IARG-AnCora: anotación de los corpus AnCora con argumentos implícitos

IARG-AnCora tiene como objetivo la anotación con papeles temáticos de los argumentos implícitos de las nominalizaciones deverbales en el corpus AnCora. Estos corpus servirán de base para los sistemas de etiquetado automático de roles semánticos basados en técnicas de aprendizaje automático. Los analizadores semánticos son componentes básicos en las aplicaciones actuales de las tecnologías del lenguaje, en las que se quiere potenciar una comprensión más profunda del texto para realizar inferencias de más alto nivel y obtener así mejoras cualitativas en los resultados.

Multimodal semantic-associative collateral labelling and indexing of still images

A novel framework for multimodal semantic-associative collateral image labelling, aiming at associating image regions with textual keywords, is described. Both the primary image and collateral textual modalities are exploited in a cooperative and complementary fashion. The collateral content and context based knowledge is used to bias the mapping from the low-level region-based visual primitives to the high-level visual concepts defined in a visual vocabulary. We introduce the notion of collateral context, which is represented as a co-occurrence matrix, of the visual keywords, A collaborative mapping scheme is devised using statistical methods like Gaussian distribution or Euclidean distance together with collateral content and context-driven inference mechanism. Finally, we use Self Organising Maps to examine the classification and retrieval effectiveness of the proposed high-level image feature vector model which is constructed based on the image labelling results.

Semantic-associative visual content labelling and retrieval: A multimodal approach

A novel framework referred to as collaterally confirmed labelling (CCL) is proposed, aiming at localising the visual semantics to regions of interest in images with textual keywords. Both the primary image and collateral textual modalities are exploited in a mutually co-referencing and complementary fashion. The collateral content and context-based knowledge is used to bias the mapping from the low-level region-based visual primitives to the high-level visual concepts defined in a visual vocabulary. We introduce the notion of collateral context, which is represented as a co-occurrence matrix of the visual keywords. A collaborative mapping scheme is devised using statistical methods like Gaussian distribution or Euclidean distance together with collateral content and context-driven inference mechanism. We introduce a novel high-level visual content descriptor that is devised for performing semantic-based image classification and retrieval. The proposed image feature vector model is fundamentally underpinned by the CCL framework. Two different high-level image feature vector models are developed based on the CCL labelling of results for the purposes of image data clustering and retrieval, respectively. A subset of the Corel image collection has been used for evaluating our proposed method. The experimental results to-date already indicate that the proposed semantic-based visual content descriptors outperform both traditional visual and textual image feature models. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Collaterally cued labelling framework underpinning semantic-level visual content descriptor

In this paper, we introduce a novel high-level visual content descriptor devised for performing semantic-based image classification and retrieval. The work can be treated as an attempt for bridging the so called "semantic gap". The proposed image feature vector model is fundamentally underpinned by an automatic image labelling framework, called Collaterally Cued Labelling (CCL), which incorporates the collateral knowledge extracted from the collateral texts accompanying the images with the state-of-the-art low-level visual feature extraction techniques for automatically assigning textual keywords to image regions. A subset of the Corel image collection was used for evaluating the proposed method. The experimental results indicate that our semantic-level visual content descriptors outperform both conventional visual and textual image feature models.

The role of self-teaching in learning orthographic and semantic aspects of new words

This study explores how children learn the meaning (semantics) and spelling patterns (orthography) of novel words encountered in story context. English-speaking children (N = 88) aged 7 to 8 years read 8 stories and each story contained 1 novel word repeated 4 times. Semantic cues were provided by the story context such that children could infer the meaning of the word (specific context) or the category that the word belonged to (general context). Following story reading, posttests indicated that children showed reliable semantic and orthographic learning. Decoding was the strongest predictor of orthographic learning, indicating that self-teaching via phonological recoding was important for this aspect of word learning. In contrast, oral vocabulary emerged as the strongest predictor of semantic learning.

Autobiographical memory and well-being in aging: the central role of semantic self-images

Higher levels of well-being are associated with longer life expectancies and better physical health. Previous studies suggest that processes involving the self and autobiographical memory are related to well-being, yet these relationships are poorly understood. The present study tested 32 older and 32 younger adults using scales measuring well-being and the affective valence of two types of autobiographical memory: episodic autobiographical memories and semantic self-images. Results showed that valence of semantic self-images, but not episodic autobiographical memories, was highly correlated with well-being,particularly in older adults. In contrast, well-being in older adults was unrelated to performance across a range of standardised memory tasks. These results highlight the role of semantic self-images in well-being, and have implications for the development of therapeutic interventions for well-being in aging.

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

On the role of semantic approximations in validation and diagnosis of constraint logic programs

Abstract is not available.

Role of left inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: A reevaluation

A number of neuroimaging findings have been interpreted as evidence that the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) subserves retrieval of semantic knowledge. We provide a fundamentally different interpretation, that it is not retrieval of semantic knowledge per se that is associated with left IFG activity but rather selection of information among competing alternatives from semantic memory. Selection demands were varied across three semantic tasks in a single group of subjects. Functional magnetic resonance imaging signal in overlapping regions of left IFG was dependent on selection demands in all three tasks. In addition, the degree of semantic processing was varied independently of selection demands in one of the tasks. The absence of left IFG activity for this comparison counters the argument that the effects of selection can be attributed solely to variations in degree of semantic retrieval. Our findings suggest that it is selection, not retrieval, of semantic knowledge that drives activity in the left IFG.

The role of statistical and semantic features in single-document extractive summarization

This paper reports on the further results of the ongoing research analyzing the impact of a range of commonly used statistical and semantic features in the context of extractive text summarization. The features experimented with include word frequency, inverse sentence and term frequencies, stopwords filtering, word senses, resolved anaphora and textual entailment. The obtained results demonstrate the relative importance of each feature and the limitations of the tools available. It has been shown that the inverse sentence frequency combined with the term frequency yields almost the same results as the latter combined with stopwords filtering that in its turn proved to be a highly competitive baseline. To improve the suboptimal results of anaphora resolution, the system was extended with the second anaphora resolution module. The present paper also describes the first attempts of the internal document data representation.

The role of semantic context and attentional resource distribution in semantic comprehension in Swedish pre-schoolers

Research on semantic processing focused mainly on isolated units in language, which does not reflect the complexity of language. In order to understand how semantic information is processed in a wider context, the first goal of this thesis was to determine whether Swedish pre-school children are able to comprehend semantic context and if that context is semantically built up over time. The second goal was to investigate how the brain distributes attentional resources by means of brain activation amplitude and processing type. Swedish preschool children were tested in a dichotic listening task with longer children’s narratives. The development of event-related potential N400 component and its amplitude were used to investigate both goals. The decrease of the N400 in the attended and unattended channel indicated semantic comprehension and that semantic context was built up over time. The attended stimulus received more resources, processed the stimuli in more of a top-down manner and displayed prominent N400 amplitude in contrast to the unattended stimulus. The N400 and the late positivity were more complex than expected since endings of utterances longer than nine words were not accounted for. More research on wider linguistic context is needed in order to understand how the human brain comprehends natural language. 

From labelling to social aid for immigrants in the 21st Century

Migration is as old as humanity, but since the 1990s migration flows in Western Europe have led to societies that are not just multicultural but so-called «super-diverse». As a result, Western towns now have very complex social structures, with amongst others large amounts of small immigrant communities that are in constant change. In this paper we argue that for social workers to be able to offer adequate professional help to non-native residents in town, they will need balanced view of ‘culture’ and of the role culture plays in social aid. Culture is never static, but is continually changing. By teaching social workers about how to look at cultural backgrounds of immigrant groups and about the limitations of then role that culture plays in communication, they will be better equipped to provide adequate aid and will contribute to making various groups grow towards each other and to avoid people thinking in terms of ‘out-group-homogeneity’. Nowadays, inclusion is a priority in social work that almost every social worker supports. Social workers should have an open attitude to allow them to approach every individual as a unique person. They will see the other person as the person they are, and not as a part of a specific cultural group. Knowledge about the others makes them see the cultural heterogeneity in every group. The social sector, though, must be aware not to fall into the trap of the ‘inclusion mania’! This will cause the social deprivation of a particular group to be forgotten. An inclusive policy requires an inclusive society. Otherwise, this could result in even more deprivation of other groups, already discriminated against. Emancipation of deprived people demands a certain target-group policymaking. Categorized aid will raise efficiency of working with immigrants and of acknowledging the cultural identity of the non-natives group. It will also create the possibility to work on fighting social deprivation, in which most immigrants can be found.

