Semantic Neighborhood Effects for Abstract versus Concrete Words

Studies show that semantic effects may be task-specific, and thus, that semantic representations are flexible and dynamic. Such findings are critical to the development of a comprehensive theory of semantic processing in visual word recognition, which should arguably account for how semantic effects may vary by task. It has been suggested that semantic effects are more directly examined using tasks that explicitly require meaning processing relative to those for which meaning processing is not necessary (e.g., lexical decision task). The purpose of the present study was to chart the processing of concrete versus abstract words in the context of a global co-occurrence variable, semantic neighborhood density (SND), by comparing word recognition response times (RTs) across four tasks varying in explicit semantic demands: standard lexical decision task (with non-pronounceable non-words), go/no-go lexical decision task (with pronounceable non-words), progressive demasking task, and sentence relatedness task. The same experimental stimulus set was used across experiments and consisted of 44 concrete and 44 abstract words, with half of these being low SND, and half being high SND. In this way, concreteness and SND were manipulated in a factorial design using a number of visual word recognition tasks. A consistent RT pattern emerged across tasks, in which SND effects were found for abstract (but not necessarily concrete) words. Ultimately, these findings highlight the importance of studying interactive effects in word recognition, and suggest that linguistic associative information is particularly important for abstract words.

[1]  Xu Xu,et al.  Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concept , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Brendan T. Johns,et al.  The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization. , 2012, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[3]  H. Chertkow,et al.  Semantic memory , 2002, Current neurology and neuroscience reports.

[4]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .

[5]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning , 2000 .

[6]  P. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) , 2014 .

[7]  Lori Buchanan,et al.  WINDSOR: Windsor improved norms of distance and similarity of representations of semantics , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[8]  Bradley G. Goodyear,et al.  Neural Correlates of Concreteness in Semantic Categorization , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  A. Paivio Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[10]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  E. Warrington,et al.  The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Windows executable software for the progressive demasking task , 2008, Behavior Research Methods.

[13]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[14]  Rutvik H. Desai,et al.  The neurobiology of semantic memory , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[16]  Ingrid R. Olson,et al.  Converging evidence from fMRI and aphasia that the left temporoparietal cortex has an essential role in representing abstract semantic knowledge , 2015, Cortex.

[17]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Situating Abstract Concepts , 2004 .

[18]  Michael N Jones,et al.  Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. , 2007, Psychological review.

[19]  Cyrus Shaoul,et al.  Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[20]  P. Hoffman,et al.  Reverse concreteness effects are not a typical feature of semantic dementia: evidence for the hub-and-spoke model of conceptual representation. , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[21]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  OrBEAGLE: Integrating Orthography into a Holographic Model of the Lexicon , 2011, ICANN.

[22]  T. Rogers,et al.  Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[23]  K. Wiemer-hastings,et al.  Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts , 2005 .

[24]  P. Schwanenflugel Why are Abstract Concepts Hard to Understand , 2013 .

[25]  M. Bradley,et al.  Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings , 1999 .

[26]  Guy Dove Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  J Grainger,et al.  Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Robert M. French,et al.  Four Problems with Extracting Human Semantics from Large Text Corpora , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[29]  U. Frith Beneath the Surface of Developmental Dyslexia , 2017 .

[30]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Lenka Zdrazilova,et al.  Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  E. Jefferies,et al.  Anterior temporal lobes mediate semantic representation: Mimicking semantic dementia by using rTMS in normal participants , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  A. Glenberg What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[34]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[36]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[37]  Anna M. Borghi,et al.  Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings , 2009 .

[38]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[39]  L. Barsalou Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[40]  T. Shallice,et al.  Word Recognition in a Phonemic Dyslexic Patient , 1975, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  The semantic richness of abstract concepts , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[42]  Daniel Mirman,et al.  Attractor Dynamics and Semantic Neighborhood Density: Processing Is Slowed by near Neighbors and Speeded by Distant Neighbors We Thank Ann Kulikowski for Her Help with Data Collection And , 2022 .

[43]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence , 1996 .

[44]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  P. Kanerva,et al.  Permutations as a means to encode order in word space , 2008 .

[46]  Stavroula Kousta,et al.  Toward a theory of semantic representation , 2009, Language and Cognition.

[47]  E. T. Possing,et al.  Neural Correlates of Lexical Access during Visual Word Recognition , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  Katja Wiemer-Hastings,et al.  Imagery, Context Availabilty, Contextual Constraint and Abstractness , 2001 .

[49]  K I Forster,et al.  No enemies in the neighborhood: absence of inhibitory neighborhood effects in lexical decision and semantic categorization. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  Emily J. Mayberry,et al.  Coherent concepts are computed in the anterior temporal lobes , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback , 2015, Memory & cognition.

[52]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[53]  E. Warrington,et al.  Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. , 2005, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[54]  Gillian E. Macdonald Aging and Semantic Processing , 2013 .

[55]  G. Vigliocco,et al.  The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[56]  Mark J. Huff,et al.  An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[57]  George S. Cree,et al.  Conceptual Hierarchies Arise from the Dynamics of Learning and Processing: Insights from a Flat Attractor Network , 2006 .

[58]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Contextual Diversity, Not Word Frequency, Determines Word-Naming and Lexical Decision Times , 2006, Psychological science.

[59]  T. Schnur,et al.  The representation of concrete and abstract concepts: categorical versus associative relationships. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  Marina Schmid,et al.  Imagery And Verbal Processes , 2016 .

[61]  Douglas L. T. Rohde An Improved Method for Deriving Word Meaning from Lexical Co-Occurrence , 2004 .

[62]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Developmental and acquired dyslexia: A comparison , 1982, Cognition.

[63]  T. Rogers,et al.  Neural basis of category-specific semantic deficits for living things: evidence from semantic dementia, HSVE and a neural network model. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[64]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall , 1992 .

[65]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. , 2004, Psychological review.

[66]  E. Shoben,et al.  Differential Context Effects in the Comprehension of Abstract and Concrete Verbal Materials , 1983 .

[67]  Chris Westbury,et al.  The effect of semantic distance in yes/no and go/no-go semantic categorization tasks , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[68]  Mark Steyvers,et al.  Topics in semantic representation. , 2007, Psychological review.

[69]  R. Adorni,et al.  The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[70]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[71]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Perceptions of perceptual symbols , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[72]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Sensorimotor semantics on the spot: brain activity dissociates between conceptual categories within 150 ms , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[73]  Lori Buchanan,et al.  Grounding co-occurrence: Identifying features in a lexical co-occurrence model of semantic memory , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[74]  David A. Balota,et al.  Attentional Control and Flexible Lexical Processing : Explorations of the Magic Moment of Word Recognition , 2007 .

[75]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  Effects of Polysemy in Lexical Decision and Naming: An Alternative to Lexical Access Accounts , 1996 .

[76]  H. Coslett,et al.  Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: Do they differ? , 2008, Neurocase.

[77]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[78]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[79]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[80]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[81]  M. L. Lambon Ralph,et al.  The role of the anterior temporal lobes in the comprehension of concrete and abstract words: rTMS evidence , 2009, Cortex.