Langston, Cognitive Psychology, Notes 8 -- Semantic Long Term Memory
I.  Goals.
A.  Where we are/themes.
B.  Traditional (symbolic) models.
C.  Neural networks.
II.  Where we are/themes.  Last time we looked at episodic memory.  This time, we're looking at the way your knowledge about the world is organized.  As we discussed earlier, long-term memory is generally assumed to be divided into autobiographical memories (called episodic memory) and fact knowledge (called semantic memory).  You first learn information in episodic memory, then organize it into semantic knowledge.  The topic for this unit is the way that semantic knowledge is organized.  There are two sides to this problem:
A.  What is the structure of the information in semantic memory?  The first half of this lecture is devoted to "traditional" models, the second half to neural networks.  Traditional models do a great job of explaining the structure.  Using carefully controlled reaction time studies, they can make and confirm predictions about organization.  Unfortunately, there are several versions of these models, and they all make similar predictions.  Neural network models are less explicit (in one sense), because they use distributed representations.
B.  How does stuff get into semantic memory?  What process sifts through all of your episodes and decides what to abstract as "facts?"  What process sorts those facts into a higher representation?  These questions are especially relevant for traditional models, but they haven't been answered very well.  Neural networks blur the distinction between episodic and semantic memories, incorporate learning of information, and make these questions less important.
So, the outline will be to look at traditional (symbolic) models and try to address the two questions.  Then we'll look at neural networks and do the same thing. 
III.  Traditional (symbolic) models.  A symbol is something that stands for something else.  For example, "MOON" is a symbol for the thing in the sky that revolves around the Earth (really, any word is a symbol).  You're so accustomed to seeing "moon" used to refer to the moon that it's hard to separate the two, but there's nothing special about the word.  It's a relatively arbitrary arrangement of letters that stands for the thing in the sky.  It's easier to see this in a foreign language.  You know what "dog" stands for, so it might look like it's the "right" word, but "caine" probably seems more arbitrary.
A symbolic model of a cognitive process assumes that you have symbols in your head.  They are discrete things (easily separable from one another) that stand for things in the world.  Cognition is merely manipulating symbols, a lot like using language is manipulating symbols.  You arrange words in language to get a meaning ("the dog bit the man" means something different from "the man bit the dog").  You also arrange symbols in your head to get a meaning.  Our first set of models will be symbolic.
A.  Network models.  (Collins and Quillian, 1970)
1.  Structure.  Your concepts are organized in a collection of nodes and links between the nodes.
Nodes:  Hold the concepts.  For example, you have a RED node, a FIRE TRUCK node, a FIRE node, etc..
Links:  Connect the concepts.  Links can be:
a.  Superset/subset:  ROBIN is a subset of BIRD, so these nodes are linked.
b.  Properties.  Nodes for properties are connected to concept nodes via labeled property links.  For example, WINGS would be connected to BIRD via a "has" link.
The nodes are organized in a hierarchy.  Distance matters:  The farther apart two concepts are, the less related they are.  You also have the concept of cognitive economy:  Store things one time at the highest place they apply.  So, BREATHES is a property of all animals, store it at the ANIMAL node instead of with every animal in the network.  The model included this because it was based on a computer model, and computers don't have a lot of memory to spare.  It's not clear if your brain has the same space limitations.  So, this might not be an important property of the model.  A simple network is presented below:
Simple Network
2.  Evidence:  Do the semantic verification task:  Verify "a canary is a canary" vs. "a canary is a bird".  The more links you have to travel, the longer it takes to verify.  Examples:
Category membership Properties
A canary is a canary. 
A canary is a bird. 
A canary is an animal.
A canary is yellow. 
A canary has wings. 
A canary can breathe. 
As you go down each list of questions, you add more links to travel before you reach the answer.  You get a pattern of response times that corresponds to this order.  The more links you travel, the longer it takes.
3.  Problems:
a.  Hierarchy:  "A horse is an animal" is faster than "a horse is a mammal".  That's not right if it's a hierarchy.
b.  Answering no:  To say no, the concepts must be far apart (a bird has 4 legs).  But, saying no is sometimes fastest of all.  Other times, people are really slow to say "no" ("a whale is a fish").  Why?
c.  Typicality:  "A robin is a bird" is faster than "A chicken is a bird."  A robin is a more typical bird than chicken, but they're still one link from the bird concept, so there should be no difference in time.

