Top 3 Models of Semantic Memory | Models | Memory | Psychology

This article throws light upon the top two models of semantic memory. The
models are: 1. Hierarchical Network Model 2. Active Structural Network –
Model 3. Feature-Comparison Model.

1. Hierarchical Network Model of Semantic Memory:

This model of semantic memory was postulated by Allan Collins and Ross
Quillian. They suggested that items stored in semantic memory are connected
by links in a huge network. All human knowledge, knowledge of objects,
events, persons, concepts, etc. are organised into a hierarchy arranged into two
sets. The two sets are superordinate and subordinate sets with their properties or
attributes stored.

These properties are logically related and hierarchically organised. The

following illustration explains the relationship between the sets – super ordinate
for dog is an animal, but it is a mammal too; belongs to a group of domesticated
animals, a quadruped; belongs to a category of Alsatian, hound, etc. Let us look
at Collins and Quillian study as an example for a better understanding of this
model.

In this hierarchically organised structure one can see that the superordinate of
canary is bird, of shark is fish and the superordinate of fish is animal. One can
notice further that a property characterizing a particular class of things is
assumed to be stored only at the place in the hierarchy that corresponds to that
class. This assumption forms the basis of the cognitive economy.
For example, a property that characterizes all types of fish (the fact that they
have gills and can swim) is stored only at the level of fish. It should be noted
that gills and other such features are not stored again with the different types of
fish (salmon, shark, etc.) even though they have gills. Similarly, a bird which is
the superordinate of canary is an animal. Specific properties are stored only at
appropriate levels in the hierarchy.
Given this hypothesized network structure, Collins and the Quillian’s next task
was to determine how information is retrieved from the network. To answer this
question an experiment was carried out in which subjects were asked to answer
‘yes’ or’ no’ to simple questions.

Consider, for example, the following questions about canaries:

1. Does a canary eat?

2. Does a canary fly?

3. Is a canary yellow?

The three questions mentioned above may be challenged by the semantic level
at which the information needed to answer them is stored. Consider the first
question, “Does a canary eat?” The information “eats” is stored at the level of
animal, two levels away from canary. Likewise, the information has “wings”
and is “yellow” (needed to answer the second and third questions) are stored at
one and zero levels away from canary, respectively.
The major point of interest in this model of Collins and Quillian was the
reaction-time or time taken to respond to the questions. Results of the
experiment revealed that with the increasing level of information it takes
increasing amounts of time to retrieve the information.

Their explanation about this is as follows- in order to answer the third question,
the subject must first enter the level in memory that corresponds to ‘canary’ and
here find the information that canaries are yellow. The question is, therefore,
answered relatively fast. To answer the second question the subject still enters
the memory level that corresponds to ‘canary’ but does not find any information
at that level concerning whether or not canaries fly.

However, the subject moves up the hierarchy to the level where information
about birds is stored and there finds that birds fly. This is done by combining the
information that canaries are birds and that birds fly and then the question can
be answered. Due to the extra step of moving up the hierarchy, question two
takes somewhat longer to answer than question three.
The first question takes even longer for the same sort of reason. To answer
question one, the subject cannot use any of the information that is stored at
either the level of ‘canary’ or ‘bird’ but must move up to an additional level in
the hierarchy to ‘animal’. Thus, it was concluded that, because a canary is a bird
and a bird is an animal and animals eat, the canary must eat too. Therefore, the
reason why some questions take longer to answer than others is that some
questions require more travelling in our memory from level to level in the
semantic hierarchy.
Using a similar rationale Collins and Quillian predicted that it takes less time to
answer “Is a canary a bird?” than to answer “Is a canary an animal?” We see in
the figure that to answer the latter question, a subject must move up two levels
from canary to animal, whereas to answer the former question, the subject must
move up only one level.

