Noun and knowledge retrieval for biological and non-biological entities following right occipitotemporal lesions

We investigated the critical contribution of right ventral occipitotemporal cortex to knowledge of visual and functional-associative attributes of biological and non-biological entities and how this relates to category-specificity during confrontation naming. In a consecutive series of 7 patients with lesions confined to right ventral occipitotemporal cortex, we conducted an extensive assessment of oral generation of visual-sensory and functional-associative features in response to the names of biological and nonbiological entities. Subjects also performed a confrontation naming task for these categories. Our main novel finding related to a unique case with a small lesion confined to right medial fusiform gyrus who showed disproportionate naming impairment for nonbiological versus biological entities, specifically for tools. Generation of visual and functional-associative features was preserved for biological and non-biological entities. In two other cases, who had a relatively small posterior lesion restricted to primary visual and posterior fusiform cortex, retrieval of visual attributes was disproportionately impaired compared to functional-associative attributes, in particular for biological entities. However, these cases did not show a category-specific naming deficit. Two final cases with the largest lesions showed a classical dissociation between biological versus nonbiological entities during naming, with normal feature generation performance. This is the first lesion-based evidence of a critical contribution of the right medial fusiform cortex to tool naming. Second, dissociations along the dimension of attribute type during feature generation do not co-occur with category-specificity during naming in the current patient sample.

[1]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  P. Dupont,et al.  Similarity of fMRI Activity Patterns in Left Perirhinal Cortex Reflects Semantic Similarity between Words , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  G. Vigliocco,et al.  A semantic analysis of grammatical class impairments: semantic representations of object nouns, action nouns and action verbs , 2002, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[4]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects , 2002, Brain and Language.

[5]  Chris Rorden,et al.  Improving Lesion-Symptom Mapping , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  G. Gainotti.  The influence of gender and lesion location on naming disorders for animals, plants and artefacts , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  Matthew A. Lambon Ralph,et al.  Are living and non-living category-specific deficits causally linked to impaired perceptual or associative knowledge? evidence from a category-specific double dissociation , 1998 .

[8]  T. Shallice,et al.  Category specific semantic impairments , 1984 .

[9]  Gert Storms,et al.  Word associations: Norms for 1,424 Dutch words in a continuous task , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[10]  J. Haxby,et al.  Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  M. M. Meyer,et al.  Can recognotion of living things be selectively impaired? , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  Function and manipulation tool knowledge in apraxia: Knowing ‘what for’ but not ‘how’ , 2000 .

[13]  Linda Cupples,et al.  A Semantic Subsystem of Visual Attributes , 1998 .

[14]  M. Farah,et al.  A category-specific naming impairment after temporal lobectomy , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  R. Schreuder,et al.  Semantic activation during recognition of referential words , 1985 .

[16]  Gert Storms,et al.  Word associations: Network and semantic properties , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[17]  Guido Gainotti,et al.  Mental representation of normal subjects about the sources of knowledge in different semantic categories and unique entities. , 2009, Neuropsychology.

[18]  J. Richard Hanley,et al.  Defective recognition of familiar people , 1989 .

[19]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Double Dissociations on the Same Stimuli , 2005, Cortex.

[21]  P Verhaeghen,et al.  Growing slower and less accurate: adult age differences in time-accuracy functions for recall and recognition from episodic memory. , 1998, Experimental aging research.

[22]  Ken McRae,et al.  Category - Specific semantic deficits , 2008 .

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. , 2004, Psychological review.

[24]  M. Farah,et al.  Can recognition of living things be selectively impaired , 1998 .

[25]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  G. Sartori,et al.  Semantic Relevance and Semantic Disorders , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  Guido Gainotti,et al.  What the Locus of Brain Lesion Tells us About the Nature of the Cognitive Defect Underlying Category-Specific Disorders: A Review , 2000, Cortex.

[28]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  On the Links between Visual Knowledge and Naming: a Single Case Study of a Patient with a Category-specific Impairment for Living Things , 1997 .

