Functioning of Semantic Distractors in a Neuropsychological Test of Taxonomic Relationships
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v23.n3.43898Keywords:
evaluation, language, conceptual relationships, older adults, semantic associationAbstract
Knowing how conceptual relationships work is extremely important for neuropsychological evaluation, as many neuropsychological syndromes affect them. Selecting appropriate distractors is crucial for grading the difficulty of tests. This study examined the effect of correspondence strength (CS) between response options in a semantic association test called TAXON, which evaluates the ability to identify taxonomic relationships. The sample included 43 adults over 65 years old without pathology. The correlation between the difference in CS of stimuli and response times (RT) and response rate (RR) was analyzed, as well as if the semantic domain of items (living/non-living) and the presentation format (verbal/pictorial) had an influence. The results showed lower RT and higher RR when the correspondence difference between distractor and target was greater. Additionally, a greater effect was observed in the pictorial format.
Downloads
References
Adlam, A.-L., Patterson, K., Bozeat, S., & Hodges, J. R. (2010). The Cambridge Semantic Memory Test Battery: Detection of semantic deficits in semantic dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurocase, 16(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790903405693
Bajo, M. T., & Cañas, J. J. (1989). Phonetic and semantic activation during picture and word naming. Acta Psychologica, 72(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(89)90038-3
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophy Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1284-1289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Situated conceptualization. En H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 619-650). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044612-7/50083-4
Bright, P., Moss, H., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). Unitary vs. multiple semantics: PET studies of word and picture processing. Brain and Language, 89(3), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2004.01.010
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7(3), 161-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299008253441
Chen, L., Lambon-Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). A unified model of human semantic knowledge and its disorders. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), 0039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0039
Comesaña, A., & Vivas, J. (2015). Evolución de la categorización semántica en adultos mayores con diagnóstico de DCL-A y DTA y sin patología neurológica. Interdisciplinaria: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 32(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2015.32.1.1
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: Implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory & Language, 46(1), 178-198. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2804
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2008). Contrasting patterns of comprehension for superordinate, basic-level, and subordinate names in semantic dementia and aphasic stroke patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(4), 582-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290701862290
Cuetos-Vega, F., & Castejón, L. (2005). Disociación de la información conceptual y lingüística a partir de un estudio de caso. Revista de Neurología, 41(8), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.4108.2004617
Cycowicz, Y. M., Friedman, D., Rothstein, M., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65(2), 171-237. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2356
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196474
Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking. The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 54, pp. 249-294). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
Fumagalli, J., Shalóm, D., Soriano, F., Carden, J., Cabañas-Fale, P., Tomio, A., Borovinsky, G., & Martínez-Cuitiño, M. (2015). Normas categoriales para una muestra de hablantes adultos del español de Argentina. Revista Evaluar, 15(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v15.n1.14907
Gainotti, G. (2014). Old and recent approaches to the problem of non-verbal conceptual disorders in aphasic patients. Cortex, 53, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.009
Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1454-1464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017397
Grasso, L., & Peraita, H. (2011). Adaptación de la Batería de Evaluación de la Memoria Semántica en la Demencia de tipo Alzheimer (EMSDA) a la población de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Interdisciplinaria: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 28(1), 37-56. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?codigo=2511
Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46003-5
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2005). Semantic competition between hierarchically related words during speech planning. Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 984-1000. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193207
Hoffman, P., McClelland, J. L., & Lambon-Ralph, M. A. (2018). Concepts, control, and context: A connectionist account of normal and disordered semantic cognition. Psychological Review, 125(3), 293-328. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000094
Hogan, T. (2015) Pruebas psicológicas. Una introducción práctica (2da ed.). Ciudad de México, México. El Manual Moderno. ISBN: 978-607-448-498-4
Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1992). Pyramids and palm trees: A Test of Semantic Access from Pictures and Words. Thames Valley Test Company: Bury St. Edmunds, UK. ISBN: 187-426-115-6
Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1152-1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 173-202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2502_1
La Heij, W., Kuipers, J-. R., & Starreveld, P. A. (2006). In defense of the lexical-competition account of picture-word interference: A comment on Finkbeiner and Caramazza. Cortex, 42(7), 1028-1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70209-0
Lambon-Ralph, M. A. (2014). Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120392. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0392
Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults´ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.3
Lizarralde, F., Huapaya, C., & Vivas, J. (2011). Memoria semántica. Evaluación del conocimiento en carreras de ingeniería. Revista Evaluar, 11(1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v11.n1.2843
Luria, A. R. (1976). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. Penguin.
