PubMed · 16350669
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
John C Marshall, Jennifer M Gurd. 2005. Category-specificity: what is the question?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70309-5
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Evidence from functional neuroimaging of the human brain indicates that information about salient properties of an object-such as what it looks like, how it moves, and how it is used-is stored in sensory and motor systems active when that information was acquired. As a result, object concepts belonging to different categories like animals and tools are represented in partially distinct, sensory- and motor property-based neural networks. This suggests that object concepts are not explicitly represented, but rather emerge from weighted activity within property-based brain regions. However, some property-based regions seem to show a categorical organization, thus providing evidence consistent with category-based, domain-specific formulations as well.
In his classic overview, Mayer-Gross indicated two clinical features of depersonalization to be taken as starting points for future investigation: excessive difficulty in describing it and its relatively rare appearance in organic disorders. Neither characteristic has so far been discussed sufficiently in psychopathology and neurobiology. In this article, we examine the language aspect of depersonalization by comparisons with aphasia, in which the two objects of study described by Mayer-Gross, speech and organic disorders, intertwine. Concerning amnestic aphasia, Gelb and Goldstein insist that an object cannot be grasped as a generally understood fact using a categorical attitude but only experienced subjectively in its this-ness with a concrete attitude. The particular experience of depersonalization is the reverse of that in amnestic aphasia, as the relation of the depersonalized patient to this-ness is disturbed but an ideal view of the generality remains.
In his short paper of 1886, the neogrammarian linguist Delbrück sketches his views on normal language processing and their relevance for the interpretation of some of the symptoms of progressive anomic aphasia. In particular, he discusses proper name impairments, verb and abstract noun superiority and the predominance of semantically related errors. Furthermore, he suggests that part of speech, morphology and word order may be preserved in this condition. This historical document has been lost in oblivion but the original ideas and their relevance for contemporary discussions merit a revival.