The DOI matches its Crossref record; 194 of the 194 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions
Open accessAbstract
Models that represent meaning as high-dimensional numerical vectors—such as latent semantic analysis (LSA), hyperspace analogue to language (HAL), bound encoding of the aggregate language environment (BEAGLE), topic models, global vectors (GloVe), and word2vec—have been introduced as extremely powerful machine-learning proxies for human semantic representations and have seen an explosive rise in popularity over the past 2 decades. However, despite their considerable advancements and spread in the cognitive sciences, one can observe problems associated with the adequate presentation and understanding of some of their features. Indeed, when these models are examined from a cognitive perspective, a number of unfounded arguments tend to appear in the psychological literature. In this article, we review the most common of these arguments and discuss (a) what exactly these models represent at the implementational level and their plausibility as a cognitive theory, (b) how they deal with various aspects of meaning such as polysemy or compositionality, and (c) how they relate to the debate on embodied and grounded cognition. We identify common misconceptions that arise as a result of incomplete descriptions, outdated arguments, and unclear distinctions between theory and implementation of the models. We clarify and amend these points to provide a theoretical basis for future research and discussions on vector models of semantic representation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization
Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/44565 · Cited by 13,868
Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information
Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00051 · Cited by 9,645
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · Cited by 9,210
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
Cited by
Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance
Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01453-w · Cited by 341
Cultural Schemas: What They Are, How to Find Them, and What to Do Once You’ve Caught One
Boutyline, A., & Soter, L. K. (2021) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224211024525 · Cited by 216
Does ChatGPT have semantic understanding? A problem with the statistics-of-occurrence strategy
Titus, L. M. (2024) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2023.101174 · Cited by 82
How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science?
Binz, M., Alaniz, S., Roskies, A., Aczel, B., Bergstrom, C. T., Allen, C., Schad, D., Wulff, D., West, J. D., Zhang, Q., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2401227121 · Cited by 74
Self-citationAbstract Concepts and the Embodied Mind: Rethinking Grounded Cognition
Dove, G. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190061975.001.0001 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-09-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1006-1033
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2972680241
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 194
- FWCI
- 14.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1745691619861372
- The paper
- Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., & Marelli, M. (2019). Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619861372
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.