Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 1—nouns

Marshall, Jane; Pring, Tim; Chiat, Shula; Robson, Jo

doi:10.1016/s0911-6044(97)82796-0

Cited by 77 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The loss of fine-grained visual/perceptual knowledge may have a particularly devastating impact on the recognition and naming of living things because visual features appear to play a more salient role in the conceptual representation of animals and plants and also because members of living categories are more visually similar than members belonging to nonliving categories (e.g., Farah & McClelland, 1991;Humphreys & Riddoch, 2003;Vinson et al, 2003). We note, however, that although impaired recognition of living things and poor visual/perceptual knowledge frequently coexist, both types of deficits can occur in isolation, suggesting that their association may not be obligatory (e.g., Barbarotto, Capitani, Spinnler, & Trevelli, 1995;Caramazza & Shelton, 1998;Lambon Ralph et al, 1998;Marshall et al, 1996). In addition to demonstrating attribute-and domain-specific deficits, our patients also showed other evidence of semantic impairment including difficulty on word/picture comprehension tests and disproportionate impairment on tests of category fluency compared to letter fluency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Semantically guided lexical retrieval was explored with tasks designed to detect possible domain-specific deficits for living versus nonliving things, as well as with tasks suitable for identifying selective impairments in comprehension/production of semantic attributes relating either to objects' functional/associative or visual/perceptual features. Previous studies have documented that temporal lobe damage can produce both a selective impairment in naming living things and a disproportionate difficulty in processing the visual/ perceptual attributes of objects (e.g., Basso, Capitani, & Laicona, 1988;Borgo & Shallice, 2003;Breedin, Saffran, & Coslett, 1994;Cardebat, Demonet, Celsis, & Puel, 1996;Coltheart et al, 1998;Gainotti, 2000;Gainotti & Silveri, 1996;Humphreys & Forde, 2001;Humphreys & Riddoch, 2003;Humphreys, Riddoch, & Price, 1997;Lambon Ralph, Howard, Nightingale, & Ellis, 1998;Lambon Ralph, Patterson, Garrard, & Hodges, 2003;Marshall, Pring, Chiat, & Robson, 1996;Moss, Tyler, Hodges, & Patterson, 1995;. Such deficits are typically attributed to central semantic impairment, although they have also been described in the context of pre-semantic deficits involving stored structural descriptions of visual object forms (Humphreys & Forde, 2001;Humphreys & Riddoch, 2003;Humphreys et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lexical retrieval and semantic knowledge in patients with left inferior temporal lobe lesions

Antonucci¹,

Beeson²,

Labiner³

et al. 2008

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-It has been proposed that anomia following left inferior temporal lobe lesions may have two different underlying mechanisms with distinct neural substrates. Specifically, naming impairment following damage to more posterior regions (BA 37) has been considered to result from a disconnection between preserved semantic knowledge and phonological word forms (pure anomia), whereas anomia following damage to anterior temporal regions (BAs 38, 20/21) has been attributed to the degradation of semantic representations (semantic anomia). However, the integrity of semantic knowledge in patients with pure anomia has not been demonstrated convincingly, nor were lesions in these cases necessarily confined to BA 37. Furthermore, evidence of semantic anomia often comes from individuals with bilateral temporal lobe damage, so it is unclear whether unilateral temporal lobe lesions are sufficient to produce significant semantic impairment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical retrieval and semantic knowledge in patients with left inferior temporal lobe lesions

Antonucci¹,

Beeson²,

Labiner³

et al. 2008

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These lesions in different regions which produce impairment of different types of words led Allport (1985) to propose that the features and properties which form the representation of a concept are distributed over different subsystems directly related to the domain (visual, auditory, tactile) through which the information was acquired. In support of Allport's model, the loss of perceptual aspects of word meaning has been found to cause the reversed concreteness effect (Marshall et al, 1996;Breedin et al, 1994).…”

