2021
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ksa2g
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A sequential sampling account of semantic relatedness decisions

Abstract: We compare three sequential sampling models, the Race model, the leaky competing accumulator model (LCA) and the drift diffusion model (DDM), as novel computational accounts of choices and response times in semantic relatedness decisions. We focus on two empirical benchmarks, the relatedness effect, denoting faster ”related” than ”unrelated” decisions when judging the relatedness of word pairs, and an inverted-U shaped relationship between response time and the relatedness strength of word pairs. Using simulat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, our suggested approach of mapping individual semantic networks is open to the criticism that no elicitation of individuals' knowledge store is independent of the process by which the representation is accessed. As a result, any individual or age differences detected cannot be unequivocally assigned to the nature of association in the knowledge store (representation), but can in principle result from the process by which this representation is searched and accessed (Jones, Hills, et al, 2015;Kenett et al, 2020;Kraemer et al, 2021, February 10;Siew et al, 2019). So far, there seems to be no clear consensus concerning the extent to which representation and process are entangled in the kinds of tasks presented here (Abbott et al, 2015;Jones, Hills, et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…First, our suggested approach of mapping individual semantic networks is open to the criticism that no elicitation of individuals' knowledge store is independent of the process by which the representation is accessed. As a result, any individual or age differences detected cannot be unequivocally assigned to the nature of association in the knowledge store (representation), but can in principle result from the process by which this representation is searched and accessed (Jones, Hills, et al, 2015;Kenett et al, 2020;Kraemer et al, 2021, February 10;Siew et al, 2019). So far, there seems to be no clear consensus concerning the extent to which representation and process are entangled in the kinds of tasks presented here (Abbott et al, 2015;Jones, Hills, et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…One limitation that may be common to many of the currently available approaches, however, is that no elicitation of individuals' knowledge store is independent of the process by which the representation is accessed. As a result, any individual or age differences detected cannot be unequivocally assigned to the nature of association in the knowledge store (representation), but can in principle result from the process by which this representation is searched and accessed (Jones, Hills, & Todd, 2015; Kenett, Beckage, Siew, & Wulff, 2020; Kraemer, Wulff, & Gluth, 2021; Siew, Wulff, Beckage, & Kenett, 2019). So far, there seems to be no clear consensus concerning the extent to which representation and process are entangled in the kinds of tasks typically used to elicit semantic networks (Abbott, Austerweil, & Griffiths, 2015; Jones et al., 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, evidence accumulation dynamics should account for the fact that memory retrieval is not an instantaneous event but rather a process where information gets more vivid over time (presumably in theta rhythm, Kerrén et al, 2018; Staresina and Wimber, 2019). Such retrieval processes could be embedded in sequential sampling models where the state of memory retrieval at a time causes non-linear accumulation dynamics, as have been proposed for conflict tasks (White et al, 2017) and in judgments drawing on semantic memory (van Maanen et al, 2012; Kraemer et al, 2021b). The validation of such models will crucially depend on the identification of temporally precise neural markers of the onset, continuation and termination memory and decision processes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%