Abstract
AbstractExperimental design and computational modelling across the cognitive sciences often rely on measures of semantic similarity between concepts. Traditional measures of semantic similarity are typically derived from distance in taxonomic databases (e.g. WordNet), databases of participant-produced semantic features, or corpus-derived linguistic distributional similarity (e.g. CBOW), all of which are theoretically problematic in their lack of grounding in sensorimotor experience. We present a new measure of sensorimotor distance between concepts, based on multidimensional comparisons of their experiential strength across 11 perceptual and action-effector dimensions in the Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms. We demonstrate that, in modelling human similarity judgements, sensorimotor distance has comparable explanatory power to other measures of semantic similarity, explains variance in human judgements which is missed by other measures, and does so with the advantages of remaining both grounded and computationally efficient. Moreover, sensorimotor distance is equally effective for both concrete and abstract concepts. We further introduce a web-based tool (https://lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/smdistance) for easily calculating and visualising sensorimotor distance between words, featuring coverage of nearly 800 million word pairs. Supplementary materials are available at https://osf.io/d42q6/.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference70 articles.
1. Baddeley, A. D. (1966). Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 362–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746608400055
2. Banks, B., Wingfield, C., & Connell, L. (2021). Linguistic Distributional Knowledge and Sensorimotor Grounding both Contribute to Semantic Category Production. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13055. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13055
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
4. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
5. Bruni, E. (2012). The MEN Test Collection [Online dataset]. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from http://clic.cimec.unitn.it/~elia.bruni/MEN.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献