Hazeltine et al. - Timing mechanisms disrupt learning-dependent timing of conditioned eyelid responses 1. Neurosci. 13, 1708-1718 38 Houk, J.C. and Barto, A.G. (1992) Distributed sensorimotor learning, in Tutorials in Motor Behavior /I (Stelmach, G.E. and Requin. 1.. eds). pp. 71-100, Elsevier 39 Thatch. W.T. (1996) On the specific role of the cerebellum in motor learning and cognition: clues from PET activation and lesion studies in man Behav. Brain SC;. 19. 501-502 40 Euonomano, D.V. and Mauk, M.D. (1994) Neural network model of the cerebellum Neural Computat. 6, 3555 41 Buonomano, D.V. and Merzenich, M.M. (1995) Temporal information transformed into a spatial code by a neural network with realistic properties Science 267. 1028-1030 42 Allen, G. et a/. (1997) Attention activation of the cerebellum independent of motor involvment Science 275, 1940-1943 43 Courschesne, E. and Allen, G. Prediction and preparation, fundamental functions of the cerebellum Learn. Mem. (in press) 44 Keating. J.G. and Thach. W.T. (1995) Nonclock behavior of inferior olive neurons: interspike interval of Purkinje cell complex spike discharge in the awake behaving monkey is random J. Neurophysiol. 73, 132%1340 45 Helmuth. L.L. and Ivry. R.B. (1996) When two hands are better than one: reduced timing variability during bimanual movements 1. Exp. Psycho/. Hum. Percept. Perform. 22,278-293 Semantic networks: visualizations of knowledge Roger T. Hartley and John A. Barnden n conferences and in the literature, complexity theory in computer science. Many ex written, and yet it is our belief that none of them b& between their use as a formal scheme for knowledge use as an informal tool for thinking. In our T he history of the development of semantic networks is well known (for an introduction to semantic networks, see Box 1). Both Sowa’ and Lehmann’ have expounded in ex- cellent scholarly fashion as to their origins in the study of language. Their later development as a tool for representing knowledge is also well knowr?, as is their role in building computerized inference systemPO. Indeed, the triad of in- telligent thought, logic and language will never be far from our discussion. From all these sources we learn that seman- tic networks have three main attributes: (1) They originate in the conceptual analysis of language. (2) They can have an expressiveness equivalent to first- order logic, at least (although many do not). (3) They can support inference through an interpreter that manipulates internal representations. Many people would go further and say that semantic net- works are indistinguishable from formal logic representa- tions”. However, there is something missing here. The visual aspect of the semantic network idea is clearly important. As Sowa says: ‘network notations are easy for people to read” and this pragmatic aspect ofthe formalism cannot be ignored. According to Sowa: ‘graphs...can keep all the information about an entity at a single node and show related information by arcs connected directly to that node”. In contrast, in symbolic logic notations: ‘the scattering of information not only destroys the readability of the formula, but also obscures the semantic structure of the sentence from which the formula was derived. So the battle is joined! The visual aspects of the semantic network notation are preferred (at least by Sowa) over the arcane, but more traditional notation of symbolic logic. Interestingly, this traditional notion was invented by C.S. Peirce before he abandoned it in favor of a diagram- matic form’a. In this paper, we hope to show that this argument is only one component of a larger, more complex one involving the nature of semantics; we will also show how different notations can lead to different systems with different pragmatic uses. Meaning The design and use of a knowledge representation revolves around the business of meaning. Actually, one spin-off from studies in natural language provides a good start, namely, the meaning triangle of Ogden and Richards”. The triangle relates objects in the real world, concepts that correspond to Copyright 0 1997, Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1364-6613/97/$17.00 PII: 51364-6613(97)01057-7 Trends in Cognitive Sciences - Vol. 1. No. 5, August 1997