The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements
The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17470210802483834
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Warrington, Elizabeth K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Crutch, Sebastian J.;Connell, Sarah;Warrington, Elizabeth K.
最近对患有全面性失语症和深度或深层语音阅读障碍的个体进行的神经心理学研究表明，抽象和具体的概念是由不同的表征框架支撑的。抽象词主要通过它们与其他词的关联来表示，而具体词主要通过它们彼此之间的分类相似性来表示。在目前的研究中，我们提出了从健康的研究参与者那里收集的第一个证据，证明了这种联系/相似性的区别。使用语义一出任务，结果表明，在处理抽象词时，正常被试识别联想连接的速度比基于相似性的连接更快，但对于具体的词，情况正好相反。研究还表明，在许多认知任务中观察到的典型的具体词优势被废除，甚至在参与者必须理解词之间的语义联系时被颠倒。这些数据为不同的表征框架假说提供了一致的证据，并表明基于先前神经心理学研究信息的主张可以推广到正常认知。
Recent evidence from neuropsychological investigations of individuals with global aphasia and deep or deep-phonological dyslexia suggests that abstract and concrete concepts are underpinned by qualitatively different representational frameworks. Abstract words are represented primarily by their association to other words, whilst concrete words are represented primarily by their taxonomic similarity to one another. In the current study, we present the first evidence for this association/similarity distinction to be gathered from healthy research participants. Using a semantic odd-one-out task, it is shown that normal participants identify associative connections more quickly than similarity-based connections when processing abstract words, but that the pattern is reversed for concrete words. It is also demonstrated that the typical concrete-word advantage observed in many cognitive tasks is abolished and even reversed when participants have to comprehend the semantic associations between words. The data provide converging evidence for the different representational frameworks hypothesis and suggest that claims based on information from previous neuropsychological investigations can be generalized to normal cognition.