Semantic memory refers to long-term memory that processes ideas and concepts that are not drawn from personal experience; our autobiographical memory. This type of memory includes common knowledge, such as the fact that Paris is the capital of France or that a dog is an animal, rather than recalling a specific event or occurrence.
It is a part of the broader category of declarative memory, which also includes episodic memory — but semantic memory is specifically the information people remember yet don’t recall learning. Semantic memory is a more static store of knowledge, contrasting with episodic memory’s more dynamic content of personal experiences.
Semantic memory and episodic memory are both types of explicit memory (or declarative memory), or memory of facts or experiences that can be consciously recalled and “declared”. Implicit memory (also known as nondeclarative memory) is the inverse of declarative or explicit memory.
Semantic Vs. Episodic Memory
Semantic and episodic memory are both types of declarative memory, with distinct characteristics and roles. Semantic memory refers to general world knowledge that we have accumulated throughout our lives, while episodic memory involves the recollection of personal experiences and specific events.
Although distinct, episodic and semantic memories are interconnected. Personal experiences (episodic memory) can contribute to the formation of semantic knowledge about the world. For instance, attending a series of music classes (an episodic event) can lead to a comprehensive understanding of musical theory (semantic knowledge).
Comparative Analysis
Semantic memory is knowledge about facts and concepts that is not directly tied to the time and place of acquisition. It includes the meanings of words, knowledge about the world, and general academic knowledge. For example, knowing that a heart is an organ that pumps blood is a piece of semantic memory.
Episodic memory, on the other hand, is more personal and involves the recollection of events one has experienced. It includes details about the time and context in which the events occurred. This might be a memory of attending a friend’s wedding or the moment one learned about a significant historical event.
The work of the psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist Endel Tulving has been fundamental in distinguishing between semantic and episodic memory, highlighting how episodic memory uniquely allows an individual to travel back in time in his or her mind.
Semantic Memory Neurobiological Basis
Semantic memory is extensively supported by several regions of the brain including areas within the neocortex. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have identified that the lateral and anterior temporal lobes, along with parts of the frontal cortex, play significant roles. Precise mapping of semantic processing indicates a distributed system that allows for the storage and retrieval of conceptual knowledge.
The medial temporal lobe, which includes the hippocampus, is traditionally associated with episodic memory but also interacts with semantic memory. Although the hippocampus is not the sole location where semantic memories are stored, it is crucial for the initial encoding of semantic information before it gets consolidated into more extensive neural networks.
Neuroimaging studies suggest that activity in the left hippocampus areas increases during semantic memory tests. During semantic retrieval, activity increases in two regions of the right middle frontal gyrus and the area of the right inferior temporal gyrus.
The hippocampal formation includes the hippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the perirhinal cortex, among other components. The parahippocampal cortices are made up of the later two.
Despite total loss of episodic memory, amnesiacs with hippocampus damage but some spared parahippocampal cortex were able to demonstrate some degree of intact semantic memory, implying that information encoding leading to semantic memory does not have its physiological basis in the hippocampus.
Various neural imaging and research studies indicate that semantic memory and episodic memory are caused by different parts of the brain. According to other studies, both semantic memory and episodic memory are part of a single declarative memory system, although they represent separate sectors and pieces of the larger total. Depending on whether semantic or episodic memory is retrieved, different parts of the brain are active.
Semantic Memory Development
Starting from early childhood, semantic memory undergoes significant development, enabling individuals to store general world knowledge that is fundamental for communication and understanding.
From birth to adulthood, semantic memory evolves considerably. Infants begin to form semantic memory even before they start speaking, recognizing and understanding some words. As children grow, they rapidly acquire language skills, which facilitates more complex memory formation.
During childhood, the network of concepts stored in semantic memory becomes increasingly sophisticated, allowing for a richer understanding of the world.
In contrast, aging can affect semantic memory, although the decline is typically less severe compared to episodic memory. Elderly adults may experience slower retrieval times and difficulty learning new information, which is often noticeable in tasks that require the active use of semantic memory, such as naming objects or understanding language.
Acquisition of Knowledge
Semantic memory is crucial for the learning process. It entails an individual’s ability to form and organize factual information, concepts, and meaning about the world, which are devoid of personal experiences. Throughout life, this memory system is fed by formal education, personal reading, and cultural exposure.
- Infancy and Early Childhood: Basic categories of knowledge and concepts begin to form.
Example: Recognizing animals, colors, and shapes. - Later Childhood and Adolescence: Exposure to formal education massively expands semantic memory.
Subjects covered in school contribute to a comprehensive body of knowledge. - Adulthood: Continued learning and specialization in certain areas of knowledge shape an individual’s semantic library.
Professional expertise and life experience continue to build upon existing semantic frameworks.
Effective semantic memory is necessary for the development of expert knowledge and allows individuals to understand complex ideas and draw inferences in their area of expertise. It remains a dynamic aspect of cognition throughout an individual’s life, constantly integrating new information with what is already known.
Organization and Retrieval
Since Tulving first proposed his argument about the differences between semantic and episodic memory, numerous sub-theories about semantic memory have emerged; one example is the belief in semantic memory hierarchies, in which different information one has learned is associated with specific levels of related knowledge. According to this notion, despite not having unique memories that match to when that knowledge was stored in the first place, brains are able to associate specific information with other dissimilar thoughts.
Semantic memory is theorized to be structured like a vast network, often referred to as a semantic network. In these models, concepts are represented as nodes, and the connections between them, known as edges, represent the relationships or associations.
One pivotal model is the spreading activation model, which suggests that when a node is activated, the activation spreads out along the connected paths, thus facilitating the retrieval of related information. This activation process is not random; it is governed by certain algorithms that ensure the most relevant associations are activated, thereby organizing retrieval efficiently.
Efficiency in these networks hinges on the interconnectedness of the nodes, which enables swift access to a large array of related concepts through a cognitive process called spreading activation.
Another view is the feature model. Semantic categories, according to feature models, are made up of rather unstructured groups of features. Memory, according to the semantic feature-comparison model, is made up of feature lists for various concepts.
According to this viewpoint, the relationships between categories would be computed indirectly rather than directly. Subjects, for example, could validate a phrase by comparing the feature sets that reflect its subject and predicate concepts.
Retrieval Methods and Efficiency
The effectiveness of retrieval methods from semantic memory is dependent on the initial organization of the semantic networks. Efficient retrieval is characterized by the ability to quickly locate and utilize the required information without accessing irrelevant data.
Cognitive scientists study various retrieval cues and methods to understand how they trigger the recollection of information from semantic memory. One aspect of study suggests that certain retrieval algorithms can optimize the search process within the semantic network’s structure.
The retrieval from semantic memory can be either direct, for well-established facts, or inferential, where the required information is pieced together from related concepts. This distinction emphasizes the adaptability and dynamism of retrieval processes, ensuring that semantic memory remains an incredibly versatile cognitive resource.
Semantic Memory Disorders
Semantic memory impairments are classified into two types. Semantic refractory access disorders are distinguished from semantic storage disorders by four criteria: temporal variables, response consistency, frequency, and semantic relatedness. Temporal distortions are a fundamental aspect of semantic refractory access disorders, where decreases in response time to certain stimuli are observed when compared to physiological response times.
There are irregularities in perceiving and responding to stimuli that have been presented numerous times in access disorders. Response consistency is influenced by temporal considerations.
An inconsistent response to individual items is not noticed in storage disorders. The frequency of stimuli influences performance at all stages of cognition.
Extreme word frequency effects are common in semantic storage disorders while in semantic refractory access disorders word frequency effects are minimal. The comparison of close and distant groups tests semantic relatedness.
Close groupings have words that are related because they are drawn from the same category, such as a list of clothing types. Distant groupings contain words with broad categorical differences, such as unrelated words.
Modality
Modality is a semantic category of meaning that expresses necessity and probability through language. Certain expressions are thought to have modal interpretations in linguistics.
Conditionals, auxiliary verbs, adverbs, and nouns are a few examples. When examining category-specific semantic anomalies, another modality that examines word associations is considerably more relevant to these illnesses and impairments.
There are modality-specific explanations for category-specific deficits that are based on a few broad assumptions. According to these beliefs, damage to the visual modality results in a lack of biological objects, whereas damage to the functional modality results in a lack of non-biological items (artifacts).
Modality-based theories argue that if modality-specific information is damaged, then all of the categories that fall under it are also harmed. Damage to the visual modality in this situation would result in a deficit for all biological objects, with no deficiencies localized to more specialized categories. There would be no category specific semantic deficiencies for “animals” or “fruits and vegetables” for example.
Semantic Dementia
Semantic dementia is a type of semantic memory impairment in which individuals lose the ability to link words or images to their meanings. Patients with semantic dementia are unlikely to have category specific deficits, while there have been reported occurrences of this happening. A more broad semantic impairment is typically caused by dimming semantic representations in the brain.
Alzheimer’s disease is a subtype of semantic dementia with symptoms that are similar. The key distinction between the two is that Alzheimer’s is defined by atrophy on both sides of the brain, whereas semantic dementia is defined by loss of brain tissue in the front region of the left temporal lobe.
