PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1070929

Brain architecture and mechanisms that underlie language: an information-processing analysis.

R J Baron
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A neural network model for naming visual objects and their attributes, and understanding certain simple types of sentences has been presented. The model is based on neural processes rather than linguistic or symbolic constructs. The following are the major structural features of the model: 1. Memory stores are associative networks that perform an analysis of their inputs in real time. This analysis converts the input pattern into a "recognition pattern" that depends on the specific stored information and its location in the store. 2. The naming store is an analyzer network that converts the sensory encoding of a sentence into a "sentence pattern". The sentence pattern is obtained by averaging the recognition signals from several memory locations in the naming store. Because of the organization of words in the naming store, sentence patterns are an encoding of the structure of the sentences. 3. The sentence store is an associative memory store that recognizes sentence patterns and associates with each one an "instruction sequence" or "program" that specifies how the system should respond to the sentence. It is the enabling of access to this "program" that constitutes "understanding." Sentences are understood in real time, without the explicit grammatical analysis that is usual in sentence-understanding systems. Understanding a sentence involves two functionally distinct processes: (1) associating with its sentence pattern an instruction sequence that specifices what to do in order to generate an appropriate response to the sentence matching that pattern: for example, to look in the visual field for an object, determine its location, and so on, and (2) analysis of the tokens in the sentence that indicate specific attributes or entities to look for or determine.

Explore related subjects

AssociationBrainCognitionHumansLanguageMemoryModels, NeurologicalTime FactorsVisual PerceptionJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R J Baron. 1976. Brain architecture and mechanisms that underlie language: an information-processing analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25490.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon.

The authors present a computational model that builds a holographic lexicon representing both word meaning and word order from unsupervised experience with natural language. The model uses simple convolution and superposition mechanisms (cf. B. B. Murdock, 1982) to learn distributed holographic representations for words. The structure of the resulting lexicon can account for empirical data from classic experiments studying semantic typicality, categorization, priming, and semantic constraint in sentence completions. Furthermore, order information can be retrieved from the holographic representations, allowing the model to account for limited word transitions without the need for built-in transition rules. The model demonstrates that a broad range of psychological data can be accounted for directly from the structure of lexical representations learned in this way, without the need for complexity to be built into either the processing mechanisms or the representations. The holographic representations are an appropriate knowledge representation to be used by higher order models of language comprehension, relieving the complexity required at the higher level.

Association↗
PubMed2007

Separating bias and sensitivity in judgments of associative memory.

Ratings of the degree of association between words are linearly related to normed associative strengths, but the intercept is high, and the slope is shallow (the judgments of associative memory [JAM] function). Two experiments included manipulations intended to decrease the intercept and increase the slope. Discrimination training on many pairs of words and constraining ratings to sum to a constant both reduced the intercept but failed to change the slope. The intercept of the JAM function appears to contain a bias component that can be manipulated independently of the slope, which reflects sensitivity to associative strengths.

Association↗
PubMed2007

Transfer of noncorresponding spatial associations to the auditory Simon task.

Four experiments examined transfer of noncorresponding spatial stimulus-response associations to an auditory Simon task for which stimulus location was irrelevant. Experiment 1 established that, for a horizontal auditory Simon task, transfer of spatial associations occurs after 300 trials of practice with an incompatible mapping of auditory stimuli to keypress responses. Experiments 2-4 examined transfer effects within the auditory modality when the stimuli and responses were varied along vertical and horizontal dimensions. Transfer occurred when the stimuli and responses were arrayed along the same dimension in practice and transfer but not when they were arrayed along orthogonal dimensions. These findings indicate that prior task-defined associations have less influence on the auditory Simon effect than on the visual Simon effect, possibly because of the stronger tendency for an auditory stimulus to activate its corresponding response.

Association↗