Heterogeneity is a fact of category-specific semantic deficits. so? comments on Rosazza, Imbornone, Zorzi, Farina, Chiavari, And Cappa (2003).
The Sensory/Functional Theory, until recently the received explanation of category-specific semantic deficits, has been shown to be at variance with various facts that have emerged about the nature of these deficits. In this context, Rosazza, Imbornone, Zorzi, Farina, Chiavari, and Cappa (2003: The Heterogeneity of Category-Specific Semantic Disorders: Evidence from a New Case. Neurocase, 9, 189-202.) report the case study of a patient, MA, with a purported category-specific semantic deficit for living things compared to nonliving things, and an associated modality-specific impairment that differentially affected visual/perceptual compared to functional/associative knowledge. While acknowledging that the Sensory/Functional Theory cannot account for the existence of category-specific semantic deficits, Rosazza and colleagues (2003) contend that "...the presence of a more severe loss of specific visual rather than functional knowledge could support an interpretation according to the Sensory/Functional Theory" [sic] (p. 200). Our comments are divided into two parts. First, we point out that there is an asymmetry between evidence and theory: if there is clear evidence that "disconfirms" a given theory, evidence that is consistent with the theory cannot be argued to support the theory. Second, we argue that the performance profile of MA could potentially be relevant to other interpretations of category-specific deficits but that theoretical interpretations of the performance profile of patient MA are undermined by a lack of methodological rigor, as well as the generally weak data associated with the case.