Question

How does Paivio’s bilingual dual coding theory compare to the hierarchical models?

Answer 1

Allan Paivio developed a dual-coding theory & defined it as the theory of cognition, according to which humans process & represent verbal and non-verbal information in separate, related systems. For example, the brain uses a different kind of representation for the word " an elephant" than it does for the image of" an elephant."

The idea main aim behind this theory was the formation of mental images aids in learning..The affective processes state all feelings & responses, positive or negative, related to emotion-laden behavior, knowledge, or beliefs. Affect can alter perceptions of situations as well as outcomes of cognitive effort; it can also fuel, block, or terminate cognition & behavior

This theory assumes that there are two cognitive subsystems 1),one specialized for the representation and processing of nonverbal objects/events (i.e., imagery), 2) specialized for dealing with language. Paivio als stated two different types of representational units: 1)"imagens" for mental images 2) "logogens" for verbal entities . He describes as being similar to "chunks" as described by Miller. Logogens are organized in terms of associations and hierarchies while imagens are organized i n terms of part-whole relationships.

Dual Coding theory states three types of processing: (1) representational, the direct activation of verbal or non-verbal representations, (2) referential, the activation of the verbal system by the nonverbal system or vice-versa, and (3) associative processing, the activation of representations within the same verbal or nonverbal system. A given task may require any or all of the three kinds of processing.

APPLICATIONS OF THEORY :

Dual coding theory applies to many cognitive phenomena including: mnemonics, problem-solving, concept learning and language. Dual coding theory accounts for the significance of spatial abilities in theories of intelligence provides a dual coding explanation of bilingual processing. Clark & Paivio - presented dual coding theory as a general framework for educational psychology.

Example: Many experiments stated by Paivio & others supported the importance of imagery in cognitive operations. In one hisexperiment,- articipants saw pairs of items that differed in roundness (e.g., tomato, goblet) and were asked to indicate which member of the p air was rounder. The objects were presented as words, pictures, or word-picture pairs. The response times were slowest for word-word pairs, intermediate for the picture-word pairs, and fastest for the pciture-picture pairs.

HIERARCHICAL MODEL :

.A way of representing the brain's organization of knowledge. In this model, nodes of very specific data (the dry spiciness of a zinfandel) are connected to increasingly less specific nodes of data (spicy-zinfandel-red wine- alcohol).
In this model, activation of a node primes connected nodes for retrieval. Of note, the further a data node is from the initial node of retriveval , the longer it will take to activate

COGNITIVE ECONOMY :A main feature of the hierarchical network model which posits that the less specific the data is, the further up on the network it will be stored. The, data that can generalize to numerous nodes is stored once at a node superordinate to them, rather than being held at multiple subordinate locations.

HIERARCHICAL NETWORK CONFOUNDS ( TYPICALITY EFFECT) :Similar to the Reverse Category confound, (smaller groups can take longer to recall due to unfamiliarity) the typicality effect shows that recall is significantly faster for more familiar members of a hierarchy. This refutes the hierarchy system because there is no account for familiarity, merely specificity and group size.

FEATURE COMPARISION MODEL :Posits that categorical data exists in two lists. Defining Features & Characteristic Features. When a comparison is needed the both lists for each concept are compared. If there is little to no overlap, response is negative.
If there is significant overlap, (is a penguin a bird) a second decision stage occurs in which only the Defining Features lists are compared.