Section: Behavioral Neuropsychological and Neuroimaging Evidencementioning

confidence: 75%

“…For example, numerous neuropsychological case studies have shown an amplified concreteness effect after brain damage (Martin & Saffran, 1992;Katz & Goodglass, 1990;Coltheart, Patterson, & Marshall, 1980;Goodglass, Hyde, & Blumstein, 1969). Besides, there are also several reports of patients who showed a reversal of the concreteness effect (Marshall, Pring, Chiat, & Robson, 1996;Breedin, Saffran, & Coslett, 1994;Warrington & Shallice, 1984;Warrington, 1975Warrington, , 1981. These patients are characterized by selective impairment for concrete words while showing a relative preservation of abstract words.…”

Section: Behavioral Neuropsychological and Neuroimaging Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Neuroanatomy of Contextual Acquisition of Concrete and Abstract Words

Mestres-Missé

Münte

Rodrı́guez-Fornells

2009

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract& The meaning of a novel word can be acquired by extracting it from linguistic context. Here we simulated word learning of new words associated to concrete and abstract concepts in a variant of the human simulation paradigm that provided linguistic context information in order to characterize the brain systems involved. Native speakers of Spanish read pairs of sentences in order to derive the meaning of a new word that appeared in the terminal position of the sentences. fMRI revealed that learning the meaning associated to concrete and abstract new words was qualitatively different and recruited similar brain regions as the processing of real concrete and abstract words. In particular, learning of new concrete words selectively boosted the activation of the ventral anterior fusiform gyrus, a region driven by imageability, which has previously been implicated in the processing of concrete words. &

show abstract

“…Another class of semantic accounts hinges on the observation that nouns and verbs differ along continuous semantic dimensions like concreteness [21,22] and imageability [23]. On these hypotheses, noun or verb production might be impaired following brain damage because of an inability to access information about the meaningful features of concrete words (noun deficits) or abstract words (verb deficits).…”

Section: Are Nouns and Verbs Distinguished At The Semantic Level?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The representation of grammatical categories in the brain

Shapiro

Caramazza

2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language relies on the rule-based combination of words with different grammatical properties, such as nouns and verbs. Yet most research on the problem of word retrieval has focused on the production of concrete nouns, leaving open a crucial question: how is knowledge about different grammatical categories represented in the brain, and what components of the language production system make use of it? Drawing on evidence from neuropsychology, electrophysiology and neuroimaging, we argue that information about a word's grammatical category might be represented independently of its meaning at the levels of word form and morphological computation.Understanding how words are represented and retrieved in the brain will be crucial to any eventual neurobiological theory of language. The problem goes beyond determining how neural circuits encoding a particular conceptual representation are mapped to a unique and arbitrary set of representations for sounds, letters, or gestures: although this might suffice for the production of isolated words, it fails to specify how words are combined into phrases and sentences. How do we know, for example, that 'the singing are birds' is not a well-formed alternative to 'the birds are singing'? (And why are such exchanges rare even among speech errors? [1]) The most obvious answer is that bird and sing belong to different grammatical categories -noun and verb, respectively -with different syntactic roles, and that this information is encoded in the brain and accessed during the course of language production.Even though grammatical categories are not created equal [2], most research in the area of lexical access has used the production of concrete nouns as a proxy for word production in general. Therefore, it is not too surprising that our current picture of the cortical organization of lexical knowledge leaves little room for mechanisms that might be sensitive to differences between words of different categories. A recent review of neuroimaging studies of lexical access parcels the left perisylvian cortex into areas involved in retrieving word forms from concepts and in various stages of phonological processing [3], but sheds little light on the question of how and where the brain processes a word's grammatical role.This picture might change as more researchers use neuroscientific methods to address finer-grained questions about the representation of words in the brain. To date, however, experiments on the retrieval of grammatical category information have yielded conflicting results. Although electrophysiological measures have suggested that nouns and verbs are processed by distinct neural generators, neuroimaging has turned up little evidence for an anatomical distinction. The neuroimaging results have led some to argue that words are stored in distributed networks, in which categorical distinctions are not explicitly represented [4] -a conclusion that is at odds with what is known from the study of patients with language deficits following brain damage. Are we at an empirical impasse...

show abstract

Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 1—nouns

Cited by 77 publications

References 27 publications

Lexical retrieval and semantic knowledge in patients with left inferior temporal lobe lesions

Lexical retrieval and semantic knowledge in patients with left inferior temporal lobe lesions

Functional Neuroanatomy of Contextual Acquisition of Concrete and Abstract Words

The representation of grammatical categories in the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About