Human Neuroscience Original Research Article a Combination of Thematic and Similarity-based Semantic Processes Confers Resistance to Deficit following Left Hemisphere Stroke

Semantic knowledge may be organized in terms of similarity relations based on shared features and/or complementary relations based on co-occurrence in events. Thus, relationships between manipulable objects such as tools may be defined by their functional properties (what the objects are used for) or thematic properties (e.g., what the objects are used with or on). A recent study from our laboratory used eye-tracking to examine incidental activation of semantic relations in a word–picture matching task and found relatively early activation of thematic relations (e.g., broom–dustpan), later activation of general functional relations (e.g., broom–sponge), and an intermediate pattern for specific functional relations (e.g., broom–vacuum cleaner). Combined with other recent studies, these results suggest that there are distinct semantic systems for thematic and similarity-based knowledge and that the “specific function” condition drew on both systems. This predicts that left hemisphere stroke that damages either system (but not both) may spare specific function processing. The present experiment tested these hypotheses using the same experimental paradigm with participants with left hemisphere lesions (N = 17). The results revealed that, compared to neurologically intact controls (N = 12), stroke participants showed later activation of thematic and general function relations, but activation of specific function relations was spared and was significantly earlier for stroke participants than controls. Across the stroke participants, activation of thematic and general function relations was negatively correlated, further suggesting that damage tended to affect either one semantic system or the other. These results support the distinction between similarity-based and complementarity-based semantic relations and suggest that relations that draw on both systems are relatively more robust to damage.

[1]  Laurel J. Buxbaum,et al.  Impaired face and word recognition without object agnosiafn2 fn2 Supported by nih Grant R29DC03179-01 to the first author. , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  J. Snedeker,et al.  Semantic meaning and pragmatic interpretation in 5-year-olds: evidence from real-time spoken language comprehension. , 2009, Developmental psychology.

[3]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: manipulation knowledge of objects , 2006, Cognition.

[4]  Michael Andres,et al.  Dissociation between manipulation and conceptual knowledge of object use in the supramarginalis gyrus , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[5]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Theories of spoken word recognition deficits in Aphasia: Evidence from eye-tracking and computational modeling , 2011, Brain and Language.

[6]  Solène Kalénine,et al.  Object manipulability affects children’s and adults’ conceptual processing , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  G. Murphy,et al.  Thematic relations in adults' concepts. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Z. Estes,et al.  Thematic thinking : the apprehension and consequences of thematic relations , 2011 .

[9]  Chris McNorgan,et al.  An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: simulating semantic priming , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Daniel Mirman,et al.  Attractor Dynamics and Semantic Neighborhood Density: Processing Is Slowed by near Neighbors and Speeded by Distant Neighbors We Thank Ann Kulikowski for Her Help with Data Collection And , 2022 .

[11]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Cognitive Neuropsychology: Patterns of Co-occurrence Among the Associative Agnosias: Implications for Visual Object Representation , 1991 .

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

[13]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  The Dynamics of Lexical Competition During Spoken Word Recognition , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Ellen Campana,et al.  Speech-and-gesture integration in high functioning autism , 2010, Cognition.

[15]  Mary Hare,et al.  Activating event knowledge , 2009, Cognition.

[16]  Monica Baciu,et al.  The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study , 2009, NeuroImage.

[17]  D. Mirman,et al.  Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  A. Kertesz The Western Aphasia Battery , 1982 .

[19]  J. Elman,et al.  A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns , 2005, Memory & cognition.

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

[21]  John Whyte,et al.  A patient registry for cognitive rehabilitation research: a strategy for balancing patients' privacy rights with researchers' need for access. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[23]  Solène Kalénine,et al.  Preschoolers' Superordinate Taxonomic Categorization as a Function of Individual Processing of Visual vs. Contextual/functional Information and Object Domain , 2007 .

[24]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models , 1998 .

[25]  K. Patterson,et al.  Deficits of knowledge vs . executive control in semantic cognition : Insights from cued naming , 2008 .

[26]  M. Garrett,et al.  Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  D. Plaut,et al.  The impact of synaptic depression following brain damage: A connectionist account of “access/refractory” and “degraded-store” semantic impairments , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[28]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  The Philadelphia Naming Test: Scoring and Rationale , 1996 .

[29]  Tim Shallice,et al.  The different neural correlates of action and functional knowledge in semantic memory: an FMRI study. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  G. Altmann,et al.  Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm , 2005, Cognition.

[31]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Accessing Different Types of Lexical Semantic Information: Evidence From Priming , 1995 .

[32]  D. Mirman,et al.  Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  J. Trueswell,et al.  Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension , 2005, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[34]  D. Mirman,et al.  Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Impaired access to manipulation features in Apraxia: Evidence from eyetracking and semantic judgment tasks , 2010, Brain and Language.

[36]  Laurel J. Buxbaum,et al.  Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  Daniel Mirman,et al.  Effects of near and distant semantic neighbors on word production , 2011, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[38]  Grant M. Walker,et al.  Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  M. Halliday New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory , 1985 .

[40]  E. Warrington,et al.  The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects , 2010, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[41]  T. Shallice,et al.  Manipulability and object recognition: is manipulability a semantic feature? , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[42]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  J. Hodges,et al.  Non-verbal semantic impairment in semantic dementia , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[44]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements to pictures reveal transient semantic activation during spoken word recognition. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[45]  K. Nelson,et al.  Making sense : the acquisition of shared meaning , 1985 .

[46]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: Conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  D. Mirman,et al.  Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

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