Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre Niños, Adultos Jóvenes y Adultos Mayores

Conceptual relationships: comparison between Children, Young Adults and Older Adults

Contenido principal del artículo

Ana García Coni, Dra.
Ana Comesaña, Dra.
Brenda Piccolo, Lic.
Jorge Ricardo Vivas, Dr.

Resumen

El estudio de la organización del conocimiento en la memoria semántica suscita gran interés en Psicología Cognitiva y Neuropsicología. El conocimiento semántico está representado por conceptos que comparten características y forman una jerarquía inclusiva -organización taxonómica-, o que se vinculan en tiempo y espacio -organización temática o situacional-. Se considera que a lo largo del desarrollo cambia la preferencia por estos tipos de organización, pero son pocos los estudios que comparan las organizaciones conceptuales de niños en edad escolar, adultos jóvenes y mayores, y sus resultados son divergentes. Asimismo, la organización conceptual también varía en función del dominio al que pertenece el concepto (vivo vs no vivo). Por lo tanto, el objetivo general de este estudio fue estudiar qué tipos de organización conceptual empleaban esos grupos en una tarea de producción de atributos para conceptos de seres vivos y no vivos. Los resultados indican que la producción de atributos taxonómicos fue significativamente mayor para los adultos jóvenes que para los adultos mayores y los niños, en tanto la producción taxonómica de estos dos últimos grupos fue pareja. En cuanto a la producción temática, fue alta y homogénea en los tres grupos de edad. Por último, para el dominio de los seres no vivos los atributos resultaron en su mayoría temáticos y perceptivos, y para el dominio de los seres vivos, mayormente perceptivos.

Palabras clave:

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Biografía del autor/a (VER)

Ana García Coni, Dra., Investigador Asistente CONICET- IPSIBAT UNMdP

Invetigadora Asistente de la Carrera de Investigador del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)- Ayudante de Trabajos Prácticos en la asignatura Teorías del Aprendizaje de la Facultad de Psicología la UNMdP. En los últimos años vengo desarrollando líneas de investigación referidas al estudio de los procesos cognitivos en niños, adolescente y adultos.

Ana Comesaña, Dra., Investigador Asistente CONICET- IPSIBAT UNMdP

Invetigadora Asistente de la Carrera de Investigador de Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones científicas y técnicas (CONICET)- Docente Titular de Psicología General y del Desarrrollo y Ciclo Vital- Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Trabajo Social de la UNMdP. En los últimos años vengo desarrollando líneas de investigación referidas al estudio de los procesos cognitivos en adultos mayores con y sin patologías neurológicas y desarrollando intrumentos para el entrenamiento y rehabilitación de dichas funciones.

Brenda Piccolo, Lic., Adscripta a la investigación en IPSIBAT UNMdp

Actualmente, tras haber desarrolado su tesis de grado acerca del desarrollo de la categorización semántica, continúa desempeñándose como adscripta en el grupo de investigación.

Jorge Ricardo Vivas, Dr., Director del IPSIBAR (UNMdP - CONICET)

Profesor titular de las asignaturas Teorías del Aprendizaje y Psicología Cognitiva de la Facultad de Psicología UNMdP. Director IPSIBAT (UNMDP-CONICET) Centro Asociado a CIC Prov. de Bs As

Referencias (VER)

American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, Washington D.C.: American Pychological Association. Recuperado de: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf

Beste, C., Willemssen, R., Saft, C., & Falkenstein, M. (2010). Response inhibition subprocesses and dopaminergic pathways: Basal ganglia disease effects. Neuropsychologia, 48, 366-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.023

Blaye, A. & Jacques, S. (2009). Categorical flexibility in preschoolers: contributions of conceptual knowledge and

executive control. Developmental Science, 12(6), 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.x

Borghi, A. M. & Caramelli, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: from action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2014(02)00161-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00161-2

Cicirelli, V. (1976). Categorization behavior in aging subjects. Journal of Gerontology, 31(6), 676-680. Clarke, A., Taylor, K., Devereux, B., Randall, B., & Tyler L. (2013). From perception to conception: How meaningful objects are processed over time. Cerebral Cortex, 23(1), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs002

