PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E J Wisniewski

Publications and source records attributed to E J Wisniewski.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

On the necessity of alignment: reply to Costello and Keane (2001).

In their article, "Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts," F. J. Costello and M. T. Keane (2001) evaluate the role of alignment in the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. They found that participants were not strongly biased to prefer and produce interpretations with alignable differences. Instead, participants sometimes preferred and produced interpretations with nonalignable differences. These results are surprising given that most research has found advantages of alignable differences over nonalignable differences. Costello and Keane also found that feature diagnosticity better predicted their results, and they concluded that alignment does not play an important role in conceptual combination. However, drawing on recent work, the author of the present article gives an alternative interpretation of Costello and Keane's results, showing that alignment is crucial in conceptual combination. The author also shows that the dual-process model accounts for their results.

Association↗
PubMed1999

A structural account of global and local processing.

The order of processing, whether global forms are processed prior to local forms or vice versa, has been of considerable interest. Many current theories hold that the more perceptually conspicuous form is identified first. An alternative view is presented here in which the stuctural relations among elements are an important factor in explaining the relative speeds of global and local processing. We equated the conspicuity of the global and local forms in three experiments and still found advantages in the processing of global forms. Subjects were able to process the relations among the elements quickly, even before the elements themselves were identified. According to our alternative view, subjects created equivalence classes of similar and proximate local elements before identifying the constituent elements. The experiments required subjects to decide whether two displays were the same or different, and consequently, the results are relevant to work in higher-level cognition that stresses the importance of comparison processes (e.g., analogy and conceptual combination). We conclude by evaluating related work in higher-level cognition in light of our findings.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Property instantiation in conceptual combination.

In four experiments, I examined how a property in one concept is transferred to a second concept during conceptual combination. The results suggest that people instantiate properties: that is, they use a specific representation of a property in the modifier concept to construct a new version of that property that is specific to the combination. If people are instantiating properties, then the modifier property should match its counterpart in the combination to the extent that the modifier and head noun are similar. This observation leads to a variety of predictions (supported by the experiments) about interpretations of similar and dissimilar combinations and about plausibility, preference, and similarity judgments associated with such interpretations. The results argue against an alternative view of transfer that posits that, in general, abstract representations of properties are copied from one concept to another. In this paper, I describe various processing accounts of instantiation and discuss the implications of the instantiation view for theories of metaphor, conceptual combination, and induction.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

On the equivalence of superordinate concepts.

Psychological studies of superordinates have generally treated them as equivalent. However, many languages distinguish mass superordinates (e.g., clothing) from count superordinates (e.g., vehicle). In the present paper, experimental evidence is presented which suggests that the two types of superordinates are conceptually distinct as well. One study showed that the members of mass superordinates more often co-occur. A second study showed that people more often interact with the members of mass superordinates in temporal proximity whereas people primarily interact with single members of count superordinates on a specific occasion. Also, properties that characterize an individual are a more salient aspect of count superordinates. These findings imply that mass superordinates refer to unindividuated groups of objects, united by spatial and functional contiguity. Two other studies supported this hypothesis by showing that the class inclusion relation between a single object and a category is stronger for count superordinates. Taken together, the findings suggest that mass superordinates are not true taxonomic categories. We relate the findings to previous views of superordinates and to the count/mass distinction in general.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Prior knowledge and functionally relevant features in concept learning.

Empirical learning models have typically focused on statistical aspects of features (e.g., cue and category validity). In general, these models do not address the contact between people's prior knowledge that lies outside the category and their experiences of the category. A variety of extensions to these models are examined, which combine prior knowledge with empirical learning. Predictions of these models were compared in 4 experiments. These studies contrasted the cue and category validity of features with people's prior knowledge about the relevance of features to the functions of novel artifacts. The findings suggest that the influences of knowledge and experience are more tightly integrated than some models would predict. Furthermore, relatively straightforward ways of incorporating knowledge into an empirical learning algorithm appear insufficient (e.g., use of knowledge to weight features by general relevance or to individually weight features). Other extensions to these models are suggested that focus on the importance of intermediary features, coherence, and conceptual roles.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: what a superordinate is good for.

Many studies have shown that subjects are faster at categorizing objects into "basic" concepts than into more general superordinate concepts. However, all of these studies have used a categorization task in which single, isolated objects are identified. There is good reason to believe that superordinate concepts are typically used to refer to collections of objects rather than to individual objects. For example, people more often use the term furniture to refer to a number of pieces of furniture rather than to name a single piece. This suggest that superordinate concepts include information about multiple objects and their common relations, particularly the typical scenes in which such objects appear. Four experiments examined this possibility by investigating whether the basic concept advantage will decrease or reverse itself when subjects are asked to categorize an object as part of a scene. The results showed that the basic-superordinate difference did decrease when subjects categorized objects in scenes. Furthermore, when an object was placed in an inappropriate scene, there was more interference for superordinate identifications. The results suggest qualitative differences in the representations of superordinate and basic concepts.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration.

We argue and show that different properties of stimuli are compatible with different types of processing. Specifically, object pairs from the same taxonomic category (e.g., chair-bed) tend to be alignable and thus compatible with comparison, whereas object pairs that play different roles in thematic relations (e.g., chair-carpenter) tend to be nonalignable and compatible with integration. Using object pairs that varied orthogonally in alignability and thematic relatedness, we demonstrated that stimulus compatibility modulates processing and affects the outcomes of tasks that are currently believed to involve only comparison (similarity ratings, Experiment 1; listing commonalities and differences, Experiment 2) or only integration (thematic relatedness ratings, Experiment 3). Our findings and others that we have reviewed suggest that: (1) many cognitive tasks involve both comparison and integration, and (2) the relative influence of each process is modulated by an interplay between the task-appropriate and the stimulus-compatible process. We believe that single-process models should be extended to take this interplay into account.

Humans↗