly
tools important for survival.
Evidence to support domain-specific
hypothesis
Accounts for patient data sparing categories of animals,
fruits/vegies or body parts or patients with just one
category impaired
Consistent with developmental studies:
– infants distinguish between living & non-living things
– 9 month olds – animals vs. non-animals
Domain-specific hypothesis predictions
1) Assuming distinct neural systems dedicated to
animals, fruits/vegetables, conspecifics and tools
then the other systems cannot compensate for the
damaged neural system.
Data from 16 year old patient with poorer
performance for living than non-living things had
this deficit since age 1.
More patient cases show deficits for living than
non-living things
Patients with specific-category deficits
Domain-specific hypothesis predictions
2
2) No association between a deficit for a type or
modality of knowledge and a conceptual deficit for a
specific category.
Patients with category-specific semantic deficits
present with equivalent impairments to visual/
perceptual and functional/ associative knowledge.
Domain-specific hypothesis predictions
3
3) Perceptual stages of object recognition models
might be functionally organised by domain specific
constraints and this predicts category specific visual
agnosia despite intact early visual processes
Supported by patients who have equivalent
impairments in their performance on tasks testing
visual/perceptual and functional/ associative
conceptual knowledge for living things BUT visual
agnosia for living things
Problems with domain-specific hypothesis
Lack specificity how knowledge is represented within categories Selective deficits categorical organisation but approach does not explain how things are represented within each category – Plants – food or poison – Animals – attack or food – Tools – function, developed later
Organised Unitary Content Hypothesis
OUCH
• OUCH unitary amodal semantic (conceptual)
representation system
• Members of semantic category share attributes
(humans breathe, composed certain type of
matter)
• Core semantic properties of an object tend to
be highly intercorrelated (breathing, being
composed of water, etc.)
• Category comprises highly correlated concepts
because of overlapping features
• OUCH unitary amodal semantic (conceptual)
representation system
• Members of semantic category share attributes
(humans breathe, composed certain type of
matter)
• Core semantic properties of an object tend to
be highly intercorrelated (breathing, being
composed of water, etc.)
• Category comprises highly correlated concepts
because of overlapping features
1) how concepts are represented within semantic
memory
Members of semantic category cluster close
together in feature space
Within a category representation occurs within
semantic space and is lumpy