CogLab:  We can look at the results of our lexical decision exercise here and think about how that might relate to semantic memory.

B.  Feature models.  (Rips, Shoben, and Smith, 1974)
1.  Structure:  Concepts are clusters of semantic features.  Two kinds of features:
a.  Distinctive:  The defining features.  Sort of core features (like wings for birds).
b.  Characteristic:  Typical features, not required ("can fly" for birds).
A comparison involves a two step process.  First, do a quick match on all features.  If they're really similar or really different, respond "yes" or "no."  If the amount of match is in the middle, compare only distinctive features.  Then respond.  The distinctive comparison involves an extra stage, and should take longer.  Here's what the model looks like schematically:
Feature Model
Some examples of some features:

Distinctive wings 
Characteristic flies 

Distinctive wings 
Characteristic red-breast large
Some types of questions:
Easy "Yes" Easy "No" Hard "Yes" Hard "No"
A robin is a bird. A robin is a fish. A whale is a mammal. A whale is a fish.
2.  Evidence:  Use the same verification task.  We can fix:
a.  Typicality effect.  More typical members of a category are responded to faster because they only require one comparison step.
b.  Answering "no."  We can explain why some "no" questions are harder than others.  Also why some "no" questions are fastest of all.
c.  We also solve the hierarchy problems.  It's all due to similarity, not a hierarchy.
3.  Problems:  Getting the features is hard (impossible).  The distinctive features are particularly hard to identify.  Think how many features of BIRD might not be required for something to still be a bird.
C.  Spreading activation.  (Collins and Loftus, 1975)
1.  Structure:  It's a network model, but the length of the links matters.  The longer the link, the less related the concepts are.  When you search, you activate the two nodes involved, and this activation spreads until there is an intersection.  The farther you go, the weaker the activation gets and the slower it travels.  This can explain a lot of the findings that were hard for the original networks.
2.  Problem:  Making your model really powerful reduces its ability to predict.  It's not as good when you make a model over-fit the data.

CogLab:  We'll discuss the data from the false memory demonstration and think about how spreading activation could be responsible for it.

