Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31993976›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2020

Evaluating the distinction between semantic knowledge and semantic access: Evidence from semantic dementia and comprehension-impaired stroke aphasia.

Curtiss A Chapman, Omar Hasan, Paul E Schulz, Randi C Martin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Rapid Lexical Retrieval and Executive Functioning in Very Mild Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026
    Article
  4. The Quebec Semantic Memory Battery: Development, Standardization, and Psychometric Assessment of a Semantic Memory Battery in French.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Curtiss A ChapmanDepartment of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.
Omar HasanDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Paul E SchulzDepartment of Neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Randi C MartinDepartment of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA. rmartin@rice.edu.
Rice University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theories of semantic memory based on neuropsychological findings have posited a distinction between stored semantic representations and the mechanisms used to access and manipulate them (e.g., Lambon Ralph, Jefferies, Patterson, & Rogers, 2017; Warrington & Cipolotti, 1996). The most recent instantiation of this view, the controlled semantic cognition theory (Lambon Ralph et al., 2017), is supported by findings suggesting that multimodal (i.e., both verbal and nonverbal) semantic deficits may result from qualitatively different impairments: on the one hand, damage to a semantic access mechanism related to executive control, which is observed in semantic aphasia (SA), and on the other, damage to semantic representations, which is observed in semantic dementia (SD) (Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006). In this study we compared SA and SD patients on several phenomena previously used to support these distinctions. Contrary to the prior results, we found that (1) overall, cross-task consistency was equivalent for the two groups; (2) neither patient group showed consistency driven by item identity across different semantic tasks; (3) correlations among task performance were not obviously driven by the semantic control demands of different tasks; (4) both groups showed executive function deficits; and (5) both groups showed strong effects of distractor interference in a synonym judgment task. Furthermore, we investigated the components of executive ability that could underlie semantic control deficits by correlating performance on updating, shifting, and inhibition tasks with performance on tasks testing semantic abilities. We found that updating was related to semantic processing generally, whereas shifting and inhibition were not. These results also suggest that complex executive function tasks relate to semantic tasks through their shared relationship with language abilities. Overall, evidence from SA and SD patients does not differentiate representations and access mechanisms in the semantic system, as has previously been suggested. Implications for the storage-access distinction are discussed.

Indexed as

MemorySemanticsAphasiaComprehensionExecutive FunctionFrontotemporal DementiaHumansJudgmentNeuropsychological TestsPsychological TheoryStrokeAphasiaExecutive functionSemantic dementiaSemantic memory

Identifiers

PMID31993976
OpenAlexW3004237192

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.