[29]  J. Rodd,et al.  Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: behavioral and computational studies. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  Paul H. Garthwaite,et al.  Wanted: Fully Operational Definitions of Dissociations in Single-Case Studies , 2003, Cortex.

[31]  T. Shallice.  Impairments of semantic processing: multiple dissociations , 1987 .

[32]  Erminio Capitani,et al.  Perceptual and Associative Knowledge in Category Specific Impairment of Semantic Memory: A Study of two Cases , 1993, Cortex.

[33]  M. L. Lambon Ralph,et al.  Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[34]  Paul H Garthwaite,et al.  Testing for suspected impairments and dissociations in single-case studies in neuropsychology: evaluation of alternatives using monte carlo simulations and revised tests for dissociations. , 2005, Neuropsychology.

[35]  Rosaleen A. McCarthy,et al.  Multiple meaning systems in the brain: A case for visual semantics , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[36]  Richard J. Brown.  Neuropsychology Mental Structure , 1989 .

[37]  E. Capitani,et al.  A Case of Prevailing Deficit of Nonliving Categories or a Case of Prevailing Sparing of Living Categories? , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[38]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[39]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: a category-specific deficit for artefactual objects and body parts , 1992 .

[40]  Paul Wright,et al.  Objects and Categories: Feature Statistics and Object Processing in the Ventral Stream , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[41]  Wolf Vanpaemel,et al.  Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[42]  Daniela Perani,et al.  Naming deficit for non-living items: Neuropsychological and PET study , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[43]  Erminio Capitani,et al.  Semantic Category Dissociations: A Longitudinal Study of two Cases , 1997, Cortex.

[44]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[45]  L. Tyler,et al.  ‘Two Eyes of a See-through’: Impaired and Intact Semantic Knowledge in a Case of Selective Deficit for Living Things , 1998 .

[46]  A. Caramazza,et al.  WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF SEMANTIC CATEGORY-SPECIFIC DEFICITS? A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CLINICAL EVIDENCE , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[47]  Giuseppe Sartori,et al.  The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychological study on the interaction of visual and semantic information , 1998 .

[48]  Ronald Peeters,et al.  Convergence between Lesion-Symptom Mapping and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Spatially Selective Attention in the Intact Brain , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[49]  Guido Gainotti,et al.  Cognitive and anatomical locus of lesion in a patient with a category-specific semantic impairment for living beings , 1996 .

[50]  E. Renzi.  Are semantic systems separately represented in the brain? The case of living category impairment , 1998 .

[51]  Wolf Vanpaemel,et al.  Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[52]  Argye E. Hillis,et al.  Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: a double dissociation , 1998 .

[53]  E. Capitani,et al.  Posterior cerebral artery infarcts and semantic category dissociations: a study of 28 patients. , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[54]  P. Dupont,et al.  Word reading and posterior temporal dysfunction in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[55]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Category-Specific Organization in the Human Brain Does Not Require Visual Experience , 2009, Neuron.

[56]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  The role of area 17 in visual imagery: convergent evidence from PET and rTMS. , 1999, Science.

[57]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  When is early visual cortex activated during visual mental imagery? , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[58]  Alex Martin,et al.  Experience-dependent modulation of category-related cortical activity. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[59]  K. Laws,et al.  LOSS OF STORED KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECT STRUCTURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR “CATEGORY-SPECIFIC” DEFICITS , 2000, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[60]  C. Marra,et al.  The evaluation of sources of knowledge underlying different conceptual categories , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[61]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  On telling your fruit from your vegetables: a consideration of category-specific deficits after brain damage , 1987, Trends in Neurosciences.

[62]  P. Matthews,et al.  Category-related activation for written words in the posterior fusiform is task specific , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[63]  Ronald Peeters,et al.  Knowledge of visual attributes in the right hemisphere , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[64]  Giuseppe Sartori,et al.  Semantic relevance explains category effects in medial fusiform gyri , 2006, NeuroImage.

[65]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

[66]  L. Tyler,et al.  Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects , 2012, Cognition.

[67]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.