Skip to main content

Stochastic double dissociations in distributed models of semantic memory

  • Conference paper
Book cover Connectionist Models in Cognitive Neuroscience

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Neural Computing ((PERSPECT.NEURAL))

Abstract

We present a preliminary set of connectionist models of impairments to semantic memory, exploring the conditions under which double dissociations between knowledge of living and non-living entities occur. Small et al [1] argue that category specific impairments are a consequence of semantic feature based representations in a fully distributed memory system. Farah and McClelland [2] argue that category specific impairments arise due to modular structure in semantic memory, albeit structure that is specific to modality; they hypothesise that living and non-living entities have a differential reliance on perceptual and functional features. We evaluated these respective claims by lesioning a simple autoassociative model of semantic memory, using a 2x2 design: fully distributed architecture versus partially modular architecture with modality specific channels; Small et al’s training set versus a training set constructed according to Farah and McClelland’s perceptual/functional scheme. One thousand stochastic lesions were applied to each network ‘subject.’ The results supported Farah and McClelland: on average, double dissociations required modular structure and differential reliance on modalities. However, by choosing select (i.e. rare) lesions from each set of 1000, double dissociations of living versus non-living knowledge were found in both networks using both training sets. We discuss the idea that statistical distributions of impairments in patients with similar lesions are necessary to compare against the predictions of functional models, and thus that single case studies may be insufficient to distinguish distributed and modular architectures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Small SL, Hart J, Nguyen T, and Gordon B. Distributed representations of semantic knowledge in the brain: Computational experiments using feature based codes. In Reggia J, Ruppin E, and Berndt RS, Neural modelling of brain and cognitive disorders. World Scientific, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Farah MJ and McClelland JL. A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1991, Vol. 120(4), 339–357.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Warrington EK. Concrete word dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology 1981, 72, 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hart J Jr, Bemdt RS, and Caramazza A. Category-specific naming deficit following cerebral infarction. Nature 1985, 316,439–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sartori G and Job R. The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychological study on the interaction of visual and semantic information. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1988, 5(1), 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Warrington EK and Shallice T. Category specific semantic impairments. Brain 1984, 106, 859–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Warrington EK and McCarthy R. Categories of knowledge: Further fractionation and an attempted integration. Brain 1987,110,1273–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Warrington EK and McCarthy R. Category specific access dysphasia. Brain 1983, 106, 859–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hart J Jr and Gordon B. Neural subsystems for object knowledge. Nature 1992, 359, 60–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Silveri MC and Gainotti G. Interaction between vision and language in category-specific semantic impairment. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1988, 5, 677–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Basso A, Capitani E, and Laiacona M. Progressive language impairment without dementia: A case with isolated category specific semantic defect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1988, 51, 1201–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Farah MJ, Hammond KH, Mehta Z, and Ratcliff G. Category-specificity and modality-specificity in semantic memory. Neuropsychologia 1989, 8, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hinton GE and Shallice T. Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review 1991, 98(1), 74–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Juola P and Plunkett K. Why double dissociations don’t mean much. In Gernsbacher MA and Derby SJ (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998, 561–566.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bullinaria JA and Chater N. Connectionist modelling: Implications for cognitive neuropsychology. Language and Cognitive Processes 1995,10(3/4), 227–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinton GE. Connectionist learning procedures. Artificial Intelligence 1989, 40, 185–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wood CC. Variations on a theme of Lashley: Lesion experiments on the neural model of Anderson, Silverstein, Ritz & Jones. Psychological Review 1978, 85, 582–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sartori G. From neuropsychological data to theory and vice versa. In Denes G, Bisiacchi P, Semenza C and Andrewsky E (Eds.), Perspectives in cognitive neuropsychology. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shallice T. From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Plaut DC. Double dissociation without modularity: Evidence from connectionist neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1995, 17(2), 291–321.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Baddeley RJ, Abbott LF, Booth MJA, Sengpiel F, Freeman T, Wakeman EA and Rolls ET. Responses of neurons in primary and inferior visual cortices to natural scenes. Proceedings of the Royal Society 1998, B, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rolls ET and Treves A. Neural networks and brain function. Oxford University Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gonnerman LM, Andersen ES, Devlin JT, Kempier D, and Seidenberg MS. Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Language 1997, 57, 254–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. French RM and Mareschal, D. Could category-specific semantic deficits reflect differences in the distributions of features within a unified semantic memory? In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1998, NJ:LEA, 374–379.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Thomas, M.S.C., de Wet, N.M. (1999). Stochastic double dissociations in distributed models of semantic memory. In: Heinke, D., Humphreys, G.W., Olson, A. (eds) Connectionist Models in Cognitive Neuroscience. Perspectives in Neural Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0813-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0813-9_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-052-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0813-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics