Recent evidence from neuropsychological investigations of individuals with global aphasia and deep or deep-phonological dyslexia suggests that abstract and concrete concepts are underpinned by qualitatively different representational frameworks. Abstract words are represented primarily by their association to other words, whilst concrete words are represented primarily by their taxonomic similarity to one another. In the current study, we present the first evidence for this association/similarity distinction to be gathered from healthy research participants. Using a semantic odd-one-out task, it is shown that normal participants identify associative connections more quickly than similarity-based connections when processing abstract words, but that the pattern is reversed for concrete words. It is also demonstrated that the typical concrete-word advantage observed in many cognitive tasks is abolished and even reversed when participants have to comprehend the semantic associations between words. The data provide converging evidence for the different representational frameworks hypothesis and suggest that claims based on information from previous neuropsychological investigations can be generalized to normal cognition.
AndrewsM.ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P. (2008). The role of attributional and distributional information in learning semantic representations Manuscript submitted for publication.
2.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.van RijnH. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
3.
BarryC.GerhandS. (2003). Both concreteness and age-of-acquisition affect reading accuracy but only concreteness affects comprehension in a deep dyslexic patient.Brain and Language74, 26–47.
4.
BreedinS. D.SaffranE. M.CoslettH. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia.Cognitive Neuropsychology11, 617–660.
5.
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology33A, 497–505.
6.
CrutchS. J. (2006). Qualitatively different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients.Neurocase12, 91–97.
7.
CrutchS. J.RidhaB. H.WarringtonE. K. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia.Neurocase12, 151–163.
8.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2003). Preservation of propositional speech in a pure anomic: The importance of an abstract vocabulary.Neurocase9, 465–481.
9.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks.Brain128, 615–627.
10.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2006). Partial knowledge of abstract words in patients with cortical degenerative conditions.Neuropsychology20, 482–489.
11.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2007). Semantic priming in deep-phonological dyslexia: Contrasting effects of association and similarity upon abstract and concrete word reading.Cognitive Neuropsychology24, 1–20.
12.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2008). Contrasting effects of semantic interference and facilitation of spoken and written words: Dynamic dissociations Manuscript submitted for publication.
13.
DhondR. P.WitzelT.DaleA. M.HalgrenE. (2007). Spatiotemporal cortical dynamics underlying abstract and concrete word reading.Human Brain Mapping28, 355–362.
14.
EllisA. W.MonaghanJ. (2002). Reply to Strain, Patterson, and Seidenberg (2002).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 215–220.
15.
GilhoolyK. J.LogieR. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures for 1944 words.Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation12, 395–427.
16.
HolmesV. M.LangfordJ. (1976). Comprehension and recall of abstract and concrete sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior15, 559–566.
17.
JamesC. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance104, 130–136.
18.
JohnstonR. A.BarryC. (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical processing.Visual Cognition13, 789–845.
19.
JonesG. V. (1985). Deep dyslexia, imageability and ease of predication.Brain and Language24, 1–19.
20.
JuhaszB. J. (2005). Age of acquisition effects in word and picture identification.Psychological Bulletin131, 684–712.
21.
KatzR. B.GoodglassH. (1990). Deep dysphasia: Analysis of a rare form of repetition disorder.Brain and Language39, 153–185.
22.
KleeH.EysenckM. W. (1973). Comprehension of concrete and abstract sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12, 522–529.
23.
MarshallJ. C.NewcombeF. (1973). Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research2, 175–199.
24.
McKennaP.WarringtonE. K. (1983). The Graded Naming TestWindsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
25.
MonaghanJ.EllisA. W. (2002). What, exactly, interacts with spelling–sound consistency in word naming?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 183–206.
26.
NelsonH. E. (1982). National Adult Reading Test (NART): For the assessment of premorbid intelligence in patients with dementiaWindsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
27.
NoppeneyU.PriceC. J. (2004). Retrieval of abstract semantics.NeuroImage22, 164–170.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approachOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
PaivioA.YuilleC.MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement76, 1–25.
31.
PexmanP. M.HargreavesI. S.EdwardsJ. D.HenreyL. C.GoodyearB. G. (2007). Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience19, 1407–1419.
32.
PlautD. C.ShalliceT.Effects of word abstractness in a connectionist model of deep dyslexia. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science SocietyChicago199173–78.
33.
PlautD. C.ShalliceT. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology.Cognitive Neuropsychology10, 377–500.
34.
RavenJ. C. (1962). Coloured Progressive Matrices: Sets A, AB, BLondon: Lewis.
35.
ReillyJ.KeanJ. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications.Cognitive Science31, 157–168.
36.
RoddJ. M.GaskellG.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access.Journal of Memory and Language46, 245–266.
37.
RoddJ. M.GaskellG.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition.Cognitive Science28, 89–104.
38.
SchwanenflugelP. J.HarnishfegerK. K.StoweR. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words.Journal of Memory and Language27, 499–520.
39.
SchwanenflugelP. J.ShobenE. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition9, 82–102.
40.
SchwanenflugelP. J.StoweR. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words.Reading Research Quarterly24, 114–126.
41.
SiriguA.DuhamelJ. R.PoncetM. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition. A case of multimodal agnosia.Brain114, 2555–2573.
42.
StrainE.PattersonK. E.SeidenbergM. S. (2002). Theories of word naming interact with spelling–sound consistency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 207–214.
43.
WarringtonE. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology27, 635–657.
44.
WarringtonE. K. (1981). Concrete word dyslexia.British Journal of Psychology72, 175–196.
45.
WarringtonE. K.CrutchS. J. (2007). Semantic refractory access disorders.The neural bases of semantic memory. HartJ. J.KrautM. A.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press3–27.
46.
WillisonJ.WarringtonE. K. (1992). Cognitive retardation in a patient with preservation of psychomotor speed.Behavioural Neurology5, 113–116.
47.
WiseR. J.HowardD.MummeryC. J.FletcherP.LeffA.BuchelC. (2000). Noun imageability and the temporal lobes.Neuropsychologia38, 985–994.
