How objects are represented and processed in the brain remains a key issue in cognitive neuroscience. We have developed a conceptual structure account in which category-specific semantic deficits emerge due to differences in the structure and content of concepts rather than from explicit divisions of conceptual knowledge in separate stores. The primary claim is that concepts associated with particular categories (e.g., animals, tools) differ in the number and type of properties and the extent to which these properties are correlated with each other. In this review, we describe recent neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies in which we have extended our theoretical account by incorporating recent claims about the neuroanatomical basis of feature integration and differentiation that arise from research into hierarchical object processing streams in nonhuman primates and humans. A clear picture has emerged in which the human perirhinal cortex and neighbouring anteromedial temporal structures appear to provide the neural infrastructure for making fine-grained discriminations among objects, suggesting that damage within the perirhinal cortex may underlie the emergence of category-specific semantic deficits in brain-damaged patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AggletonJPShawC (1996). Amnesia and recognition memory: A reanalysis of psychometric data.Neuropsychologia34, 51–62.
2.
AlvarezPSquireLRP (1994). Memory consolidation and the medial temporal lobe: A simple network model.Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)91, 7041–7045.
3.
BarenseMDBusseyTJLeeACHRogersTTHodgesJRSaksidaLM (2005). Feature ambiguity influences performance on novel object discriminations in patients with damage to perirhinal cortex.Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencesupplementD117.
4.
BrightPMossHEStamatakisEATylerLK (in press). The time course of semantic dementia: MRI and behavioural findings.Journal of Cognitive NeurosciencesupplementB237.
5.
BuckleyMJ (this issue). The role of the perirhinal cortex and tippocampus in learning, memory, and perception.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology58B, 246–268.
6.
BuckleyMJBoothMCARollsETGaffanD (2001). Selective perceptual impairments after perirhinal cortex ablation.Journal of Neuroscience21, 9824–9836.
BusseyTJMuirJLAggletonJP (1999). Functionally dissociating aspects of event memory: The effects of combined perirhinal and postrhinal cortex lesions on object and place memory in the rat.Journal of Neuroscience19, 495–502.
9.
BusseyTJSaksidaLM (2002). The organization of visual object representations: A connectionist model of effects of lesions in perirhinal cortex.European Journal of Neuroscience15, 355–364.
10.
BusseyTJSaksidaLMMurrayEA (2002). Perirhinal cortex resolves feature ambiguity in complex visual discriminations.European Journal of Neuroscience15, 365–374.
11.
BusseyTJSaksidaLMMurrayEA (this issue). The perceptual-mnemonic/feature conjunction model of perirhinal cortex function.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology58B, 269–282.
12.
CaramazzaASheltonJR (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience10, 1–34.
13.
DamasioAR (1989). The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones.Neural Computation1, 123–132.
14.
DaviesRRGrahamKSXuerebJHWilliamsGBHodgesJR (2004). The human perirhinal cortex and semantic memory.European Journal of Neuroscience20, 2441–2446.
15.
De RenziELucchelliF (1994). Are semantic systems separately represented in the brain? The case of living category impairment.Cortex30, 3–25.
16.
Durrant-PeatfieldMTylerLKMossHELevyJ (1997). The distinctiveness of form and function in category structure: A connectionist model. In M.G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society193–198Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.
17.
EacottMJGaffanDMurrayEA (1994). Preserved recognition memory for small sets, and impaired stimulus identification for large sets, following rhinal cortex ablations in monkeys.European Journal of Neuroscience6, 1466–1478.
18.
GaffanDHeywoodCA (1993). A spurious category-specific visual agnosia for living things in normal human and nonhuman primates.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience5, 118–128.
19.
GauthierICurranTCurbyKMCollinsD (2003). Perceptual interference evidence for a non-modular account of face processing.Nature Neuroscience6, 428–432.
20.
GauthierISkudlarskiPGoreJCAndersonAW (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition.Nature Neuroscience3, 191–197.
21.
GauthierITarrMJAndersonAWSkudlarskiPGoreJC (1999). Activation of the middle fusiform ‘face area’ increases with expertise recognizing novel objects.Nature Neuroscience2, 568–573.
22.
GilbertPEKesnerRP (2003). Recognition memory for complex visual discriminations is affected by stimulus interference in rodents with perirhinal cortex damage.Learning and Memory10, 525–530.
23.
GrabowskiTJDamasioHTranelDPontoLLHichwaRDDamasioAR (2001). A role for left temporal pole in the retrieval of words for unique entities.Human Brain Mapping13, 199–212.
24.
GreerMvan CasterenMMcClellanSMossHERoddJRogersT (2001). The emergence of semantic categories from distributed featural representations. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society358–363London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25.
HillisAECaramazzaA (1991). Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: A double dissociation.Brain & Language114, 2081–2094.
26.
HamptonRR (this issue). Monkey perirhinal cortex is critical for visual memory, but not for visual perception: Reexamination of the behavioural evidence from monkeys.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology58B, 283–299.