Active Structural Network – Model of Semantic Memory:

The active structural network model postulated by Norman & Lindsy can be
understood by their analysis of two simple sentences. Let us now see how they
go about explaining it. Peter put the package on the table. Because it wasn’t
level, it slid off.
These sentences refer to objects, person and events. Figure 10.9 shows the
diagrammatic sketch representing information in a semantic network. This
network consists of information expanded in terms of events, instances of the
movements involved or modes of their relations, the direction of the
relationship, etc. This elaborate network representation is said to form the basis
of human memory.
Let us consider the figure for a moment. The basic conceptual information
shows that Peter caused the package to move from its earlier location to the top
of the table, and that gravity was the causal agent that then acted upon the
package causing it to move from the table top to the floor.
The first movement is represented by a node, the oval numbered. The oval (or
words in the figure) are called relations. The relations show how the different
node structures in the figure are related to one another. Thus, looking at the
node we see that it represents an instance of the act of ‘move’. This particular
instance of ‘move’ has its cause – Peter (shown diagrammatically) and the
object being moved is package (again shown diagrammatically). The location to
which the moved object is placed is the table.
The second node, the oval labelled 2, is another instance of ‘move’. Here the
cause is gravity, the object is the same, i.e. the package, and the movement takes
place from a ‘From’ location, (the table-top) to a ‘To’ location (the floor).
The drawings of the package and Peter are instances of the nodes that are named
“package” and “Peter”. The representation shown and described can further be
elaborated. Peter put a package on the table, an event of which Peter was the
agent, caused the result that causes the package to change its location from
place unspecified to a new place, on top of the table. It changed its place
because the first position was higher than the second position.

Moreover, the movement was caused by the force of gravity. In a similar

fashion detailed analysis can be carried on and on. But the conceptual network
presented here is assumed to be sufficient enough to give us an idea about how
words and events create relationships, concepts, etc. and form a complex
network. Thus, one can see that this model of semantic memory conceives of
human memory as a giant network of interconnected nodes, and these nodes are
assumed to correspond to individual concepts, ideas, or events in the system.

3. Feature-Comparison Model of Semantic Memory:

E.E. Smith, E.J. Shoben and L.J. Rips postulated a theory in which emphasis
was laid on semantic features. Their assumption was that there are two distinct
types of features.

First, there are those features which are essential aspects of the item’s meaning.
These are known as defining features.

The second type of features do not form any part of the item’s definition but are
nonetheless descriptive of the item and are referred to as characteristic features.
For instance, if we take the word Robin, there are some features true to Robins,
such as that they are ‘living’, have ‘feathers’, have ‘wings’ and have ‘red-
breasts’. All these are defining features.

Other features, however, may be associated with robins, but they are not
necessary to define a robin. These include features such as ‘like to perch on
trees’, ‘undomesticated’, ‘harmless’ and ‘smallish’. In situations where a subject
must decide whether an instance belongs to a specific category (for example,
deciding whether a robin is a bird), it is assumed that the set of features
corresponding to the instance and category are partitioned into the two sub-sets
corresponding to defining and characteristic features. Figure 10.10 illustrates
the above features.
Now this process of verifying whether an instance belongs to a category, i.e. in
this case ‘is a robin a bird?’ is assumed to be accomplished in two major stages
as given in the figure. The first stage involves a comparison of both the defining
and the characteristic features of the instance and the category to determine the
degree to which the two sets of features are similar. If there is a high degree of
correspondence between the instance features and the category features, the
subject says “yes” immediately.

If the two sets of features have very little correspondence (low similarity), the
subject can say ‘no’ immediately. However, if there is an intermediate level of
similarity between the features of the instance and the features of the category,
then a second stage is needed before the subject can reach a decision. In the
second stage, the subject compares only the defining features of instance and
then a ‘yes’ response is made, otherwise the subject says ‘no’.

Smith et al. extended their model further by including the concept called
typicality effect. When a subject is asked to verify whether an instance belongs
to a category, say birds, one is consistently faster in verifying some instances,
for example, robin, canary, than chicken.

The faster instances are those that are judged by other independent subjects to
be more typical of the category. If the instance to be verified is highly typical of
the category, the two share a large number of features, both defining and
characteristic.
When it is discovered during stage one that the instance and category have
largely overlapping features, the subject can make an immediate response
without executing stage two. For atypical instances in contrast there is not much
overlap in terms of the characteristic features. Stage two must, therefore, be
executed and response-time is accordingly longer.

Though these models have been built on highly scientific lines with detailed
analysis, they are not free from certain limiting factors. Rips Shoben and Smith
criticising Collins and Quillian pointed out that most of the college students
know what a mammal is and if we add this concept to a hypothetical network
that contains collie (a dog of specific breed), dog and animal, it is placed
between dog and animal. In a semantic hierarchy, mammal is closer than animal
to either dog or to some particular type or breed of dog (for example, collie).