Coane, J. H., Monahan, K., & Termonen, M. (2015). Hunts, Heinz, and Fries priming ketchup: The effects of lexicality on brand name-product associations and brand memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 455-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3124

Constantinescu, A., O’Reilly, J., Behrens, T. (2016). Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a grid-like code. Science, 352, 1464-1468. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0941 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0941

Cycowicz, Y., Friedman, D., Rothstein, M., & Snodgrass, J. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171-237. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2356

Di Giorgio, E., Lunghi, M., Simon, F., & Vallortigara, G. (2017). Visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception at birth: The case of self-propulsion. Developmental Science, 20, e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394

Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. (pp. 249-294). En B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 54. Burlington: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5

Favarotto, V., García Coni, A., Magani, F. & Vivas, J. (2014). Semantic memory organization in children and young adults. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.391

Fisher, A., Godwin, K., & Matlen, B. (2015). Development of inductive generalization with familiar categories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1149-1173. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0816-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0816-5

García Coni, A., Ison, M., & Vivas, J. (2019). Conceptual flexibility in school children: Switching between taxonomic and thematic relations. Cognitive Development, 52, 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100827

García Coni, A. & Vivas, J. (2018). Diferencias en la categorización de seres vivos y objetos. Estudio en niños de edad escolar. Suma Psicológica, 25, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n1.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n1.7

Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001

Gelman, S. & Meyer, M. (2011). Child categorization. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96

Golonka, S. & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454-1464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017397 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017397

Grasso, L. & Peraita, H. (2011). Adaptación de la batería de evaluación de la memoria semántica en la demencia tipo Alzheimer (EMSDA) a la población de la ciudad de Buenos Aires. Interdisciplinaria, 28 (1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07253-000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t07253-000

Hashimoto, N., McGregor, K., & Graham, A. (2007). Conceptual organization at 6 and 8 years of age: Evidence from the semantic priming of object decisions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/014) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/014)

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Callado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6a

edición). México: MacGraw-Hill.

Horner, A.J., Bisby, J.A., Bush, D., Lin, W.-J., Burgess, N. (2015). Evidence for holistic episodic recollection via hippocampal pattern completion. Nature Communication, 6, 7462. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8462

Jouravlev, O. & McRae, K. (2016). Thematic relatedness production norms for 100 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1349-1357. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8

Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. Neuroimage, 44, 1152-1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043

Landrigan, J. & Mirman, D. (2017). The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5

Lawson, R., Chang, F., & Wills, A. J. (2017). Free classification of large sets of everyday objects is more thematic than taxonomic. Acta Psychologica, 172, 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.001

Lewis, G., Poeppel, D., & Murphy, G. (2015). The neural bases of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: An MEG study. Neuropsychologia, 68, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.011

Ley N° 25.326. Protección de datos personales. Dirección Nacional de Protección de datos personales, Ministerio

de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos humanos, 29 de noviembre de 2001.

Lin, E. & Murphy, G. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.3

General, 130, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3

Maguire, M., White, J. & Brier, M. (2011). How semantic categorization influences inhibitory processing in middle-childhood: An Event Related Potentials study. Brain & Cognition, 76(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.015

Maguire, M., Brier, M., & Ferree, T. (2010). EEG theta and alpha responses reveal qualitative differences in processing taxonomic versus thematic semantic relationships. Brain & Language, 114, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.005

Maintenant, C., Blaye, A., & Paour, J. (2011). Semantic categorical flexibility and aging: Effect of semantic relations on maintenance and switching. Psychology and Aging, 26(2), 461-466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021686

Merck, C., Noël, A., Jamet, E., Robert, M., Hou, C., Salmon, A., ... Kalénine, S. (2019). Identification of taxonomic and thematic relationships: do the two semantic systems have the same status in semantic dementia? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(9), 946-964. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1641186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1641186

Mirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092

Mudar, R. A. & Chiang, H. S. (2017). Categorization and aging. En H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science (2nd Edition) (pp. 673-686). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7

Mudar, R. A., Chiang, H. S., Maguire, M. J., Spence, J. S., Eroh, J., Kraut, M. A., Hart, J. Jr. (2015). Effects of age on cognitive control during semantic categorization. Behavioral Brain Research, 287, 285-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.042

Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Massachussets: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001

Muthivhi, A. E. (2010). Piaget, Vygotsky, and the cultural development of the notions of possibility and necessity: An experimental study among rural South African learners. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000203

Nelson, K. (1985). Event knowledge. Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

O’Connor, C., Cree, G., McRae, K. (2009). Conceptual hierarchies in a flat attractor network: Dynamics of learning and computations. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 665-708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01024.x

Paxton, J. L., Barch, D. M., Racine, C. A., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Cognitive control, goal maintenance, and prefrontal function in healthy aging. Cerebral Cortex, 18(5), 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm135

Pennequin, V., Fontaine, R., Bonthoux, F., Scheuner, N., & Blaye, A. (2006). Categorization deficit in old age: Reality or artefact? Journal of Adult Development, 13, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9000-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9000-5

Pluciennicka, E., Coello, Y., & Kalenine, S. (2016). Development of thematic and functional similarity relation processing during manipulable artifact object identification: Evidence from eye-tracking in the Visual World Paradigm. Cognitive Development, 38, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.001

Popp, E. Y. & Serra, M. J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free-recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26, 89-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1326507

Rogers, T. & Patterson, K. (2007). Object Categorization: Reversals and Explanations of the Basic-Level Advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451

Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X

Roversi, C., Borghi, A., & Tummolini, L. (2013). A marriage is an artefact and not a walk that we take together: An experimental study on the categorization of artefacts. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0150-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0150-7

Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46, 409-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015

Sadeghi, Z., McClelland, J., & Hoffman, P. (2015). You shall know an object by the company it keeps: An investigation of semantic representations derived from object co-occurrence in visual scenes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.031

Salthouse, T. (2017). Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology, 31. https://doi.org/11-19. 10.1037/neu0000330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000330

Schwartz, M., Kimberg, D. Walker, G., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O., Dell, G.... Coslett, H. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 8520–8524. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014935108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014935108

Simon, J., Gilsoul, J., & Collette, F. (2015). The executive functioning in normal aging: Impact of the cognitive reserve. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2268/185655

Sloutsky, V. (2010). From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops? Cognitive Science, 34, 1244-1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.x

Smiley, S. & Brown, A. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(79)90087-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(79)90087-0

Sormaz, S., Jefferies, E. Bernhardt, B., Karapanagiotidis, T., Mollo, G., ... Smallwooda, J. (2017). Knowing what from where: Hippocampal connectivity with temporoparietal cortex at rest is linked to individual differences in semantic and topographic memory. Neuroimage, 152, 400-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.071

Taylor, K., Moss, H., & Tyler, L. (2007). The conceptual structure account: A cognitive model of semantic memory and its neural instantiation. En J. Hart Jr. & M. Kraut (eds.), Neural basis of Semantic Memory (pp. 265-301). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511544965.012

Unger, L. & Fisher, A. (2019). Rapid, experience-related changes in the organization of children’s semantic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.10.007

Unger, L., Fisher, A., Nugent, R., Ventura, S., & MacLellan, C. (2016). Developmental changes in semantic knowledge organization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.005

Vivas, L. & García Coni, A. (2013). Relaciones conceptuales: definición del constructo, bases neuroanatómicas y formas de evaluación. Actualidades en Psicología, 27(114), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v27i114.2852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v27i114.2852

Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., García Coni, A., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095-1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2

White, A., Storms, G. Malt, B., & Verheyen, S. (2018). Mind the generation gap: Differences between young and old in everyday lexical categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001

Wright, K., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Kelley, E. (2015). The animate-inanimate distinction in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12068

Wu, L. & Barsalou, L. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002

Zortea, M., Menegola, B., Villavicencio, A. & Salles, J. F. (2014). Graph analysis of semantic word association among children, adults, and the elderly. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-79722014000100011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722014000100011

Citado por