27.
HoldstockJS (this issue). The role of the human medial temporal labe in recognition, object discrimation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology58B, 326–339.
28.
HoldstockJSGutnikovSAGaffanDMayesAR (2000). Perceptual and mnemonic matching-to-sample in humans: Contributions of hippocampus, perirhinal and other medial temporal lobe cortices.Cortex36, 301–322.
29.
HumphreysGWRiddochMJQuinlanP (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification.Cognitive Neuropsychology5, 67–103.
30.
KanwisherNMcDermottJChunM (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for the perception of faces.Journal of Neuroscience17, 4302–4311.
31.
KanwisherNStanleyDHarrisA (1999). The fusiform face area is selective for faces not animals.Neuroreport10, 183–187(1999).
32.
Lambon RalphMAPattersonKGarrardPHodgesJR (2003). Semantic dementia with category specificity: A comparative case-series study.Cognitive Neuropsychology20, 307–326.
33.
LeeACHBarenseMDGrahamKS (this issue). The contribution of the human medial temporal lobe to perception: Bridging the gap between animal and human studies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology58B, 300–325.
34.
LernerYHendlerTBen-BashatDHarelMMalachR (2001). A hierarchical axis of object processing stages in the human visual cortex.Cerebral Cortex11, 287–297.
35.
LevyDABayleyPJSquireLR (2004). The anatomy of semantic knowledge: Medial vs. lateral temporal lobe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (USA)101, 6710–6715.
MossHETylerLKDevlinJ (2002). The emergence of category specific deficits in a distributed semantic system. In E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in brain and mind115–148Hove, UK:Psychology Press.
38.
MossHETylerLKDurrant-PeatfieldMBunnE (1998). Two eyes of a see-through: Impaired and intact semantic knowledge in a case of selective deficit for living things.Neurocase4, 291–310.
39.
MossHETylerLKJenningsF (1997). When leopards lose their spots: Knowledge of visual properties in category-specific deficits for living things.Cognitive Neuropsychology14, 511–547.
40.
MummeryCJPattersonKPriceCJAshburnerJFrackowiakRSJHodgesJR (2000). A voxel based morphometry study of semantic dementia: The relationship between temporal lobe atrophy and semantic memory.Annals of Neurology47, 36–45.
41.
MurrayEABusseyTJ (1999). Perceptual-mnemonic functions of the perirhinal cortex.Trends in Cognitive Sciences3, 142–151.
42.
MurrayEARichmondBJ (2001). The role of perirhinal cortex in object perception, memory and associations.Current Opinion in Neurobiology11, 188–193.
43.
NadelLMoscovitchM (1997). Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia and the hippocampal complex.Current Opinion in Neurobiology7, 217–227.
44.
RandallBMossHERoddJGreerMTylerLK (2004). Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: Behavioural and computational studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition30, 393–406.
45.
ReedJMSquireLR (1997). Impaired recognition memory in patients with lesions limited to the hippocampal formation.Behavioral Neuroscience111, 667–675.
46.
SacchettCHumphreysGW (1992). Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: A category-specific deficit for artifactual objects and body parts.Cognitive Neuropsychology9, 73–86.
47.
SatoNNakamuraK (2003). Visual response properties of neurons in parahippocampal cortex of monkeys.Journal of Neurophysiology90, 876–886.
48.
SheltonJRCaramazzaA (1999). Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for models of normal language.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review6, 5–27.
49.
SimmonsKBarsalouLW (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits.Cognitive Neuropsychology3–6, 451–486.
50.
SimonsJSGrahamKSHodgesJR (1999). What does semantic dementia reveal about the functional role of the perirhinal cortex?.Trends in Cognitive Sciences3, 248–249.
51.
TalairachJTournouxP (1988). A co-planar stereotactic atlas of the human brainStuttgart:Thieme Verlag.
52.
TarrMJGauthierI (2000). FFA: A flexible fusiform area for subordinate-level visual processing automatized by expertise.Nature Neuroscience3, 764–769.
53.
TranelDDamasioHDamasioA (1997). A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge.Neuropsychologia35, 1319–1327.
TylerLKMossHE (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge.Trends in Cognitive Science5, 244–252.
56.
TylerLKMossHEDurrant-PeatfieldMLevyJ (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of categories: A distributed account of category-specific deficits.Brain & Language75, 195–231.
57.
TylerLKStamatakisEABrightPAcresKAbdallahSRoddJM (2004). Processing objects at different levels of specificity.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience16, 351–362.
58.
WarringtonEKShalliceT (1984). Category specific semantic impairments.Brain107, 829–854.
59.
Zola-MorganSSquireLRAmaralDGSuzukiWA (1989). Lesions of perirhinal and parahippocampal cortex that spare the amygdala and hippocampal formation produce severe memory impairment.Journal of Neuroscience9, 4355–4370.
