Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 2016, Article ID 2476256, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2476256
Research Article

Using Self-Organizing Neural Network Map Combined with Ward’s Clustering Algorithm for Visualization of Students’ Cognitive Structural Models about Aliveness Concept

Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul University, Buca, 35150 Izmir, Turkey

Received 20 July 2015; Revised 14 October 2015; Accepted 18 October 2015

Academic Editor: Jens Christian Claussen

Copyright © 2016 Nurettin Yorek et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. Franklin, “Life,” in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, S. G. Post, Ed., pp. 1381–1387, Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference, New York, NY, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  2. E. M. E. Forde, D. Francis, M. J. Riddoch, R. I. Rumiati, and G. W. Humphreys, “On the links between visual knowledge and naming: a single case study of a patient with a category-specific impairment for living things,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 403–458, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. F. Marques, “The ‘living things’ impairment and the nature of semantic memory organisation: an experimental study using PI-release and semantic cues,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 683–707, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. P. Garrard, M. A. L. Ralph, J. R. Hodges, and K. Patterson, “Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 125–174, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. Kolinsky, P. Fery, D. Messina et al., “The fur of the crocodile and the mooing sheep: a study of a patient with a category-specific impairment for biological things,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 301–342, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. G. W. Humphreys and M. J. Riddoch, “A case series analysis of ‘category-specific’ deficits of living things: the HIT account,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 20, no. 3–6, pp. 263–306, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. S. J. Crutch and E. K. Warrington, “The selective impairment of fruit and vegetable knowledge: a multiple processing channels account of fine-grain category specificity,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 20, no. 3–6, pp. 355–372, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. C. Blundo, M. Ricci, and L. Miller, “Category-specific knowledge deficit for animals in a patient with herpes simplex encephalitis,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1248–1268, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. P. Ventura, J. Morais, C. Brito-Mendes, and R. Kolinsky, “The mental representation of living and nonliving things: differential weighting and interactivity of sensorial and non-sensorial features,” Memory, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 124–147, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Martin, “The representation of object concepts in the brain,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 25–45, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. D. Zannino, I. Buccione, R. Perri et al., “Visual and semantic processing of living things and artifacts: an fMRI study,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 554–570, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. C. Bardel, Alive, lifeless, dead. The origin of students' conceptions [M.S. thesis], Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France, 1997.
  13. S. W. Klingensmith, “Child animism: what the child means by ‘alive’,” Child Development, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 51–61, 1953. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. Elkind, “Development in early childhood,” Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–21, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  15. M. D. Berzonsky, “Reflectivity, internality, and animistic thinking,” Child Development, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 785–789, 1974. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. M. Lucas, R. D. Linke, and P. P. Sedgwick, “Schoolchildren's criteria for ‘alive’: a content analysis approach,” The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 103–112, 1979. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. K. G. Dolgin and D. A. Behrend, “Children's knowledge about animates and inanimates,” Child Development, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1646–1650, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. J. H. Ward Jr., “Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pp. 236–244, 1963. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  19. D. Zaitchik and G. E. A. Solomon, “Animist thinking in the elderly and in patients with Alzheimer's disease,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 27–37, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. I. M. Kinchin, “Investigating secondary-school girls' preferences for animals or plants: a simple ‘head-to-head’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 95–99, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. H. Wandersee, “Plants or animals—which do junior high school students prefer to study?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 415–426, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. R. Babai, R. Sekal, and R. Stavy, “Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 20–26, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. S. Dellantonio, M. Innamorati, and L. Pastore, “Sensing aliveness: an hypothesis on the constitution of the categories ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’,” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 172–195, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. N. Yorek, M. Şahin, and H. Aydin, “Are animals ‘more alive’ than plants? Animistic-anthropocentric construction of life concept,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 369–378, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. S. Caravita and E. Falchetti, “Are bones alive?” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 163–170, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. J. Farah and C. Rabinowitz, “Genetic and environmental influences on the organisation of semantic memory in the brain: is “living things” an innate category?” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 20, no. 3–6, pp. 401–408, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. M. Braund, “Children's ideas in classifying animals,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. M. Braund, “Trends in children's concepts of vertebrate and invertebrate,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 112–118, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. U. Kattmann, “Aquatics, flyers, creepers and terrestrials-students' conceptions of animal classification,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 141–147, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. L. Turkmen, O. Cardak, and M. Dikmen, “Lise ogrencilerinin canlıların cesitliligi ve sınıflandırılması konusundaki kavram yanılgıları,” Selcuk Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, vol. 14, pp. 455–465, 2002 (Turkish). View at Google Scholar