Defining a role for the subthalamic nucleus within operative theoretical models of subcortical participation in language

Objective:To investigate the effects of bilateral, surgically induced functional inhibition of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) on general language, high level linguistic abilities, and semantic processing skills in a group of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Methods:Comprehensive linguistic profiles were obtained up to one month before and three months after bilateral implantation of electrodes in the STN during active deep brain stimulation (DBS) in five subjects with Parkinson’s disease (mean age, 63.2 years). Equivalent linguistic profiles were generated over a three month period for a non-surgical control cohort of 16 subjects with Parkinson’s disease (NSPD) (mean age, 64.4 years). Education and disease duration were similar in the two groups. Initial assessment and three month follow up performance profiles were compared within subjects by paired t tests. Reliability change indices (RCI), representing clinically significant alterations in performance over time, were calculated for each of the assessment scores achieved by the five STN-DBS cases and the 16 NSPD controls, relative to performance variability within a group of 16 non-neurologically impaired adults (mean age, 61.9 years). Proportions of reliable change were then compared between the STN-DBS and NSPD groups. Results:Paired comparisons within the STN-DBS group showed prolonged postoperative semantic processing reaction times for a range of word types coded for meanings and meaning relatedness. Case by case analyses of reliable change across language assessments and groups revealed differences in proportions of change over time within the STN-DBS and NSPD groups in the domains of high level linguistics and semantic processing. Specifically, when compared with the NSPD group, the STN-DBS group showed a proportionally significant (p

Redefining functional models of basal ganglia organisation: Role for the posteroventral pallidum in linguistic processing?

Traditionally the basal ganglia have been implicated in motor behavior, as they are involved in both the execution of automatic actions and the modification of ongoing actions in novel contexts. Corresponding to cognition, the role of the basal ganglia has not been defined as explicitly. Relative to linguistic processes, contemporary theories of subcortical participation in language have endorsed a role for the globus pallidus internus (GPi) in the control of lexical-semantic operations. However, attempts to empirically validate these postulates have been largely limited to neuropsychological investigations of verbal fluency abilities subsequent to pallidotomy. We evaluated the impact of bilateral posteroventral pallidotomy (BPVP) on language function across a range of general and high-level linguistic abilities, and validated/extended working theories of pallidal participation in language. Comprehensive linguistic profiles were compiled up to 1 month before and 3 months after BPVP in 6 subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Commensurate linguistic profiles were also gathered over a 3-month period for a nonsurgical control cohort of 16 subjects with PD and a group of 16 non-neurologically impaired controls (NC). Nonparametric between-groups comparisons were conducted and reliable change indices calculated, relative to baseline/3-month follow-up difference scores. Group-wise statistical comparisons between the three groups failed to reveal significant postoperative changes in language performance. Case-by-case data analysis relative to clinically consequential change indices revealed reliable alterations in performance across several language variables as a consequence of BPVP. These findings lend support to models of subcortical participation in language, which promote a role for the GPi in lexical-semantic manipulation mechanisms. Concomitant improvements and decrements in postoperative performance were interpreted within the context of additive and subtractive postlesional effects. Relative to parkinsonian cohorts, clinically reliable versus statistically significant changes on a case by case basis may provide the most accurate method of characterizing the way in which pathophysiologically divergent basal ganglia linguistic circuits respond to BPVP.

Processing Speed and Working Memory Span: Their Differential Role in Superficial and Deep Memory Processes in Schizophrenia

Previous work has suggested that decrement in both processing speed and working memory span plays a role in the memory impairment observed in patients with schizophrenia. We undertook a study to examine simultaneously the effect of these two factors. A sample of 49 patients with schizophrenia and 43 healthy controls underwent a battery of verbal and visual memory tasks. Superficial and deep encoding memory measures were tallied. We conducted regression analyses on the various memory measures, using processing speed and working memory span as independent variables. In the patient group, processing speed was a significant predictor of superficial and deep memory measures in verbal and visual memory. Working memory span was an additional significant predictor of the deep memory measures only. Regression analyses involving all participants revealed that the effect of diagnosis on all the deep encoding memory measures was reduced to non-significance when processing speed was entered in the regression. Decreased processing speed is involved in verbal and visual memory deficit in patients, whether the task require superficial or deep encoding. Working memory is involved only insofar as the task requires a certain amount of effort. (JINS, 2011, 17, 485-493)