The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks
Abstract
The architecture supporting our conceptual knowledge of abstract words has remained almost entirely unexplored. By contrast, a vast neuropsychological, neurolinguistic and neuroimaging literature has addressed questions relating to the structure of the semantic system underpinning our knowledge of concrete items (e.g. artefacts and animals). In the context of semantic refractory access dysphasia, a series of experiments exploring and comparing abstract and concrete word comprehension are described. We demonstrate that semantically associated abstract words reliably interfere with one another significantly more than semantically synonymous abstract words, while concrete words show the reverse pattern. We report the first evidence that abstract and concrete word meanings are based in representational systems that have qualitatively different properties. More specifically, we show that abstract concepts, but not concrete concepts, are represented in an associative neural network. Furthermore, our patient was found to have significantly greater difficulty in identifying high frequency than low frequency abstract words. This observation constitutes the first evidence of an inverse word frequency effect. Our results challenge the generality of many existing models of human conceptual knowledge, which derive their structure from experimental findings in the concrete domain alone.
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
The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition
Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.150 · Cited by 1,864
Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 · Cited by 1,821
Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation
Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M., & Desai, R. H. (2016) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426 · Cited by 367
Schema representation in patients with ventromedial PFC lesions
Ghosh, V. E., Moscovitch, M., Melo Colella, B., & Gilboa, A. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0740-14.2014 · Cited by 155
On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition
Dove, G. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Crutch, S. J.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-05
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 615-627
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2150632194
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 0
- Type
- conference abstract
- 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: Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awh349
- The paper
- Crutch, S. J. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh349
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.