  31. J. H. Wandersee and E. E. Schussler, “Preventing plant blindness,” The American Biology Teacher, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 82–86, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. J. H. Wandersee and E. E. Schussler, “Toward a theory of plant blindness,” Plant Science Bulletin, vol. 47, pp. 2–9, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  33. P. Gärdenfors, Conceptual Space: The Geometry of Thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2000.
  34. T. Honkela, K. Hynnä, K. Lagus, and J. Särelä, “Adaptive and statistical approaches in conceptual modeling,” Tech. Rep. A75, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Computer and Information Science, Neural Networks Research Center, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  35. T. Honkela, V. Könönen, T. Lindh-Knuutila, and M.-S. Paukkeri, “Simulating processes of concept formation and communication,” Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 245–259, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. T. Lindh-Knuutila, J. Raitio, and T. Honkela, “Connectionist models of behaviour and cognition II,” in Proceedings of the 11th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, J. Mayor, N. Ruh, and K. Plunkett, Eds., vol. 18 of Progress in Neural Processing, pp. 193–204, World Scientific, Oxford, UK, April 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. H. Ritter and T. Kohonen, “Self-organizing semantic maps,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 241–254, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. T. Lindh-Knuutila and T. Honkela, “Exploratory text analysis: data-driven versus human semantic similarity judgments,” in Adaptive and Natural Computing Algorithms: 11th International Conference, ICANNGA 2013, Lausanne, Switzerland, April 4–6, 2013. Proceedings, M. Tomassini, A. Antonioni, F. Daolio, and P. Buesser, Eds., vol. 7824 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 428–437, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. N. Yorek and S. Narli, “Modeling of cognitive structure of uncertain scientific concepts using fuzzy-rough sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets: example of the life concept,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowlege-Based Systems, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 747–769, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. K. Mehrotra, C. K. Mohan, and S. Ranka, Elements of Artificial Neural Networks, The MIT Press, London, UK, 1997.
  41. S. Hasan and S. M. Shamsuddin, “Multistrategy self-organizing map learning for classification problems,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2011, Article ID 121787, 11 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. W. S. McCulloch and W. Pitts, “A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity,” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 115–133, 1943. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. T. Kohonen, Self-Organization Maps, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. J. Yang, R. L. Cheu, X. Guo, and A. Romo, “Analysis of vehicle-following heterogeneity using self-organizing feature maps,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2014, Article ID 561036, 11 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. G. Gan, C. Ma, and J. Wu, Data Clustering Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, American Statistical Association, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2007.
  46. J. Vesanto and E. Alhoniemi, “Clustering of the self-organizing map,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 586–600, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. H. C. Romesburg, Cluster Analysis for Researchers, Lulu Press, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2004.
  48. P. Gärdenfors, “Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representation,” Mind and Matter, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 9–27, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. W. Labuschagne, “Reviews: Peter Gärdenfors, Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought (Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 2000),” Junctures, no. 5, p. 67, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  50. P. C. M. Molenaar, “Conceptual spaces: the geometry of thought; Peter Gärdenfors; MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000,” Acta Psychologica, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 333–336, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. T. Honkela, J. Raitio, K. Lagus, I. T. Nieminen, N. Honkela, and M. Pantzar, “Subjects on objects in contexts: using GICA method to quantify epistemological subjectivity,” in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN '12), pp. 2875–2883, Brisbane, Australia, June 2012.
  52. W. L. Martinez and A. R. Martinez, Exploratory Data Analysis with MATLAB, Computer Science and Data Analysis Series, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2005.
  53. A. Sharma and W. Omlin, “Determining cluster boundaries using particle swarm optimization,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 22, pp. 175–179, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  54. J. Malone, K. McGarry, S. Wermter, and C. Bowerman, “Data mining using rule extraction from Kohonen self-organising maps,” Neural Computing & Applications, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 9–17, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. M. D. Berzonsky, “Child animism: situational influences and individual differences,” The Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 293–303, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar