ArticleNeuropsychologia2019
Avian agnosia: A window into auditory semantics.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional neuroanatomy of musical object processing in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Clinical recognition of frontotemporal dementia with right temporal predominance: a consensus statement from the International Working Group.Communications medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The functional and neural organisation of auditory knowledge is relatively poorly understood. The breakdown of conceptual knowledge in semantic dementia has revealed that pre-morbid expertise influences the extent to which knowledge is differentiated. Whether this principle applies to a similar extent in the auditory domain is not yet known. Previous reports of patients with impaired auditory vs. intact visual expert knowledge suggest that expertise may have differential effects upon the organisation of auditory and visual knowledge. An equally plausible alternative, however, is that auditory knowledge is simply more vulnerable to deterioration. Thus, expertise effects in the auditory domain may not yet have been observed because knowledge of auditory expert vs. non-expert knowledge has yet to be compared. We had the opportunity to address this issue by studying SA, a patient with semantic dementia and extensive pre-morbid knowledge of birds. We undertook a systematic investigation of SA's auditory vs. visual knowledge from matched expert vs. non-expert categories. Relative to a group of 10 age, education and IQ matched bird experts, SA showed impaired auditory vs. intact visual avian knowledge, despite intact basic auditory perceptual abilities. This was explained by independent effects of modality and expertise. Thus, he was also disproportionately impaired for auditory vs. visual knowledge of items from non-expert categories. In both auditory and visual modalities, his performance was relatively more impaired on tests of non-expert vs. expert knowledge. These findings suggest that, while auditory knowledge may be more vulnerable to deterioration, expertise modulates visual and auditory knowledge to a similar extent.
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.