Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374287›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychology review2017

The Differential Contributions of Conceptual Representation Format and Language Structure to Levels of Semantic Abstraction Capacity.

Guido Gainotti

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychology review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Naming and conceptual understanding in frontotemporal dementia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2019
    Article
  4. Face Recognition.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019
    Review
  5. Agnosia for bird calls.Neuropsychologia · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guido GainottiDepartment of Neurosciences and Center for Neuropsychological Research, Institute of Neurology, Policlinico Gemelli, Catholic University of Rome, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. gainotti@rm.unicatt.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5722-6612
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper reviews some controversies concerning the original and revised versions of the 'hub-and-spoke' model of conceptual representations and their implication for abstraction capacity levels. The 'hub-and-spoke' model, which is based on data gathered in patients with semantic dementia (SD), is the most authoritative model of conceptual knowledge. Patterson et al.'s (Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(12), 976-987, 2007) classical version of this model maintained that conceptual representations are stored in a unitary 'amodal' format in the right and left anterior temporal lobes (ATLs), because in SD the semantic disorder cuts across modalities and categories. Several authors questioned the unitary nature of these representations. They showed that the semantic impairment is 'multi-modal'only in the advanced stages of SD, when atrophy affects the ATLs bilaterally, but that impariments can be modality-specific in lateralised (early) stages of the disease. In these cases, SD mainly affects lexical-semantic knowledge when atrophy predominates on the left side and pictorial representations when atrophy prevails on the right side. Some aspects of the model (i.e. the importance of spokes, the multimodal format of representations and the graded convergence of modalities within the ATLs), which had already been outlined by Rogers et al. (Psychological Review, 111(1), 205-235, 2004) in a computational model of SD, were strengthened by these results. The relevance of these theoretical problems and of empirical data concerning the neural substrate of concrete and abstract words is discussed critically. The conclusion of the review is that the highest levels of abstraction are due more to the structuring influence of language than to the format of representations.

Indexed as

LanguageConcept FormationFrontotemporal DementiaHumansTemporal LobeAbstract and concrete wordsRight vs left ATLSemantic dementiaSemantic hubVerbal and non-verbal representations

Identifiers

PMID28374287
OpenAlexW2604845664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.