Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks

Brain

Volumn 128, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 615-627

  Crutch, Sebastian J ^a,b,c   Warrington, Elizabeth K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abstract concepts; Conceptual knowledge; Concrete concepts; Semantic refractory access dysphasia

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT CONCEPT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ASSOCIATION; CASE REPORT; COMPREHENSION; CONCRETE CONCEPT; DYSLEXIA; DYSPHASIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NEUROMODULATION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME; SEMANTIC REFRACTORY ACCESS DYSPHASIA; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; APHASIA; CONCEPT FORMATION; NERVE CELL NETWORK; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

AGED; APHASIA; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; NERVE NET; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 15044357462     PISSN: 00068950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awh349     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Allport DA. Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In: Newman SK, Epstein R, editors. Current perspectives on dysphasia. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1985.
2. Anderson RC, Nagy WE. Word meanings. In: Pearson PD, editor. Comprehension and teaching: research reviews. New York: Longman; 1991.
3. Breedin SD, Saffran EM, Coslett HB. Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognit Neuropsychol 1994; 11: 617-60.
4. Brown RW. Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 1957; 55: 1-5.
5. Capitani E, Laiacona M, Mahon B, Caramazza A. What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognit Neuropsychol 2003; 20: 213-61.
6. Coltheart M. The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Q J Exp Psychol 1981; 33A: 497-505.
7. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. Refractory dyslexia: evidence of multiple task-specific phonological output stores. Brain 2001; 124: 1533-43.
8. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. Spatial coding of semantic information: knowledge of country and city names depends upon their geographical proximity. Brain 2003a; 126: 1821-9.
9. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. Preservation of prepositional speech in a pure anomic: the importance of an abstract vocabulary. Neurocase 2003b; 9: 465-81.
10. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. The semantic organization of proper nouns: the case of people and brand names. Neuropsychologia 2004a; 42: 584-96.
11. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. Gradients of semantic relatedness and their contrasting explanations in refractory access and storage semantic impairments. Cognit Neuropsych. In press, 2005.
12. Dunn LM, Dunn LM, Whetton C, Pintilie D. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale. Windsor (UK): NFER-Nelson; 1982.
13. Farah MJ, McClelland JL, A Computational model of Semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity, Exp. Psychol Gen. 1991; 120: 339-57.
14. Forde EME, Humphreys GW. Refractory semantics in global aphasia: on semantic organization and the access-storage distinction in neuropsychology. Memory 1995; 3: 265-307.
15. Franklin S, Howard D, Patterson K. Abstract word anomia. Cognit Neuropsychol 1995; 12: 549-66.
16. Gentner D. Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. Center for the Study of Reading: Technical Report No. 257. Urbana (IL): University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 1982.
17. Gotts SJ, Plaut DC. The impact of synaptic depression following brain damage: aconnectionist account of 'access/refractory' and 'degraded store' semantic impairments. Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci 2002; 2: 187-213.
18. Hillis AE, Rapp BC, Romani C, Caramazza A. Selective impairment of semantics in lexical processing. Cognit Neuropsychol 1990; 7: 191-243.
19. Hodges JR, Patterson K, Tyler LK. Loss of semantic memory: implications for the modularity of mind. Cognit Neuropsychol 1994; 11: 505-42.
20. Hodges JR, Graham N, Patterson K. Charting the progression in semantic dementia: implications for the organization of semantic memory. Memory 1995; 3: 463-95.
21. Howard D, Patterson K. The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company; 1992.
22. James CT. The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 1975; 104: 130-6.
23. Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weineraab S. Boston naming Test. Media, PA: Williams and Wilkins; 1983.
24. Landau B, Jones S, Smith L. Perception, ontology and naming in young children. Commentary on Soja, Carey and Spelte. Cognition 1992; 43: 85-91.
25. Landau B, Smith L, Jones S. Object perception and object naming in early development. Trends in Cognative Sciences 1998; 2: 19-24
26. Marshall JC, Newcombe F. Patterns of paralexia: a psycholinguistic approach. J Psycholinguist Res 1973; 2: 175-99.
27. Marshall J, Pring T, Chiat S, Robson J. When ottoman is easier than chair: an inverse frequency effect in jorgan aphasia. Cortex 2001; 37: 33-53.
28. McCarthy RA, Kartsounis LD. Wobbly words: refractory anomia with preserved semantics. Neurocase 2000; 6: 487-97.
29. McClelland JL, Rogers TT. The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognitions. Nat Rev Neurosci., 2003; 4: 310-22.
30. McKenna P, Warrington EK. Category-specific naming preservation: a single case study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1978; 41: 571-4.
31. Nickels L, Howard D. Phonological errors in aphasic naming: comprehension, monitoring and lexicality. Cortex 1995; 31: 209-37.
32. Paivio A, Yuille C, Madigan SA. Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. J Exp Psychol 1968; 76 (Monograph Suppl): 1-25.
33. Paivio A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1971.
34. Paivio A. Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
35. Plaut DC, Shallice T. Effects of word abstractness in a connectionist model of deep dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Chicago: Cognitive Science Society; 1991. p. 73-8.
36. Plaut DC, Shallice T. Deep dyslexia: a case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognit Neuropsychol 1993; 10: 377-500.
37. Rodd J, Gaskell G, Marslen-Wilson W. Making sense of semantic ambiguity: semantic competition in lexical access. J Mem Lang 2002; 46: 245-66.
38. Rodd J, Gaskell G, Marslen-Wilson W. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognit Sci 2004; 28: 89-104.
39. Schwanenflugel PJ, Shoben EJ. Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1983; 9: 82-102.
40. Schwanenflugel PJ, Stowe RW. Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words. Read Res Q 1989; 24: 114-26.
41. Schwanenflugel PJ, Harnishfeger KK, Stowe RW. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. J Mem Lang 1988; 27: 499-520.
42. Sirigu A, Duhamel JR, Poncet M. The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition. A case of multimodal agnosia. Brain 1991; 114: 2555-73.
43. Warrington EK. The selective impairment of semantic memory. Q J Exp Psychol 1975; 27: 635-57.
44. Warrington EK. Neuropsychological studies of verbal semantic systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1981; 295: 411-23.
45. Warrington EK, McCarthy RA. Category specific access dysphasia. Brain 1983; 106: 859-78.
46. Warrington EK, Cipolotti L. Word comprehension. The distinction between refractory and storage impairments. Brain 1996; 119: 611-25.
47. Warrington EK, Crutch SJ. A circumscribed refractory access disorder: a verbal semantic impairment sparing visual semantics. Cognit Neuropsychol 2004; 21: 299-315.
48. Warrington EK, Shallice T. Category specific semantic impairments. Brain 1984; 107: 829-54.