↓ Skip to main content

Semantic processing of English sentences using statistical computation based on neurophysiological models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Semantic processing of English sentences using statistical computation based on neurophysiological models
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcia T. Mitchell

Abstract

Computer programs that can accurately interpret natural human language and carry out instructions would improve the lives of people with language processing deficits and greatly benefit society in general. von Neumann in theorized that the human brain utilizes its own unique statistical neuronal computation to decode language and that this produces specific patterns of neuronal activity. This paper extends von Neumann's theory to the processing of partial semantics of declarative sentences. I developed semantic neuronal network models that emulate key features of cortical language processing and accurately compute partial semantics of English sentences. The method of computation implements the MAYA Semantic Technique, a mathematical technique I previously developed to determine partial semantics of sentences within a natural language processing program. Here I further simplified the technique by grouping repeating patterns into fewer categories. Unlike other natural language programs, my approach computes three partial semantics. The results of this research show that the computation of partial semantics of a sentence uses both feedforward and feedback projection which suggest that the partial semantic presented in this research might be a conscious activity within the human brain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 38%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 25%
Psychology 1 13%
Computer Science 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,273,512
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,352
of 13,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,166
of 267,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#62
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.