Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31593713›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychologia2019

Avian agnosia: A window into auditory semantics.

J A Mole, I W Baker, J M Ottley Munoz, M Danby, J D Warren, C R Butler

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J A MoleRussell Cairns Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Department of Neuropsychology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK. Electronic address: joe.mole@nhs.net.
I W BakerRussell Cairns Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
J M Ottley MunozRussell Cairns Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
M DanbyRussell Cairns Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
J D WarrenDementia Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
C R ButlerNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, UK.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBUK Dementia Research Institute · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K010395/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Auditory PerceptionBirdsSemanticsVisual PerceptionAgedAgnosiaAnimalsDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleFrontotemporal DementiaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemoryMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsAuditory agnosiaBirdExpertiseSemantic dementia

Identifiers

PMID31593713
PMCPMC6891886
OpenAlexW2977469537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.