Where is the Meaning in Standard “Semantic” Tasks?psychology.usf.edu/dnelson/files/Dave Balota...

Where is the Meaning inStandard “Semantic” Tasks?

Dave Balota

Taking a Walk through Doug’s Associative

N i hb h dNeighborhood

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.

Wh ’ h “S i ”Where’s the “Semantics”in Semantic Priming?in Semantic Priming?

• “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


P1 P2Target

Ambiguous kidney ORGAN piano

Semantic Level Representations


P1 P2Target


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





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





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


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


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


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


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 .17


LDT PronunciationFAS 13* 17*FAS .13 .17BAS .14* .05


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 Implicitly 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).( , )

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.

Collins & Quillian Collins & Loftus Smallworld structureQ

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.

Conclusion Cont.

• Large scale databases are particularly critical in an cumulative science when there are so many item level differences.

Where is the Meaning in Standard “Semantic” Tasks?psychology.usf.edu/dnelson/files/Dave Balota...

Documents

Transcript of Where is the Meaning in Standard “Semantic” Tasks?psychology.usf.edu/dnelson/files/Dave Balota...