ArticlePsychophysiology2021
Inferior parietal lobule is sensitive to different semantic similarity relations for concrete and abstract words.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fine-Grained Concreteness Effects on Word Processing and Representation Across Three Tasks: An ERP Study.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Basque-Spanish Bilingual Aphasia: A Case-Study to Reveal Frequency-Based, Language-Agnostic Lexical Organization in Bilinguals.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Interaction of 5-HTTLPR and SLE disease status on resting-state brain function.Arthritis research & therapy · 2024Article
- Aberrant spontaneous static and dynamic amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations in cerebral small vessel disease with or without mild cognitive impairment.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Article
- Brain Signatures of Embodied Semantics and Language: A Consensus Paper.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- The neural correlates for spatial language: Perspective-dependent and -independent relationships in American Sign Language and spoken English.Brain and language · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Similarity measures, the extent to which two concepts have similar meanings, are the key to understand how concepts are represented, with different theoretical perspectives relying on very different sources of data from which similarity can be calculated. While there is some commonality in similarity measures, the extent of their correlation is limited. Previous studies also suggested that the relative performance of different similarity measures may also vary depending on concept concreteness and that the inferior parietal lobule (IPL) may be involved in the integration of conceptual features in a multimodal system for the semantic categorization. Here, we tested for the first time whether theory-based similarity measures predict the pattern of brain activity in the IPL differently for abstract and concrete concepts. English speakers performed a semantic decision task, while we recorded their brain activity in IPL through fNIRS. Using representational similarity analysis, results indicated that the neural representational similarity in IPL conformed to the lexical co-occurrence among concrete concepts (regardless of the hemisphere) and to the affective similarity among abstract concepts in the left hemisphere only, implying that semantic representations of abstract and concrete concepts are characterized along different organizational principles in the IPL. We observed null results for the decoding accuracy. Our study suggests that the use of the representational similarity analysis as a complementary analysis to the decoding accuracy is a promising tool to reveal similarity patterns between theoretical models and brain activity recorded through fNIRS.
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.