title: Grounding compositional symbols: no composition without discrimination.
abstract: The classical computational conception of meaning has been challenged by the idea that symbols must be grounded on sensorimotor processes. A difficult question arises from the fact that grounding representations cannot be symbolic themselves but, in order to support compositionality, should work as primitives. This implies that they should be precisely identifiable and strictly connected with discriminable perceptual features. Ideally, each representation should correspond to a single discriminable feature. The present study was aimed at exploring whether feature discrimination is a fundamental requisite for grounding compositional symbols. We studied this problem by using Integral stimuli, composed of two interacting and not separable features. Such stimuli were selected in Experiment 1 as pictures whose component features are easily or barely discriminable (Separable or Integral) on the basis of psychological distance metrics (City-block or Euclidean) computed from similarity judgments. In Experiment 2, either each feature was associated with one word of a two-word expression, or the whole stimulus with a single word. In Experiment 3, the procedure was reversed and words or expressions were associated with whole pictures or separate features. Results support the hypothesis that single words are best grounded by Integral stimuli and composite expressions by Separable stimuli, where a strict association of single words with discriminated features is possible.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Genoa, Via Balbi 6, 16126, Genoa, Italy. greco@unige.it
authors.forename: Alberto
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Greco
authors.forename: Elena
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Carrea
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D032882:Comprehension / Q000502:physiology*; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008037:Linguistics; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010153:Paired-Associate Learning; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time; D013561:Symbolism; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D014825:Vocabulary; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Jun;27(3):377-96; discussion 396-442
references.pmid: 15736871
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 1976 Aug;22(1):73-85
references.pmid: 1003096
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):26-50
references.pmid: 18262509
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1980 Sep;28(3):205-12
references.pmid: 7432998
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1988 May;43(5):494-507
references.pmid: 3380640
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1985 Nov;38(5):415-32
references.pmid: 3831920
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2010 Nov;34(8):1388-429
references.pmid: 21564253
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1998 Feb;21(1):1-17; discussion 17-54
references.pmid: 10097010
references.citation: Front Neurorobot. 2010 Nov 11;4:111
references.pmid: 21151354
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Oct;132(2):173-89
references.pmid: 19298949
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1994 Jun;123(2):178-200
references.pmid: 8014612
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Dec;21(3):177-237
references.pmid: 3830547
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60
references.pmid: 11301525