ReviewNeuropsychology review2017
The Differential Contributions of Conceptual Representation Format and Language Structure to Levels of Semantic Abstraction Capacity.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brain activation for language and its relationship to cognitive and linguistic measures.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Functional connectivity of brain networks during semantic processing in older adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Naming and conceptual understanding in frontotemporal dementia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2019Article
- Face Recognition.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019Review
- Agnosia for bird calls.Neuropsychologia · 2018Article
- Anterior Temporal Lobe Morphometry Predicts Categorization Ability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.