Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35615056›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2022

Statistical Analysis of Multisensory and Text-Derived Representations on Concept Learning.

Yuwei Wang, Yi Zeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuwei WangResearch Center for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yi ZengResearch Center for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When learning concepts, cognitive psychology research has revealed that there are two types of concept representations in the human brain: language-derived codes and sensory-derived codes. For the objective of human-like artificial intelligence, we expect to provide multisensory and text-derived representations for concepts in AI systems. Psychologists and computer scientists have published lots of datasets for the two kinds of representations, but as far as we know, no systematic work exits to analyze them together. We do a statistical study on them in this work. We want to know if multisensory vectors and text-derived vectors reflect conceptual understanding and if they are complementary in terms of cognition. Four experiments are presented in this work, all focused on multisensory representations labeled by psychologists and text-derived representations generated by computer scientists for concept learning, and the results demonstrate that (1) for the same concept, both forms of representations can properly reflect the concept, but (2) the representational similarity analysis findings reveal that the two types of representations are significantly different, (3) as the concreteness of the concept grows larger, the multisensory representation of the concept becomes closer to human beings than the text-derived representation, and (4) we verified that combining the two improves the concept representation.

Indexed as

concept learningconcretenessmultisensory representationsrepresentational similarity analysistext-derived representations

Identifiers

PMID35615056
PMCPMC9125787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.