Manoiloff, L., Artstein, M., Canavoso, M., Fernández, L., & Segui, J. (2010). Expanded norms for 400 experimental pictures in an Argentinean Spanish-speaking population. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 452-460. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.42.2.452
Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193386
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143
Martínez-Cuitiño, M., & Barreyro, J. P. (2010). ¿Pirámides y palmeras o pirámides y faraones? Adaptación y validación de un test de asociación semántica al español rioplatense. Interdisciplinaria, 27(2), 247-260. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?codigo=2511
Martínez-Cuitiño, M., Barreyro, J. P., & Jaichenco, V. (2009). Adaptación y validación en español de una herramienta de evaluación semántica: La Batería 64. Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 1(1), 24-31. https://www.neuropsicolatina.org
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547-559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360-373. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0087323
Moss, H. E., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). A progressive category-specific semantic deficit for non-living things. Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00044-5
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 45(3), 255-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0084295
Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976-987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2277
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429
Peraita-Adrados, H., Galeote-Moreno, M. Á., & González-Labra, M. J. (1999). Deterioro de la memoria semántica en pacientes de Alzheimer. Psicothema, 11(4), 917-937. http://www.psicothema.com
Peraita-Adrados, H., González-Labra, M. J., Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L., & Galeote-Moreno, M. Á. (2000). Batería de evaluación del deterioro de la memoria semántica en Alzheimer. Psicothema, 12(2), 192-200. http://www.psicothema.com
Peraita, H., & Moreno, F. J. (2006). Análisis de la estructura conceptual de categorías semánticas naturales y artificiales en una muestra de pacientes de Alzheimer. Psicothema, 18(3), 492-500. http://www.psicothema. com
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
Roelofs, A. (2018). A unified computational account of cumulative semantic, semantic blocking, and semantic distractor effects in picture naming. Cognition, 172, 59-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.007
Rogers, T. T., Lambon-Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.205
Rose, S. B., & Abdel-Rahman, R. (2016). Cumulative semantic interference for associative relations in language production. Cognition, 152, 20-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.013
Rose, S. B., Aristei, S., Melinger, A., & Abdel-Rahman, R. (2019). The closer they are, the more they interfere: Semantic similarity of word distractors increases competition in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(4), 753-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000592
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 409-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015
Santos, L., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The domain-specific hypothesis: A developmental and comparative perspective on category-specific deficits. In E. M. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 1-24). Psychology Press.
Sheridan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1993). A verbal-semantic category-specific recognition impairment. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10(2), 143-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299308253459
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21(3), 686-698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
Tyler, L. K., Bright, P., Dick, E., Tavares, P., Pilgrim, L., Fletcher, P., Greer, M., & Moss, H. (2003). Do semantic categories activate distinct cortical regions? Evidence for a distributed neural semantic system. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 541-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000211
Vieth, H. E., McMahon, K. L., & de Zubicaray, G. I. (2014). Feature overlap slows lexical selection: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(12), 2325-2339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.923922
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
Vivas, J. R. (2008). Distsem. Un método de captura y graficación de redes semánticas. Aplicaciones a educación y a neuropsicología. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, (Esp. Oct.), 27-31. https://www.researchgate.net
Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., García-Coni, A., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095-1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2
Vivas, L., & Fernández-Liporace, M. (2017). TAXON: Un nuevo instrumento para evaluar déficits semánticos. Neurología Argentina, 9(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuarg.2016.08.004
Vivas, L., García-García, R., Perea-Bartolomé, M. V., D`Almeida, A. L., & Ladera-Fernández, V. (2016). Recognition of thematic and taxonomic conceptual relations in patients with aphasia. Aphasiology, 30(6), 657-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2015.1111996
Vivas, L., Yerro, M., Romanelli, S., García-Coni, A., Comesaña, A., Lizarralde, F., Passoni, I., & Vivas, J. (2022). New Spanish semantic feature production norms for older adults. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 970-986. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01660-z
Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1987). Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain, 110(5), 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1093/BRAIN/110.5.1273
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107(3), 829-854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/107.3.829
Wechsler, D. (2002). Escala de inteligencia para adultos (WAIS-III) (3ra ed.). Paidós Ibérica.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Revista Evaluar aplica la Licencia Internacional de Atribuciones Comunes Creativas (Creative Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Bajo esta licencia, los autores retienen la propiedad de copyright de los artículos pero permiten que, sin que medie permiso de autor o editor, cualquier persona descargue y distribuya los artículos publicados en Evaluar. La única condición es que siempre y en todos los casos se cite a los autores y a la fuente original de publicación (i.e. Evaluar). El envío de artículos a Evaluar y la lectura de los mismos es totalmente gratuito.