D.  Propositional models.
1.  Structure:  For propositions, the elements are idea units (instead of features).  To extract meaning, you get the basic idea units and then their relationships.  Let's do a sentence:
"Pat practiced from noon until dusk."
The propositions are:
So, we have this thing "Pat," and Pat was the agent of the verb "practice."  The source of the practice was "noon," and the goal was "dusk."  The elements of the proposition are in all caps to indicate that they're concepts and not the things themselves.
To extract meaning, extract propositions.  This can be a pretty powerful system if you treat meaning as a grammar.  The elements are propositions, the rules come from first-order predicate calculus.
2.  Evidence:  They can solve some very difficult problems.  To illustrate, I'll use the problem of scope:  How broadly do we apply a quantifier in a sentence?  Consider:
"Bilk is not available in all areas."
It could be that Bilk is available in some areas, but not all of them; or, Bilk isn't available in all areas (it is available nowhere).  This kind of ambiguity is not syntactic (based on grammar) and it's not lexical (based on word meanings).  The problem comes from where you apply the "not."  Let's use the standard approach to a grammar of meaning to understand the sentence.
First-order predicate calculus:  Rules to combine propositional representations:
a.  ¬:  "It is not the case that."
b.  <For all> x:  "For all x." (I couldn't find the upside down capital A)
The "meanings" of the sentence:
a.  ¬(<For all>x) (Bilk is available in x)  (Bilk is only available in some places).
b.  (<For all>x) ¬(Bilk is available in x)  (Bilk isn't available anywhere).
E.  Schemas and scripts.  (Bartlett, Schank)
1.  Structure:  A list of all of the stuff you know about a concept arranged in some format.  Scripts are most studied.  They are your typical action sequences.  For example, you might have a restaurant script that tells you the sequence of events at a restaurant.  The exact structure is a matter of some debate.
2.  Evidence:
a.  For the use of script knowledge:  Pompi and Lachman (1967) had participants read a story like the following:
Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him.  One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared.  Then an eager young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare.  Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal.  He now knew it was pointless to continue.
It's about an operation, but notice that the important words "doctor," "nurse," "scalpel," and "operation" were never used.  However, these words are part of your operation script (your knowledge of what goes on during an operation).  When people were given a list of words to recognize, they were likely to "remember" words that were part of the script, but weren't presented (like "nurse").
A similar thing occurs if people are asked to remember stories where script-typical events have been left out.  People "remember" the missing parts of the story.
b.  How is script knowledge stored?  Barsalou and Sewell (1985) compared two versions:  Scripts are organized around central concepts or they're organized in sequential order.  Let's demonstrate their experiment.
Demonstration:  Half the class follow the instruction "write down everything you can think of related to the task of going to the doctor, but generate from the most central action to the least central action."  The other half follow the instruction "write down everything you can think of related to the task of going to the doctor, but generate from the first action to the last action."  Time for 20 seconds, count the number of actions.  The sequential group should get more.
The results indicate that the organization of scripts is based on performance order and not importance.
F.  What do these models have in common?
Abstraction.  Some process has to go through what you know and organize it into concepts (like pick out the distinctive features or attach properties to a node).  The final concepts are a construct made from inputs, not the inputs themselves.  This hasn't been very well explained.
IV.  Neural networks.  So far, we've been pretty symbolic in our analysis of mind.  We have symbols (representation) and rules that manipulate those symbols (process).  Neural networks get rid of both.  At best we have subsymbols (clusters of elements whose joint operation stands for something else).  Instead of a node holding some concept (as in Collins and Quillian) we have a network holding the concept.  In fact, most of the action is the connections between the nodes.  The basic idea:  Model learning using something that looks like a brain (but not a lot like a brain).  The idea is to hook up a lot of simple processors and have learning emerge from their parallel operation.
To get an idea, look at the real neuron and artificial neuron below.  The artificial neuron was based on the real neuron.  The neuron collects inputs, multiplies them by a weight, and sums them up.  Then it decides whether or not to fire.  If the total input is greater than some threshold, it fires.  We can hook a bunch of these together to learn a problem.
A.  Perceptrons.  A perceptron is a neuron that learns to classify.  Before we go on, let's make a concept to fit the methodology (we need two-valued features).
Sweet = 1 or Not_sweet = 0 
