Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores

Autores:: García Coni, Ana
Comesaña, Ana
Piccolo, Brenda
Vivas, Jorge Ricardo

Tipo de recurso:: Article of journal

Fecha de publicación:: 2020

Institución:: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana

Repositorio:: Repositorio Ibero

Idioma:: spa

id	IBERO2_4c4d29358c2f66fc4471b071b924a332
oai_identifier_str	oai:repositorio.ibero.edu.co:001/3838
network_acronym_str	IBERO2
network_name_str	Repositorio Ibero
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv	Conceptual relationships: comparison between Children, Young Adults and Older Adults
title	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
spellingShingle	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores Conceptual development Taxonomic features Thematic features Living things Non-living things Desarrollo conceptual Organización taxonómica Organización temática Seres vivos Seres no vivos Semántica Desenvolvimento conceitual Características taxonômicas Características temáticas Seres vivos Não-vivo coisas
title_short	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
title_full	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
title_fullStr	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
title_full_unstemmed	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
title_sort	Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	García Coni, Ana Comesaña, Ana Piccolo, Brenda Vivas, Jorge Ricardo
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv	García Coni, Ana Comesaña, Ana Piccolo, Brenda Vivas, Jorge Ricardo
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv	Conceptual development Taxonomic features Thematic features Living things Non-living things
topic	Conceptual development Taxonomic features Thematic features Living things Non-living things Desarrollo conceptual Organización taxonómica Organización temática Seres vivos Seres no vivos Semántica Desenvolvimento conceitual Características taxonômicas Características temáticas Seres vivos Não-vivo coisas
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	Desarrollo conceptual Organización taxonómica Organización temática Seres vivos Seres no vivos Semántica Desenvolvimento conceitual Características taxonômicas Características temáticas Seres vivos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv	Não-vivo coisas
publishDate	2020
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2020-05-19 00:00:00 2022-06-14T21:01:51Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2020-05-19 00:00:00 2022-06-14T21:01:51Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2020-05-19
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	2500-6517
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	2027-1786
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/handle/001/3838
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
identifier_str_mv	10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106 2500-6517 2027-1786
url	https://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/handle/001/3838 https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/download/rip.13106/1567
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv	Núm. 1 , Año 2020 : Psicología del Desarrollo: Investigaciones en torno al estudio del ciclo vital humano
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	59
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv	1
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	49
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv	13
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv	Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. UK: Oxford University Press. Gelman, S. & Meyer, M. (2011). Child categorization. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(1), 95-105. 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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: General, 130, 3-28. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Massachussets: MIT Press. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 Salthouse, T. (2017). Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology, 31. https://doi.org/11-19. 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana - 2020
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv	Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana - 2020 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	ĬbērAM
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/view/rip.13106
institution	Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/bitstreams/c3667bbe-7573-46df-9105-b43aa8df4669/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	f6808cc830ef67cdc0f195de789d347d
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional - IBERO.
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_	1814355780058480640
spelling	García Coni, Ana7f006339b0227ca9f2afdb5e6bde44e3500Comesaña, Ana168fd3d3b4d00a3cfa7253dd646898db500Piccolo, Brendabcc672bcbed5b1bc35be88d0f65584d6500Vivas, Jorge Ricardoe9832120b2e1c70391fdd107e38b13675002020-05-19 00:00:002022-06-14T21:01:51Z2020-05-19 00:00:002022-06-14T21:01:51Z2020-05-19application/pdf10.33881/2027-1786.rip.131062500-65172027-1786https://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/handle/001/3838https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106spaĬbērAMhttps://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/download/rip.13106/1567Núm. 1 , Año 2020 : Psicología del Desarrollo: Investigaciones en torno al estudio del ciclo vital humano5914913Revista Iberoamericana de PsicologíaAmerican 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.pdfBeste, 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.2009.09.023Blaye, A. & Jacques, S. (2009). Categorical flexibility in preschoolers: contributions of conceptual knowledge andexecutive control. Developmental Science, 12(6), 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.xBorghi, 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)00161-2Cicirelli, 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/bhs002Coane, 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.3124Constantinescu, 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.aaf0941Cycowicz, 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.1996.2356Di 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.12394Estes, 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/b978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5Favarotto, 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.2014.04.391Fisher, 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/s13423-015-0816-5García 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.2019.100827García 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.n1.7Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. UK: Oxford University Press.Gelman, S. & Meyer, M. (2011). Child categorization. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96Golonka, 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/a0017397Grasso, 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/t07253-000Hashimoto, 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)Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Callado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6aedición). 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/ncomms8462Jouravlev, O. & McRae, K. (2016). Thematic relatedness production norms for 100 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1349-1357. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8Kalénine, 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.2008.09.043Landrigan, J. & Mirman, D. (2017). The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics. Memory & Cognition. 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.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.2015.01.011Ley N° 25.326. Protección de datos personales. Dirección Nacional de Protección de datos personales, Ministeriode Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos humanos, 29 de noviembre de 2001.Lin, E. & Murphy, G. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 130, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3Maguire, 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.2011.02.015Maguire, 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.2010.03.005Maintenant, 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/a0021686Merck, 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.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/bul0000092Mudar, 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/b978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7Mudar, 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.2015.03.042Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Massachussets: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001Muthivhi, 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/10.1177/008124631004000203Nelson, 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.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/bhm135Pennequin, 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/s10804-006-9000-5Pluciennicka, 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.2016.02.001Popp, E. Y. & Serra, M. J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free-recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26, 89-95.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/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451Rosch, 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-xRoversi, 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/s13164-013-0150-7Sachs, 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.2007.08.015Sadeghi, 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.2014.08.031Salthouse, T. (2017). Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology, 31. https://doi.org/11-19. 10.1037/neu0000330Schwartz, 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.1014935108Simon, J., Gilsoul, J., & Collette, F. (2015). The executive functioning in normal aging: Impact of the cognitive reserve. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2268/185655Sloutsky, V. (2010). From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops? Cognitive Science, 34, 1244-1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.xSmiley, 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)90087-0Sormaz, 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.2017.02.071Taylor, 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.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.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.2016.01.005Vivas, 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.v27i114.2852Vivas, 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/s13428-016-0777-2White, 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.2017.09.001Wright, 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.12068Wu, 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.2009.02.002Zortea, 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/s0102-79722014000100011Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana - 2020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/view/rip.13106Conceptual developmentTaxonomic featuresThematic featuresLiving thingsNon-living thingsDesarrollo conceptualOrganización taxonómicaOrganización temáticaSeres vivosSeres no vivosSemánticaDesenvolvimento conceitualCaracterísticas taxonômicasCaracterísticas temáticasSeres vivosNão-vivo coisasRelaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayoresConceptual relationships: comparison between Children, Young Adults and Older AdultsArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleArtículo de revistaJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2643https://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/bitstreams/c3667bbe-7573-46df-9105-b43aa8df4669/downloadf6808cc830ef67cdc0f195de789d347dMD51001/3838oai:repositorio.ibero.edu.co:001/38382023-03-13 20:21:10.663https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana - 2020https://repositorio.ibero.edu.coRepositorio Institucional - IBERO.bdigital@metabiblioteca.com

Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores

Publicaciones similares