Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T04:23:29.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context, categories and modality: Challenges for the Rumelhart model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2008

James A. Hampton
James A. Hampton
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, City University, London EC1V OHB, United Kingdom. hampton@city.ac.ukhttp://www.staff.city.ac.uk/hampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three issues are raised in this commentary. First, the mapping of semantic information into the different layers could be done in a more realistic way by using the Context layer to represent situational contexts. Second, a way to differentiate category membership information from other property information needs to be considered. Finally, the issue of modal knowledge is raised.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 716 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1987) The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In: Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, ed. Neisser, U., pp. 101–40. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003) Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. In: Conceptual representation, ed. Moss, H. E. & Hampton, J. A., pp. 513–62. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1982) A demonstration of intransitivity in natural categories. Cognition 12:151–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, J. A. (1984) The verification of category and property statements. Memory and Cognition 12:345–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jönsson, M. L. & Hampton, J. A. (2006) The inverse conjunction fallacy. Journal of Memory and Language 55:317–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J. (2001) Necessity and natural categories. Psychological Bulletin 127:827–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. (2004) Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. R. (1978) Principles of categorization. In: Cognition and categorization, ed. Rosch, E. R. & Lloyd, B. B., pp. 27–48. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roth, E. M. & Shoben, E. J. (1983) The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 15:346–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar