The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Domain-Specific Knowledge Systems in the Brain: The Animate-Inanimate Distinction
Open accessAbstract
We claim that the animate and inanimate conceptual categories represent evolutionarily adapted domain-specific knowledge systems that are subserved by distinct neural mechanisms, thereby allowing for their selective impairment in conditions of brain damage. On this view, (some of) the category-specific deficits that have recently been reported in the cognitive neuropsychological literature—for example, the selective damage or sparing of knowledge about animals—are truly categorical effects. Here, we articulate and defend this thesis against the dominant, reductionist theory of category-specific deficits, which holds that the categorical nature of the deficits is the result of selective damage to noncategorically organized visual or functional semantic subsystems. On the latter view, the sensory/functional dimension provides the fundamental organizing principle of the semantic system. Since, according to the latter theory, sensory and functional properties are differentially important in determining the meaning of the members of different semantic categories, selective damage to the visual or the functional semantic subsystem will result in a category-like deficit. A review of the literature and the results of a new case of category-specific deficit will show that the domain-specific knowledge framework provides a better account of category-specific deficits than the sensory/functional dichotomy theory.
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
Cites
Basic objects in natural categories
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x · Cited by 5,643
Pietrini, V, Nertempi, P., Vaglia, A., Revello, M. G., Pinna, V, & Ferro-Milone, F. (1988) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.51.10.1284 · Cited by 169
Cited by
Barsalou, L. W. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 · Cited by 5,936
Imaging Cognition II: An Empirical Review of 275 PET and fMRI Studies
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/08989290051137585 · Cited by 3,598
Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain
Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2277 · Cited by 2,706
Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex
Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17637 · Cited by 1,504
Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes
Martin, A., & Chao, L. L. (2001) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(00)00196-3 · Cited by 1,339
Metadata
- Authors
- Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-34
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2095755534
- Cited by
- 1,348
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Domain-Specific Knowledge Systems in the Brain: The Animate-Inanimate Distinction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892998563752
- The paper
- Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-Specific Knowledge Systems in the Brain: The Animate-Inanimate Distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752
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.