Edible = 1 or Not_Edible = 0 
Edible = 1 or Not_Edible = 0
Our examples are:
Fruit Banana Pear Lemon Strawberry Green Apple
Taste 1 1 0 1 0
Seeds 1 0 0 1 0
Skin 0 1 0 1 1
For categorizing:  Good_Fruit = 1, Not_Good_Fruit = 0
I've trained the perceptron below to classify the concept good_fruit (anything with edible skin and seeds).  This is its processing of banana:  It inputs (1,1,0) (for sweet, edible_seeds, not_edible_skin), and outputs Not_Good_Fruit.  How?  It takes each input and multiplies it by the weight on the link, then adds them up (1 X 0.0 + 1 X 0.25 + 0 X 0.25 = 0.25).  If that sum is bigger than a threshold (0.4 in this case), then it outputs a 1, otherwise a 0.  Check its classification for the other examples (it should get them all correct).
Trained Perceptron
Now, how does the perceptron learn to classify?  Let's train it on sweet_fruit (sweet is the only feature that needs to be on).  Start with all weights at 0.0, and input the first example:
New Perceptron
It should call this a sweet_fruit, but it doesn't.  So, we want to adjust the weights to make it more likely to respond sweet_fruit next time.  How?  We use something called the delta rule (also Hebbian learning after Hebb, the person who invented it).  The idea is to make it a little more likely to answer correctly the next time it encounters the same problem.
w = learning rate 
* (overall teacher - overall output) 
* node output
The learning rate is set to be slow enough to get the right answer without skipping over it (0.25 for us).  The overall teacher is what the response should have been, the overall output is what the response was, and the node output is the output for a single node (equivalent to its input).  So, for the color, taste, and consistency features:
w = .25 * (1 - 0) * 1 = 0.25
w = .25 * (1 - 0) * 1 = 0.25
∆w = .25 * (1 - 0) * 0 = 0.00
And the perceptron after training on this example is (note, I've already put the new example in the input part):
Perceptron in Training
(The weights have been adjusted by adding w to the old weights.)  We're ready to try the next example.  You should try each of the remaining examples.  The net will classify them all correctly once the weights reach the values (0.50, 0.25, 0.25).  I suggest that you work with this until you achieve that set of weights.  You can stop training after you've learned all of the examples, so we'll stop.  The concept sweet_fruit is now in the connections in the net (it's learned the concept).
B.  Some issues for where we are now:
1.  We're still doing a lot of work to prepare the concept, but it's more natural.  For example, we could argue that perceptual systems could deliver the input coded into the 1's and 0's, and all we did is adjust the weights, just like a brain does.
2.  We didn't have to understand the classification ourselves for it to learn.  The net figured out how to represent the information.  That's the magic.
3.  We still have a teacher, but you could characterize that as the environment (as in you touch the stove and the environment tells you that was a mistake).
C.  Example:  Past tense of English verbs.  A classic test case because this acquisition process looks like learning a rule and memorizing exceptions.  Early on, kids see a lot of irregulars and learn them well.  Then they're exposed to all of the verbs using the rule "add -ed for past tense" and they do poorly on irregulars.  Then they get good again.  If a network can do this, it's strong evidence that rules aren't necessary.  In fact, networks can learn this.
Plunkett and Marchman (1991) used a perceptron to learn English past tense, but it was a lot more complicated than our perceptron above.
D.  Generalize this:  Perceptrons don't work on problems that aren't linearly separable (you can draw a line between all of the positive and negative examples).  So, you need a more general network that can have internal representations that aren't connected to the environment.
XOR.  The classic problem for perceptrons (as in it's not linearly separable, so they can't do it) is XOR (exclusive OR).  You make a truth table like this:
Input 1 Input 2 Output



For categorizing:  1 = TRUE, 0 = FALSE.

Only say true when one or the other, but not both, of the input features is on.  You're familiar with XOR from ordering in a restaurant.  It would be odd to say "I'll have both" when offered the choice of soup or salad.  The perceptron will fail if you set it up for XOR, a network with a hidden layer will be fine.  Demonstrate.
E.  Back propagation.
Generalize the delta rule to overcome the problem of linear separability.  What we need is an internal representation.  So, we add a hidden layer (a set of nodes between input and output).  Here's a picture of a more complicated network:

But, with an internal representation we don't know how to assess blame when we're learning.  If the network makes a mistake, is it the link from input to hidden layer or hidden layer to output?  Back propagation gets you out of this problem.  Instead of a step function (a linear activation function), use a sigmoid.  This is a curve which allows you to do calculus.  The mathematics allows you to assign blame at all levels of the network.  This is a bit beyond us here, but the interested student could see me for more information.

Cognitive Psychology Notes 8
Will Langston

 Back to Langston's Cognitive Psychology Page