Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: a category-specific deficit for artefactual objects and body parts

Sacchett, C; Humphreys, Glyn W.

doi:10.1080/02643299208252053

Cited by 248 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past ten years, a substantial number of reports have been presented of patients with de®cits in naming natural objects relative to artifacts (e.g., see De Renzi & Lucchelli, 1994;Forde, Francis, Riddoch, Rumiati, & Humphreys, 1997;Sartori & Job, 1988;Warrington & Shallice, 1984), though there are also reports of patients with the opposite pattern of de®cit Sacchett & Humphreys, 1992;Warrington & McCarthy, 1983. For patients with problems in identifying natural objects, the evidence suggests that there can be breakdowns at dierent stages of object naming.…”

Section: Neuropsychological Impairments Of Object Namingmentioning

confidence: 94%

From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach

Humphreys

Price²,

1999

Psychological Research

Self Cite

156

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To name an object, we need both to recognize it and to access the associated phonological form, and phonological retrieval itself may be constrained by aspects of the visual recognition process. This paper reviews evidence for such constraints, drawing on data from experimental psychology, neuropsychology, functional imaging, and computational modelling. Data on picture identification in normal observers demonstrate that the speed of name retrieval processes differs for natural objects and artifacts, due at least in part to differences in visual similarity between exemplars within these categories. Also, effects of variables on early and late stages of object identification combine in an interactive rather than an additive manner, consistent with object processing stages operating in a continuous rather than a discrete manner. Neuropsychological evidence supports this proposal, demonstrating that subtle perceptual deficits can produce naming problems, even when there is good access to associated semantic knowledge. Functional activation studies further show increased activity in visual processing areas when conditions stress object naming relative to the recognition of familiar object structures. These studies indicate that object naming is based on a series of continuous processing stages and that naming involves increased visual processing relative to recognition tasks. The data can be modelled within an interactive activation and competition framework.

show abstract

Section: Neuropsychological Impairments Of Object Namingmentioning

confidence: 94%

From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach

Humphreys

Price²,

1999

Psychological Research

Self Cite

156

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many reported cases as well as in cognitive psychology studies, recognition and naming processes have been interchangeably applied with no distinction between the capacity of knowing what an entity is (recognition-semantic level) from what an entity is called (naminglexical level) (Caramazza, 1996;Riddoch and Humphreys, 1987;Sacchett and Humphreys, 1993;Tranel et al, 1997). Damasio and coworkers in their studies made a distinction of the neural basis of the retrieval of conceptual knowledge and names, respectively (Damasio et al, 1996;Tranel et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Anatomical correlates for category-specific naming of living and non-living things

Giussani¹,

Riva²,

Gallucci³

et al. 2011

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The same pattern is generally also encountered in AD and semantic dementia [15]. Rarely, artefacts are selectively impaired [16], with biologic items remaining relatively intact. Warrington and Shallice [14] have interpreted these dissociations as reflecting distinct semantic features for different categories of knowledge.…”

Section: Category-specificity In Semantic Memorymentioning

confidence: 79%

Semantic memory

Saumier

Chertkow

2002

Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our concepts about objects, states, and events are stored in a cognitive structure termed semantic memory. There are several types of neurologic disorders that may cause impairments of semantic memory. Clinical evaluations of these impairments are complex, because semantic memory is linked to other cognitive systems that, when damaged, may produce related syndromes or difficulties. In an attempt to gain further understanding of these breakdown patterns, we review data from both neuropsychologic and brain activity research that have been concerned with how object concepts are represented and localized in the brain. Although these data have spawned varying and controversial views regarding the content and organization of semantic knowledge, converging evidence suggests that semantic memory is mainly localized in the posterior region of the left temporal lobe, and that particular categories of knowledge may be represented in different but overlapping regions within this area.

show abstract

Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: a category-specific deficit for artefactual objects and body parts

Cited by 248 publications

References 22 publications

From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach

From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach

Anatomical correlates for category-specific naming of living and non-living things

Semantic memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About