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

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Coni, Anaspa
dc.contributor.authorComesaña, Anaspa
dc.contributor.authorPiccolo, Brendaspa
dc.contributor.authorVivas, Jorge Ricardospa
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-19 00:00:00
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-14T21:01:51Z
dc.date.available2020-05-19 00:00:00
dc.date.available2022-06-14T21:01:51Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-19
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.identifier.doi10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
dc.identifier.eissn2500-6517
dc.identifier.issn2027-1786
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.ibero.edu.co/handle/001/3838
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherĬbērAMspa
dc.relation.bitstreamhttps://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/download/rip.13106/1567
dc.relation.citationeditionNúm. 1 , Año 2020 : Psicología del Desarrollo: Investigaciones en torno al estudio del ciclo vital humanospa
dc.relation.citationendpage59
dc.relation.citationissue1spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage49
dc.relation.citationvolume13spa
dc.relation.ispartofjournalRevista Iberoamericana de Psicologíaspa
dc.relation.referencesAmerican 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.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesBeste, 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.2009.09.023spa
dc.relation.referencesBlaye, A. & Jacques, S. (2009). Categorical flexibility in preschoolers: contributions of conceptual knowledge andspa
dc.relation.referencesexecutive control. Developmental Science, 12(6), 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.xspa
dc.relation.referencesBorghi, 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)00161-2spa
dc.relation.referencesCicirelli, 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/bhs002spa
dc.relation.referencesCoane, 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.3124spa
dc.relation.referencesConstantinescu, 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.aaf0941spa
dc.relation.referencesCycowicz, 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.1996.2356spa
dc.relation.referencesDi 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.12394spa
dc.relation.referencesEstes, 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/b978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5spa
dc.relation.referencesFavarotto, 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.2014.04.391spa
dc.relation.referencesFisher, 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/s13423-015-0816-5spa
dc.relation.referencesGarcía 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.2019.100827spa
dc.relation.referencesGarcía 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.n1.7spa
dc.relation.referencesGeeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. UK: Oxford University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesGelman, S. & Meyer, M. (2011). Child categorization. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96spa
dc.relation.referencesGolonka, 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/a0017397spa
dc.relation.referencesGrasso, 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/t07253-000spa
dc.relation.referencesHashimoto, 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)spa
dc.relation.referencesHernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Callado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6aspa
dc.relation.referencesedición). México: MacGraw-Hill.spa
dc.relation.referencesHorner, 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/ncomms8462spa
dc.relation.referencesJouravlev, O. & McRae, K. (2016). Thematic relatedness production norms for 100 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1349-1357. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8spa
dc.relation.referencesKalénine, 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.2008.09.043spa
dc.relation.referencesLandrigan, J. & Mirman, D. (2017). The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5.spa
dc.relation.referencesLawson, 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.spa
dc.relation.referencesLewis, 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.2015.01.011spa
dc.relation.referencesLey N° 25.326. Protección de datos personales. Dirección Nacional de Protección de datos personales, Ministeriospa
dc.relation.referencesde Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos humanos, 29 de noviembre de 2001.spa
dc.relation.referencesLin, E. & Murphy, G. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology:spa
dc.relation.referencesGeneral, 130, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3spa
dc.relation.referencesMaguire, 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.2011.02.015spa
dc.relation.referencesMaguire, 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.2010.03.005spa
dc.relation.referencesMaintenant, 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/a0021686spa
dc.relation.referencesMerck, 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.spa
dc.relation.referencesMirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092spa
dc.relation.referencesMudar, 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/b978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7spa
dc.relation.referencesMudar, 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.2015.03.042spa
dc.relation.referencesMurphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Massachussets: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001spa
dc.relation.referencesMuthivhi, 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/10.1177/008124631004000203spa
dc.relation.referencesNelson, K. (1985). Event knowledge. Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.spa
dc.relation.referencesO’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.spa
dc.relation.referencesPaxton, 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/bhm135spa
dc.relation.referencesPennequin, 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/s10804-006-9000-5spa
dc.relation.referencesPluciennicka, 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.2016.02.001spa
dc.relation.referencesPopp, E. Y. & Serra, M. J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free-recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26, 89-95.spa
dc.relation.referencesRogers, 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/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451spa
dc.relation.referencesRosch, 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-xspa
dc.relation.referencesRoversi, 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/s13164-013-0150-7spa
dc.relation.referencesSachs, 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.2007.08.015spa
dc.relation.referencesSadeghi, 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.2014.08.031spa
dc.relation.referencesSalthouse, T. (2017). Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology, 31. https://doi.org/11-19. 10.1037/neu0000330spa
dc.relation.referencesSchwartz, 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.1014935108spa
dc.relation.referencesSimon, J., Gilsoul, J., & Collette, F. (2015). The executive functioning in normal aging: Impact of the cognitive reserve. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2268/185655spa
dc.relation.referencesSloutsky, V. (2010). From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops? Cognitive Science, 34, 1244-1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.xspa
dc.relation.referencesSmiley, 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)90087-0spa
dc.relation.referencesSormaz, 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.2017.02.071spa
dc.relation.referencesTaylor, 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.spa
dc.relation.referencesUnger, L. & Fisher, A. (2019). Rapid, experience-related changes in the organization of children’s semantic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 1-22.spa
dc.relation.referencesUnger, 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.2016.01.005spa
dc.relation.referencesVivas, 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.v27i114.2852spa
dc.relation.referencesVivas, 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/s13428-016-0777-2spa
dc.relation.referencesWhite, 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.2017.09.001spa
dc.relation.referencesWright, 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.12068spa
dc.relation.referencesWu, 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.2009.02.002spa
dc.relation.referencesZortea, 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/s0102-79722014000100011spa
dc.rightsCorporación Universitaria Iberoamericana - 2020spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/spa
dc.sourcehttps://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/view/rip.13106spa
dc.subjectConceptual developmenteng
dc.subjectTaxonomic featureseng
dc.subjectThematic featureseng
dc.subjectLiving thingseng
dc.subjectNon-living thingseng
dc.subjectDesarrollo conceptualspa
dc.subjectOrganización taxonómicaspa
dc.subjectOrganización temáticaspa
dc.subjectSeres vivosspa
dc.subjectSeres no vivosspa
dc.subjectSemánticaspa
dc.subjectDesenvolvimento conceitualspa
dc.subjectCaracterísticas taxonômicasspa
dc.subjectCaracterísticas temáticasspa
dc.subjectSeres vivosspa
dc.subjectNão-vivo coisaspor
dc.titleRelaciones conceptuales: comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayoresspa
dc.title.translatedConceptual relationships: comparison between Children, Young Adults and Older Adultseng
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.localArtículo de revistaspa
dc.type.localJournal articleeng
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionspa
dspace.entity.typePublication
Archivos
Colecciones
Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología