The DOI matches its Crossref record.
CATEGORIES OF KNOWLEDGE: FURTHER FRACTIONATIONS AND AN ATTEMPTED INTEGRATION
Abstract
In this study we investigated the category specificity of the comprehension impairments of Y.O.T., a patient with a severe global dysphasia. Using matching to sample techniques it was possible to demonstrate selective impairments and selective preservations not only of broad categories of semantic knowledge but also of particular subsets of such categories. Specifically, Y.O.T.'s comprehension of 'objects' was, in general, significantly more impaired than for foods or living things. Within the broad class of objects she was significantly more impaired in the comprehension of small manipulable objects than large man-made objects. Within her proper noun vocabulary there was a significant dissociation between her good comprehension of proper nouns having a unique and well-known referent (e.g., Churchill) and common proper nouns without such a referent (e.g., Jones). Her error responses were not consistent, semantic similarity and significant rate effects were observed, and it was therefore considered that her category specific comprehension deficits were primarily ones of access to a full semantic representation. We attempt to give a principled account of the increasing number of seemingly arbitrary instances of fine-grain categorical impairments of semantic knowledge. We have suggested that different weighting values from multiple sensory channels will be important in the acquisition of different categories of knowledge and that such differential weightings could be the basis of the categorical organization of systems in the brain subserving semantic knowledge.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kohonen, T. (1990) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.58325 · Cited by 8,414
Barsalou, L. W. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 · Cited by 5,936
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp055 · Cited by 4,060
Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01560-6 · Cited by 2,124
Brain mechanisms linking language and action
Pulvermüller, F. (2005) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1706 · Cited by 1,828
Metadata
- Authors
- WARRINGTON, E. K., & MCCARTHY, R. A.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1987
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1273-1296
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2493265692
- Cited by
- 1,114
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CATEGORIES OF KNOWLEDGE: FURTHER FRACTIONATIONS AND AN ATTEMPTED INTEGRATION. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/110.5.1273
- The paper
- WARRINGTON, E. K., & MCCARTHY, R. A. (1987). CATEGORIES OF KNOWLEDGE: FURTHER FRACTIONATIONS AND AN ATTEMPTED INTEGRATION. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/110.5.1273
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.