ABSTRACT
"Dogs" are connected to "cats" in our minds, and "backyard" to "outdoors." Does the structure of this semantic knowledge differ across people? Network-based approaches are a popular representational scheme for thinking about how relations between different concepts are organized. Recent research uses graph theoretic analyses to examine individual differences in semantic networks for simple concepts and how they relate to other higher-level cognitive processes, such as creativity. However, it remains ambiguous whether individual differences captured via network analyses reflect true differences in measures of the structure of semantic knowledge, or differences in how people strategically approach semantic relatedness tasks. To test this, we examine the reliability of local and global metrics of semantic networks for simple concepts across different semantic relatedness tasks. In four experiments, we find that both weighted and unweighted graph theoretic representations reliably capture individual differences in local measures of semantic networks (e.g., how related pot is to pan versus lion). In contrast, we find that metrics of global structural properties of semantic networks, such as the average clustering coefficient and shortest path length, are less robust across tasks and may not provide reliable individual difference measures of how people represent simple concepts. We discuss the implications of these results and offer recommendations for researchers who seek to apply graph theoretic analyses in the study of individual differences in semantic memory.
ABSTRACT
In many decision tasks, we have a set of alternative choices and are faced with the problem of how to use our latent beliefs and preferences about each alternative to make a single choice. Cognitive and decision models typically presume that beliefs and preferences are distilled to a scalar latent strength for each alternative, but it is also critical to model how people use these latent strengths to choose a single alternative. Most models follow one of two traditions to establish this link. Modern psychophysics and memory researchers make use of signal detection theory, assuming that latent strengths are perturbed by noise, and the highest resulting signal is selected. By contrast, many modern decision theoretic modeling and machine learning approaches use the softmax function (which is based on Luce's choice axiom; Luce, 1959) to give some weight to non-maximal-strength alternatives. Despite the prominence of these two theories of choice, current approaches rarely address the connection between them, and the choice of one or the other appears more motivated by the tradition in the relevant literature than by theoretical or empirical reasons to prefer one theory to the other. The goal of the current work is to revisit this topic by elucidating which of these two models provides a better characterization of latent processes in m -alternative decision tasks, with a particular focus on memory tasks. In a set of visual memory experiments, we show that, within the same experimental design, the softmax parameter ß varies across m -alternatives, whereas the parameter d ' of the signal-detection model is stable. Together, our findings indicate that replacing softmax with signal-detection link models would yield more generalizable predictions across changes in task structure. More ambitiously, the invariance of signal detection model parameters across different tasks suggests that the parametric assumptions of these models may be more than just a mathematical convenience, but reflect something real about human decision-making.
