Unsettling Questions About Semantic Ambiguity in Connectionist Models: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994)

S. Joordens and D. Besner (1994) described an attempt to simulate a semantic ambiguity advantage in lexical decision using a connectionist model (Masson, 1991) that was based on a Hopfield (1982) network. The question of the validity of the ambiguity advantage is briefly considered, and the assumptions behind the simulation results reported by Joordens and Besner are critically examined. The model used by Joordens and Besner is compared with other connectionist models, and alternative methods of simulating lexical decisions with this class of models are discussed. It is concluded that further empirical evidence is required and that a number of modeling alternatives need to be explored before strong conclusions can be made about the validity of the semantic ambiguity advantage and about the best way to model the effect.

[1]  John R. Anderson.  The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[2]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Effects of interpolated items on the association effect in lexical decision tasks , 1975 .

[3]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[4]  J. H. Neely.  Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. , 1977 .

[5]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension : a construction-integration model , 1991 .

[6]  T. Shallice,et al.  Deep Dyslexia: A Case Study of , 1993 .

[7]  W. T. Farrar,et al.  When Two Meanings Are Better Than One : Modeling the Ambiguity Advantage Using a Recurrent Distributed Network , 1994 .

[8]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY EFFECTS IN WORD IDENTIFICATION , 1996 .

[9]  Jay G. Rueckl,et al.  Ambiguity and connectionist networks: Still settling into a solution: Comment on Joordens and Besner (1994). , 1995 .

[10]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. , 1982, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Timothy P. McNamara,et al.  Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. , 1992 .

[12]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Basic processes in reading : visual word recognition , 1993 .

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[14]  M. L. Millis,et al.  The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don’t , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[15]  G Kellas,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Derek Besner,et al.  When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. , 1994 .

[17]  J. Jastrzembski.  Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  David A. Balota.  Comprehension Processes in Reading. , 1990 .

[19]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  M. Masson.  A distributed memory model of semantic priming. , 1995 .

[21]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Lesioning an attractor network: investigations of acquired dyslexia , 1991 .

[22]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[23]  Mark S. Seidenberg.  The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems , 1985, Cognition.