Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T20:48:49.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Living, non-living and other things. What can be learned nowadays from category-specific deficits?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2006

CARLO SEMENZA
CARLO SEMENZA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Warrington and Shallice's (1984) report on patient J.B.R. [4] was the first and most influential study about the living/nonliving semantic dissociation.

Type
NEUROBEHAVIORAL GRAND ROUNDS—INTRODUCTION
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , March 2006 , pp. 272 - 274
Copyright
© 2006 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Borgo, F. & Shallice, T. (2003). Category specificity and feature knowledge. Evidence from new sensory-quality categories. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 327–353.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1998). The interpretation of semantic category-specific deficits. What do they reveal About the organization of conceptual knowledge in the brain? Neurocase, 4, 265–272.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. & Shelton, J.R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1–34.Google Scholar
Cipolotti, L. & van Harskamp, N. (2001). Disturbances of number processing and calculation. In R.S. Berndt (Ed.), Handbook of Neuropsychology (pp. 305–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Druks, J. (2002). Verbs and nouns—A review of the literature. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 289–316.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G.W. & Forde, E.M.E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 450–500.Google Scholar
Laiacona, M., Barbarotto, R., & Capitani, E., (in press). Human evolution and the brain representation of semantic knowledge: Is there a role for sex differences? Evolution and Human Behavior.
Martin, A. & Chao, L.L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 439–452.Google Scholar
Semenza, C. (2005). The (neuro)psychology of mass and count nouns. Brain and Language, 95, 88–89.Google Scholar
Semenza, C., (in press). Retrieval pathways for common and proper names. Cortex.
Semenza, C. & Bisiacchi, P.S. (1996). Category-specific aphasic J.B.R. In C. Code, K.W. Wallesh, Y. Joanette, & A.R. Lecours (Eds.), Classic Cases in Neuropsychology (pp. 217–234). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Semenza, C. & Goodglass, H. (1985). Localization of body parts in brain damaged subjects. Neuropsychologia, 23, 161–175.Google Scholar
Semenza, C. & Zettin, M. (1989). Evidence from aphasia of proper names as pure referring expressions. Nature, 342, 678–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, J.R. & Caramazza, A. (2000). The organization of semantic memory. In B. Rapp (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Warrington, E.K. & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar