Taxonomic and Thematic Semantic Systems

Overview

Journal Psychol Bull

Publisher American Psychological Association

Specialty Psychology

Date 2017 Mar 24

PMID 28333494

Citations 59

Authors

Daniel Mirman

Jon-Frederick Landrigan

Allison E Britt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Object concepts are critical for nearly all aspects of human cognition, from perception tasks like object recognition, to understanding and producing language, to making meaningful actions. Concepts can have 2 very different kinds of relations: similarity relations based on shared features (e.g., dog-bear), which are called "taxonomic" relations, and contiguity relations based on co-occurrence in events or scenarios (e.g., dog-leash), which are called "thematic" relations. Here, we report a systematic review of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience evidence of this distinction in the structure of semantic memory. We propose 2 principles that may drive the development of distinct taxonomic and thematic semantic systems: differences between which features determine taxonomic versus thematic relations, and differences in the processing required to extract taxonomic versus thematic relations. This review brings together distinct threads of behavioral, computational, and neuroscience research on semantic memory in support of a functional and neural dissociation, and defines a framework for future studies of semantic memory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Citing Articles

Global precedence effects account for individual differences in taxonomic and thematic relations recognition performance.

Shi K, Li J Psychon Bull Rev. 2025; .

PMID: 39939566 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-025-02655-z.

Experientially-grounded and distributional semantic vectors uncover dissociable representations of conceptual categories.

Carota F, Nili H, Kriegeskorte N, Pulvermuller F Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2025; 39(8):1020-1044.

PMID: 39777206 PMC: 11706208. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2023.2232481.

High-level construal mindset promotes categorizing information based on thematic associate relations.

Shi K, Li J Mem Cognit. 2024; .

PMID: 39192140 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01624-6.

A Rose by Any Other Name: Mapping Taxonomic and Thematic Naming Errors Poststroke.

Riccardi N, Schwen Blackett D, Broadhead A, den Ouden D, Rorden C, Fridriksson J J Cogn Neurosci. 2024; 36(10):2251-2267.

PMID: 39106171 PMC: 11792165. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_02236.

The role of culture and semantic organization in working memory updating.

Leger K, Snyder H, Boduroglu A, Gutchess A Memory. 2024; 32(5):576-586.

PMID: 38727557 PMC: 11262971. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2024.2351062.

References

Schwartz M, Kimberg D, Walker G, Brecher A, Faseyitan O, Dell G . Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(20):8520-4. PMC: 3100928. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014935108. View

McRae K, Cree G, Seidenberg M, McNorgan C . Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behav Res Methods. 2006; 37(4):547-59. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192726. View

Medin D, Lynch E, Coley J, Atran S . Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: do all roads lead to Rome?. Cogn Psychol. 1997; 32(1):49-96. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1997.0645. View

Coane J, McBride D, Termonen M, Cutting J . Categorical and associative relations increase false memory relative to purely associative relations. Mem Cognit. 2015; 44(1):37-49. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-015-0543-1. View

Xu J, Kemeny S, Park G, Frattali C, Braun A . Language in context: emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage. 2005; 25(3):1002-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.013. View

Cree G, McRae K . Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132(2):163-201. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.163. View

Tyler L, Stamatakis E, Dick E, Bright P, Fletcher P, Moss H . Objects and their actions: evidence for a neurally distributed semantic system. Neuroimage. 2003; 18(2):542-57. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-8119(02)00047-2. View

Yee E, Overton E, Thompson-Schill S . Looking for meaning: eye movements are sensitive to overlapping semantic features, not association. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16(5):869-74. PMC: 3025482. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.869. View

Bi Y, Wei T, Wu C, Han Z, Jiang T, Caramazza A . The role of the left anterior temporal lobe in language processing revisited: Evidence from an individual with ATL resection. Cortex. 2010; 47(5):575-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.12.002. View

10.

Mirman D, Magnuson J . Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition. Mem Cognit. 2009; 37(7):1026-39. PMC: 2829868. DOI: 10.3758/MC.37.7.1026. View

11.

L Seghier M . The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist. 2012; 19(1):43-61. PMC: 4107834. DOI: 10.1177/1073858412440596. View

12.

Lau E, Phillips C, Poeppel D . A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(12):920-33. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2532. View

13.

Tarhan L, Watson C, Buxbaum L . Shared and Distinct Neuroanatomic Regions Critical for Tool-related Action Production and Recognition: Evidence from 131 Left-hemisphere Stroke Patients. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015; 27(12):2491-511. PMC: 8139360. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00876. View

14.

Shimamura A . Episodic retrieval and the cortical binding of relational activity. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2011; 11(3):277-91. DOI: 10.3758/s13415-011-0031-4. View

15.

Kalenine S, Buxbaum L . Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge. Cortex. 2016; 82:164-178. PMC: 4969110. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.06.008. View

16.

Riordan B, Jones M . Redundancy in perceptual and linguistic experience: comparing feature-based and distributional models of semantic representation. Top Cogn Sci. 2014; 3(2):303-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01111.x. View

17.

Mirman D, Graziano K . Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011; 141(4):601-9. PMC: 3315601. DOI: 10.1037/a0026451. View

18.

Yi K, Li D, Park W, Park K, Shim T, Kwern O . Korean deaf adolescents' awareness of thematic and taxonomic relations among ordinary concepts represented by pictures and written words. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2011; 16(3):375-91. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enq065. View

19.

Schnur T, Schwartz M, Kimberg D, Hirshorn E, Coslett H, Thompson-Schill S . Localizing interference during naming: convergent neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence for the function of Broca's area. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106(1):322-7. PMC: 2629229. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0805874106. View

20.

Behrmann M, Plaut D . Distributed circuits, not circumscribed centers, mediate visual recognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013; 17(5):210-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.007. View