The Construction of an Integrative, Multi-Level Model for Cognition: The Function of Semantic Networks

Authors
Armin Ehsani 1
Imanollah Bigdeli 2
Hussein Kareshki 2
1 -
2 Psychology Faculty
Abstract
Integrated approaches try to connect different constructs in different theories and reinterpret them using a common conceptual framework. In this research, using the concept of processing levels, an integrated, three-level model of the cognitive systems has been proposed. In order to build an integrative framework for systematic interpretation of cognitive tests results, processing levels are divided into three categories of Feature-Oriented, Semantic and Conceptual Level. Since nervous system picks stimuli based on their features, processing levels in this framework is categorized based on the volume of stimuli's information, while Semantic network relates Feature-Oriented and Self-Oriented levels. To assessment the model quantitatively, 207 participants with impaired valance system from psychological clinics in Mashhad were selected by available sampling method. Participants' cognitive function was measured by The Beck Depression Inventory II, Semantic Distance Test, Verbal Fluency Test, Dot Probe Test, Stroop Test, Implicit Association Test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Tets scores were organized as predictive variables, and the three processing levels were considered as mediating variables. The model's structure was analyzed through Structural Equation Model method with an exploratory approach. The best fitted model of data confirmed the three-level division of the research data. In this model, the path coefficient between semantic and conceptual constructions obtained 0.4. These results suggest that Feature-Oriented, Semantic, and Conceptual levels of cognition are differently processed, and cognitive tests results could be compared just in similar level according to the information volume of stimuli used. In previous studies, the relationship between Verbal Fluency test scores and the severity of Beck depressive score has often been controversial. Using the concept of processing levels, the relationship between these two variables have been reinterpreted.
Keywords
Cognitive Modeling
Semantic Networks
Structural Equation Model
American Psychological Association. (2010). 2010 Amendments to the 2002 “Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct”. The American Psychologist, 65(5), 493. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020168.
Badcock, P. B. (2012). Evolutionary systems theory: A unifying meta-theory of psychological science. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026381.
Bartczak, M., & Bokus, B. (2017). Semantic Distances in Depression: Relations Between ME and PAST, FUTURE, JOY, SADNESS, HAPPINESS. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9442-2.
Bisley, J. W., & Goldberg, M. E. (2010). NIH Public Access. Annual Review of Neuroscience, (Critchley 1953), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro
060909-152823.Attention.
Bradley, M. M., Greenwald, M. K., Petry, M. C., & Lang, P. J. (1992). Remembering pictures: Pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 379–390.
Drahansky, M., Paridah, M. ., Moradbak, A., Mohamed, A. ., Owolabi, F. abdulwahab taiwo, Asniza, M., & Abdul Khalid, S. H. . (2016). Impaired Mental Processing Speed With Moderate to Severe Symptoms of Depression. Intech, i(tourism), 13. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57353.
Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to Build a Brain. Oxford University Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2015). Linguistic Relativity from Reference to Agency. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014053.
Gazzaniga, M S. (2011). Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of
the Brain. Ecco. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=1YmsRMe2pZwC.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2015). Human: the Science Behind What Makes Us Unique, 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
Ilonen, T., Leinonen, K., Wallenius, E., Karlsson, H., Taiminen, T., Salokangas, R., & Laurema, H. (2000). Impaired Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in first-episode sever depression. Nord J Psychiatery, 54, 275–280.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. MIT Press 2010.
Miller, E. (1984). Verbal fluency as a function of a measure of verbal intellegence and in relation to different types of cereberal pathology. Clinical Psychology, 8, 385–394.
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The Attention System of the Human Brain: 20 Years After. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Attention, self-regulation and consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353(1377), 1915–1927. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0344.
RepovŠ, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.12.061.
Roca, M., Vives, M., López-Navarro, E., García-Campayo, J., & Gili, M. (2015). Cognitive impairments and depression: a critical review. Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatria, 43(5), 187–193. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26320897.
Strauss, E., Spreen, O., & Sherman, M. S. E. (2006). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary (Third Edit).
Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–138.