Category-Specific Deficits
Category-specific semantic deficits manifest as an impairment in understanding and recognizing specific categories of objects or concepts while retaining the ability to understand and recognize others. For example, an individual may have difficulty with animal names but remain proficient in identifying tools — a phenomenon that can provide insights into the organization of semantic memory.
This condition can result in brain damage that is widespread, patchy, or localized. Research suggests that the temporal lobe, more specifically the structural description system, might be responsible for category-specific impairments of semantic memory disorders.
Individuals with category-specific semantic deficiencies tend to fall into two distinct categories, each of which can be spared or emphasized depending on their specific deficit. Animals are the most common shortcoming in the first category of animate items.
The second group consists of inanimate objects, with the most common shortfalls being fruits and vegetables (biological inanimate objects) and artifacts. Because the visual system used to identify and describe the structure of objects operates independently of an individual’s conceptual knowledge base, the type of deficit does not reflect a lack of conceptual knowledge related with that category.
In some cases, it has been shown that musical instruments tend to be impaired in patients with damage to the living things category despite the fact that musical instruments fall in the non-biological/inanimate category. However, there are also cases of biological impairment where musical instrument performance is at a normal level.
Cultural and Individual Variations
Language greatly shapes semantic memory. It serves as a framework through which individuals access and categorize knowledge. Different languages may segment the world differently, which can influence the way speakers of that language think about and remember concepts.
For instance, a cross-cultural adaptation study of the Cambridge Semantic Memory test highlights how translations and adaptations are essential when evaluating semantic memory in diverse populations.
Culture also plays a significant role in shaping semantic memory. Shared cultural experiences contribute to a communal pool of knowledge, affecting the ease with which certain information is retrieved. For example, research has identified variations in semantic processing across cultures, suggesting that common knowledge within a culture can facilitate cognitive processes.
Personal and Social Identity
On an individual level, personal experiences refine the facets of semantic memory. Each person’s unique interactions with their environment and society forge a personalized set of memories and understandings. These personal semantics are shaped by individual experiences and are distinct from the culturally shared information.
An individual’s familiarity with certain concepts can affect the recall and recognition within semantic memory. For example, studies examining individual differences in semantic domains such as bird names demonstrate the impact of personal familiarity on semantic memory performance. This reflects how personal experience contributes to the nuances of an individual’s semantic network.
References:
- Burianova, H.; Grady, C. L. (2007). Common and Unique Neural Activations in Autobiographical, Episodic, and Semantic Retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 19 (9): 1520–34. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1520
- Capitani, Laiacona, Mahon, Caramazza (May 2003). What are the Facts of Semantic Category-Specific Deficits? Article Review of the Clinical Evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 20 (3): 213–261. doi:10.1080/02643290244000266
- Krüger, Frank (2000). Coding of temporal relations in semantic memory. Publisher-Waxmann Verlag. ISBN 3893259430
- McCarthy, Rosaleen A. (1995). Semantic Knowledge and Semantic Representations. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-86377-936-7
- Nyberg L, Marklund P, Persson J, Cabeza R, Forkstam C, Petersson KM, Ingvar M. Common prefrontal activations during working memory, episodic memory, and semantic memory. Neuropsychologia. 2003; 41 (3): 371-7. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00168-9.
- Ofen, Noa (August 2012). The development of neural correlates for memory formation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 36 (7): 1708 1717. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.016
- Paplikar A, Vandana VP, Mekala S, Darshini KJ, Arshad F, Iyer GK, Kandukuri R, Divyaraj G, Varghese F, Kaul S, Patterson K, Alladi S. Semantic memory impairment in dementia: A cross-cultural adaptation study. Neurol Sci. 2022 Jan;43(1):265-273. doi: 10.1007/s10072-021-05272-5.
- Rajah, M.N.; McIntosh, A.R. (2005). Overlap in the Functional Neural Systems Involved in Semantic and Episodic Memory Retrieval. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 17 (3): 470–482. doi:10.1162/0898929053279478
- Rubin, David C. (Apr 2022). A conceptual space for episodic and semantic memory. Memory & Cognition. 50 (3): 464–477. doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01148-3
- Saumier, D.; Chertkow, H. (2002). Semantic Memory. Current Science. 2 (6): 516–522. doi:10.1007/s11910-002-0039-9
- Smith, E. E.; Shoben, E. J.; Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review. 81 (3): 214–241. doi:10.1037/h0036351
- Tulving, Endel (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-852102-2
- Vargha-Khadem; et al. (1997). Differential Effects of Early Hippocampal Pathology on Episodic and Semantic Memory. Science. 277 (5324): 376–380. doi:10.1126/science.277.5324.376